LDS view on abortion?

[BDawg]

Chris-WA:

Look, your argument is basically that God can command anyone to do anything because He is in fact, God. This is true, but the question is, knowing what we know of the scriptures and of salvation history, would God command/confirm someone to have an abortion? Your comparison of what you call Old Testament genocide and a woman having an abortion is absurd. By your logic, we could say that God could command us to do any evil, at which point we would have to ask ourselves if the “confirmation” we received actually came from God, or more likely, from Satan. Is that the kind of God you believe in? Think about that before you respond. By what you say, we would make God capable of any evil, and then we start praying to Him about it to see if it’s alright.

Scary, isn’t it? But by your logic, Abraham would not have obeyed God when commanded to sacrifice his son, and the Israelites would not have cleared out the land as God commanded. So the question is not whether “my logic” is flawed, but how else one can explain the Biblical data.

So here is the question again. “How do you explain the fact that God commanded the Israelites to kill women, children, and the unborn?” You did a nice little dance around the issue, trying to make me out to be some monster for bringing up this uncomfortable issue, but your comfort is not my problem.

Here is the next question. “If you can’t answer question #1, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you opine that it is ridiculous to suppose God would confirm to anyone that they should have an abortion?”

This brings us back to the problem at hand. In EXTREMELY RARE cases, when two lives must be weighed against one another, an abortion may be warranted, according to LDS policy. The Catholics on this board see this as a chance to saddle up on their high horses about how morally superior Catholicism is, but the same “moral theology” that is so inflexible that it cannot recognize such exceptions to the rule, cannot deal with the Bible itself. Tell me what Abraham should have done, according to your “moral theology.” Tell me what the Israelites should have done. Then maybe you will get me to listen to Catholic teachings on this issue, when LDS have a much lower abortion rate than Catholics.

BDawg

 

[j2jensen]

tkdnick:

I would like to propose this “combined” definition for further discussions of doctrine: Something taught as the principles or creed of religion that the faithful are obliged to believe.

Hopefully that will help clear up for all of us this whole “doctrine” thing.

By that definition, the Articles of Faith pretty much cover it. Short answer, eh?

 

[j2jensen]

tkdnick:

So I can hold everything written in Gospel Principles as approved by common consent and as being official LDS doctrine?

Yes, to the same extent that I can hold everything written in the Catechism as the same for Catholic doctrine.

 

[tkdnick]

j2jensen:

Yes, to the same extent that I can hold everything written in the Catechism as the same for Catholic doctrine.

That’s exactly what the Catechism is.

j2jensen and BDawg,
Thanks for your answers. What would you say then to a member of the LDS who says that those things written in Gospel Principles are not “official” doctrine and the the LDS are not obliged to believe what is written in it?

 

[BDawg]

blueadept:

Thanks for the reply BDawg,

Yes, I’ve read Gospel Principles for a year while I was attending church with my wife and you point out that there is sensitive issues that only the bishop’s book contains. When I was investigating the church, “Gospel Principles” gave a very simple understanding of your beliefs which most open-minded person can generally accept. All of your doctrine is easy to accept if you believe that your prophet and leaders will not leave you astray. As an outsider who later found out what the wording for your policies on abortion, contraception, and your belief the Lord will re-institute polygamy in the next millenium. My moral conscious cannot accept these views. Needless to say my wife isn’t estatic about my conclusions to this point.

I would just like to mention that I firmly believe members of the LDS church are the most family-oriented, pro-life, faith community first people that I’ve ever met and I have made a lot of friends at my wife’s ward. But, I have simply found a few stumbling blocks in accepting my wife’s faith.

Hi Blue,

I understand your trepidation. In fact, when I mention the business about God commanding the Israelites to kill every living thing in certain cities, it makes me very uncomfortable. And personally, I wouldn’t want to add on another wife. Part of me wants a nice, safe “moral theology” that is completely self-contained, and in effect tells God what He can and cannot command people to do.

