LDS view on abortion?

[Chris-WA]

BDawg:

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

Actually I think you missed the point. God told Abraham to do something God knew he wouldn’t let Abraham actually do. Therefore you cannot use this as an example of God commanding people to murder.

BDawg:

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.”

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. If God commanded the Israelites to wipe out an enemy city and a pregnant woman was killed, I don’t think we would call that abortion, which is the topic here. What were talking about is whether or not God could or would ever confirm a woman’s decision to have an abortion, which is completely different from the scenerio you are trying to use to demonstrate that God could sanction such a thing.

BDawg:

Can you see why I think you are shifting definitions around to suit your fancy?

I have not shifted a single definition. It is you who are using unrelated scenarios to prove that God could sanction abortion. For goodness sakes, BDawg, it’s plain common sense. Does anybody else out there besides BDawg think that God is going to give you a burning in the bosom to have an abortion in a crisis pregnancy?

BDawg:

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.

I guess we should have got that straightened out from the beginning, because it explains everything.

BDawg:

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.

Nobody doubting your conservatism here, BDawg. I wish more Catholics were as conservative. I was making a general reference to times when the LDS church changed certain policies/practices as a result of societal pressure or pressure from its own membership. You would say they changed them as a result of revelations. I know we will disagree on this, but I believe the following items were such cases:

1. Suspension of polygamy.
2. Blacks allowed into the priesthood.
3. Temple ceremony changed–got rid of certain “controversial” items.
4. Abortion allowed in certain special circumstances.

I was merely stating that under pressure, the LDS church does change things to make itself more palatable to its membship and to society in general, but those are not items we should expand upon here. Another thread would be needed.

 

[ex-mormon]

Originally Posted by ex-mormon
No I don’t think we can argue this one out. I know were the LDS church stands on the definition and I know were the Catholic church stands on this definition. My next question is when does a person get a