However, if I accepted such a “moral theology,” I find that I would have to throw out belief in the Bible. Can you explain why God would command the Israelites to do such a thing? Can you explain why God said He “gave” David Saul’s wives (2 Samuel 12:7-8)? Why a whole slew of patriarchs and prophets had multiple wives and God didn’t say a word?

I bring this up because I have tried to confront these issues, and come to the conclusion that maybe some of the things that make me squeamish have more to do with my own background, etc., than with the mind of God.

Take the polygamy issue. Now, the early Christians didn’t practice polygamy, as far as I know, but they were still criticized by the pagans because their cultural heroes (the OT patriarchs) practiced it, and this went against the cultural norms of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Consider what St. Augustine said in response:

“Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.” [Augustine, Reply to Faustus 22:47.]

I hope you will consider the possibility that maybe some of these “stumbling blocks” are there simply because of your Catholic upbringing.

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

j2jensen:

By that definition, the Articles of Faith pretty much cover it. Short answer, eh?

I would say your Articles of Faith cover the creed part of the definition just like ou Nicene Creed or Apostle’s Creed or The Magnificent Creed of the People of God would. However, that still leaves the principles part. For example…the Catholic Church has the Just War Doctrine, which basically states that war is ok if fought justly and for just reasons (and there’s a whole “list” of things that have to be met for it to be considered just).

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

Take the polygamy issue. Now, the early Christians didn’t practice polygamy, as far as I know, but they were still criticized by the pagans because their cultural heroes (the OT patriarchs) practiced it, and this went against the cultural norms of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Consider what St. Augustine said in response:

I hope you will consider the possibility that maybe some of these “stumbling blocks” are there simply because of your Catholic upbringing.

And yet, the BoM states in a few places that polygamy is wrong and even makes mention of how it was wrong for the Patriarchs.

 

[blueadept]

I’m still convinced this issue on how to accept LDS doctrine for issues like abortion, contraception and polygamy ultimately comes down to whose authority you wish to recognize. BDawg, you have valiantly explained the LDS position in these touchy issues. As I’ve said in previous posts, if you accept your president (prophet) and the leadership of your church, the positions you have nicely debated here can be accepted by members of your church without too much difficultly. I’m not convinced many LDS members are fully aware of your churches stance but it is ingrained upon them that the prophet is “in tune” with God and they need to believe he’s a mouth piece of God.

The teachings (keys) of the Catholic Church (as we believe) were handed down through Peter. The catechism (I don’t have my catechism book here) on moral theology states something along the lines that we need to look at our own moral conscience in order to determine what is right and wrong. (Especially when it comes to religious matters). So from my understanding I need to judge for myself what I will accept and not accept. I don’t believe God will challenge my moral conscience.

As far as trying to explain the versus in the bible, I will “cop out” and simply say that these scriptures happened before Christ came here. We are to be Christians the way Christ wishes us to be, but we must learn from the past and know the bible.

 

[tkdnick]

blueadept:

The teachings (keys) of the Catholic Church (as we believe) were handed down through Peter. The catechism (I don’t have my catechism book here) on moral theology states something along the lines that we need to look at our own moral conscience in order to determine what is right and wrong. (Especially when it comes to religious matters). So from my understanding I need to judge for myself what I will accept and not accept. I don’t believe God will challenge my moral conscience.

You’re forgetting one HUGE thing from the Catechism. In order for you to be able to use your conscious for moral guidance, it HAS to be PROPERLY formed, and it gives several things required for the proper formation of conscious.

 

[blueadept]

You are quite correct. Like I said I didn’t have my Catechism sitting in front of me. hmmmmm

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

You’re forgetting one HUGE thing from the Catechism. In order for you to be able to use your conscious for moral guidance, it HAS to be PROPERLY formed, and it gives several things required for the proper formation of conscious.

That was my point, too.

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

So then the question becomes…Is you conscious properly formed (and how do you know)? And what does it tell you regarding abortion?

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

And yet, the BoM states in a few places that polygamy is wrong and even makes mention of how it was wrong for the Patriarchs.

Hi tkdnick,

Did you get this from Isaiah Bennett? Read that review of his books for which I posted a link. Bennett is very likely a liar. He says in his book that the Book of Mormon “unequivocally” denounces polygamy, but the author of the review found evidence that Bennett knew full well that this was a trumped-up issue before he went back to the RCC.

The real story is as follows. The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob denounced polygamy, and said that David and Solomon (not the patriarchs) were not justified in what they did. (For heaven’s sake, the guys had 600-1000 wives!) THEN he added, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2:30) In other words, monogamy is usually the rule, unless God specifically authorizes polygamy “to raise up seed” unto Him. (By the way, this is one of the same reasons Augustine gave for why Jacob the father of Isaac did not sin in having more than one wife. See the quotation I posted above.) This is the doctrine the LDS Church has followed from the beginning until now.

The only reason this is ever an issue is that anti-Mormon authors tend to quote the Book of Mormon very selectively. And this is yet another reason why people should not be getting their info about the LDS Church from CATHOLIC Answers.

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

By the way, Blue, where does your handle come from? I swear I remember reading an SF/Fantasy book called “Blue Adept” sometime. Maybe it was a Piers Anthony book.

BDawg

 

[ex-mormon]

BDawg:

This brings us back to the problem at hand. In EXTREMELY RARE cases, when two lives must be weighed against one another, an abortion may be warranted, according to LDS policy. The Catholics on this board see this as a chance to saddle up on their high horses about how morally superior Catholicism is, but the same “moral theology” that is so inflexible that it cannot recognize such exceptions to the rule, cannot deal with the Bible itself. Tell me what Abraham should have done, according to your “moral theology.” Tell me what the Israelites should have done. Then maybe you will get me to listen to Catholic teachings on this issue, when LDS have a much lower abortion rate than Catholics.

BDawg

How is the mother or childs life in danger in the case of rape or insest? Is it not true that LDS teachings allow abortions for those circumstances? Both of these acts of procreation are horrible and barbaric, but how does that justify terminating the innocent life created? I will saddle up on a moral high horse on this subject because there is no grey area. Use the old testament as an exception to the rule all you wan’t, but the fact remains that the israelites were commanded by god to do these things because that was his will at the time. Since then his Son has given the complete and everlasting gospel that does not allow for these homocides. Were do you get your statistics on the LDS having a much lower abortion rate?

God bless,

ex-mo

 

[blueadept]

BDawg, you are correct with my handle, I read a lot of sci-fi 15 years ago and I enjoyed the concept of living in 2 realities. They were easy reads before my family of 8 (wife has 4 from previous marriage/I have 4 from previous marriage). Now if I have time, I’m soaking up religious/spiritual reading material.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

Did you get this from Isaiah Bennett? Read that review of his books for which I posted a link. Bennett is very likely a liar. He says in his book that the Book of Mormon “unequivocally” denounces polygamy, but the author of the review found evidence that Bennett knew full well that this was a trumped-up issue before he went back to the RCC.

Nope, sorry, didn’t get it from Isaiah Bennett, it’s just my recollection from reading the BoM (or at least part of it. I didn’t get all the way through).

 

[Chris-WA]

BDawg:

But by your logic, Abraham would not have obeyed God when commanded to sacrifice his son, and the Israelites would not have cleared out the land as God commanded. So the question is not whether “my logic” is flawed, but how else one can explain the Biblical data.

Actually, no, because God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was merely a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience. God knew in advance that it wouldn’t actually happen, even though Abraham did not. God did not allow Abraham to kill Isaac. So if you want to compare this with the abortion situation we’re talking about, you would have to say that God could command such a thing as a test of obedience knowing in advance that He would interrupt the actual abortion and save the child. If you can show me a case where God commanded someone to have an abortion and then let them go through with it I would have to concede your point. We’ll get to the Israelites in a minute.

BDawg:

So here is the question again. “How do you explain the fact that God commanded the Israelites to kill women, children, and the unborn?” You did a nice little dance around the issue, trying to make me out to be some monster for bringing up this uncomfortable issue, but your comfort is not my problem.

O.K., here it goes. The Israelites, like us, were bound by the 10 Commandments–the fifth of which is “You shall not kill.” I think we can all agree that “kill” is better translated as “murder,” because neither Israel nor us modern folks are prohibited from defending ourselves if circumstances warrant. Now can we all agree that God would never ask Israel to violate His own commandments? If we can’t agree, then the rest of this post will be meaningless. So we must assume that when God commanded Israel to defeat their enemies in taking the promissed land, that he was not telling them to violate the fifth commandment. In other words, what they were told to do cannot be considered murder. If you believe that God would ask us to violate His own commandments and then actually let us do it, then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a violation of the fifth commandment because it is murder. (If you disagree, then that’s a whole new topic to be covered later.) Therefore, since God would not command us to violate His own commandments, he certainly would not permit abortion as an acceptable solution in a crisis pregnancy. I realize that we’re talking about a small number of cases here, but there it is. If Mormons believe abortion is murder and against the fifth commandment, then making an exception is allowing the breaking of the commandments. If Mormons don’t believe abortion is murder, than I can see why they wouldn’t have a problem allowing exceptions.

Yes, we Catholics are rigid on this issue. From your viewpoint we are too rigid on moral teaching. From my viewpoint, the LDS church seems to cave in a little on controversial issues whenever they need to make themselves more acceptable to society. As far as Catholics who have abortions, I can’t help it if some (or many) choose to ignore the church’s teaching. They do so at their own eternal peril.

 

[Mom_of_5]

I have taken a deep breath and ready to answer those who took me to task on my first post. You read a lot into what I said that was not there. You did exactly what many LDS do, deny, deny. Half-truths? Thank you for your prayers, they have given me strength to answer. I really don’t trust “statistics”. (What religion has more abortions?)

It is difficult for me to believe that a young girl who finds herself in “trouble” will go to her bishop, priest, minister of any religion to ask permission to kill the baby because…(you fill in the “excuse”, “reason”.)

No matter what religion, abortion is murder!!!

I am a product of rape. My dear mother was 17. I thank God every day that she was Catholic and did not opt out for abortion. I believe that God really wanted me to live. I have been so blessed by children and grandchildren and a great life. I grieve for the aborted that were not given the chance to live, love, experience life as I have. My mother suffered. Giving me up to a wonderful adoptive home was not easy. but she did it. She would have suffered more if she had killed me. I suffered three mis-carriages. This was painful enough even though I did nothing to cause them. I cannot imagine the pain those would-be moms suffer after the decision to abort.

I also believe that if my birth mother had aborted, asked God for forgiveness, God would have forgiven her as He forgives ALL sin for which we are repentant. My heart goes out to all young women who find themselves in serious trouble. I pray they make the decision my birth mother made, difficult yes, pleasing in Gods eyes? Yes!

LDS doctrine says it is against abortion. They most likely do not give “permission” to many young “would-be moms” . However, there are loopholes in the LDS rules. “In case of rape, etc. etc.”. I am care-giver for my developmently, physically, disabled (LDS baptized)sister-in-law. At 60 she is about 3 to 7 mentally. According to the LDS doctrine, her mother could have aborted her. We would have missed the hugs and love of this beautiful human being. God loves her a LOT!!! Our dear pope said, “every life is imortant”.

Catholics can end a pregnancy where the baby is not going to live, tubal pregnancy. This kind of pregnancy can end in the death of both mother and child and the child is not going to live no matter if the mother lives or dies.

I am married to an ex-LDS. He has been VERY open about the LDS faith. He was an informed LDS. Had many “callings”, did a great deal of Temple work. My best friend /husband are LDS as is my very dear young friend, wife and four children. He calls me his 2nd mom. I welcomed home teachers every month for 11 years until my hubby said “no more”. I invited missionaries into our home so that we might learn from each other. One day 2 beautiful young ladies came to visit.They knew I was Catholic. The purpose of the visit was to teach me the “truths” of the Catholic church and the great apostasy. After four hours, they left, but not before I gave them hugs and invited them back. I have not seen them since. When they saw my stack of LDS books, one told me that Mormon Doctrine by McConkie was not a good source of LDS info. I asked why the LDS bookstore has so many of these books on the shelves if it did not speak the truth. No answer. (I have spent quite a lot of time reading in the LDS bookstore.) In those interesting four hours, these “sisters” disagreed on much doctrine. One of the young ladies read the “Article of Faith”. When she got to #11, I stopped her. “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege how, where, or what they may.” If this were true, I said, you would not have come to my home to try to “convert” me. After death, you would not baptize the dead to “save” them. You would not teach that only men and women, married and sealed in the temple could advance to Celestial heaven, Godhood and Godess.

I recently found out that my deceased adopted mother and her brother, both Catholic, have recieved baptism for the dead. NONE of our relatives are Mormon. Our family is not happy. No, we are not worried about them joining the LDS church in the hereafter, we are insulted.

Just curious…in the LDS doctrine, where is the popes spirit now? Can he go to Celestial heaven since he was not married on earth? Will he be married (sealed) in the next world? Or baptized, married (sealed) in a temple ceremony? Can he progress to Godhood? I have already gotten several (different)answers on this, just wondering what yours (LDS members) might be???

Always with love and peace

 

[BDawg]

Chris-WA:

Actually, no, because God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was merely a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience. God knew in advance that it wouldn’t actually happen, even though Abraham did not. God did not allow Abraham to kill Isaac.

You’re missing the point, Chris. Abraham didn’t know that he was just being tested. All he knew was that God commanded him

Chris-WA:

O.K., here it goes. The Israelites, like us, were bound by the 10 Commandments–the fifth of which is “You shall not kill.” I think we can all agree that “kill” is better translated as “murder,” because neither Israel nor us modern folks are prohibited from defending ourselves if circumstances warrant. Now can we all agree that God would never ask Israel to violate His own commandments? If we can’t agree, then the rest of this post will be meaningless. So we must assume that when God commanded Israel to defeat their enemies in taking the promissed land, that he was not telling them to violate the fifth commandment. In other words, what they were told to do cannot be considered murder. If you believe that God would ask us to violate His own commandments and then actually let us do it, then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

I think you are proving my point, here, Chris. You reason that if God commanded the Israelites to kill every breathing thing in a number of cities, it must not have been “murder.” In other words, there must be some scenario where killing women, children, AND THE UNBORN is not really “murder.”

Can you see why I think you are shifting definitions around to suit your fancy? “God wouldn’t tell someone that it is ok to have an abortion under any circumstances,” you say. I reply, “But God did command people to kill women, children, and the unborn on one occasion. How can you say He would NEVER do such a thing?” “Well, if God commanded it,” you come back, “it must not have been murder. Abortion, on the other hand, is always murder.” I reply, “You missed the point. There were undoubtedly pregnant women in those cities, and the Israelites killed them, one by one. Not as an effect of some carpet bombing, like in WWII, but individually.” I c

Chris-WA:

If Mormons don’t believe abortion is murder, than I can see why they wouldn’t have a problem allowing exceptions.

We do not strictly define abortion as murder. One of our scriptures talks about things that are “like unto murder,” and we generally class (most) abortions as something like that.

Chris-WA:

Yes, we Catholics are rigid on this issue. From your viewpoint we are too rigid on moral teaching. From my viewpoint, the LDS church seems to cave in a little on controversial issues whenever they need to make themselves more acceptable to society. As far as Catholics who have abortions, I can’t help it if some (or many) choose to ignore the church’s teaching. They do so at their own eternal peril.

Oh, please. Mormons are a very conservative lot. There was no pressure to “cave in a little” to societal norms. Rather, our leaders were likely confronted with a few very difficult cases that convinced them they should not completely close the door.
BDawg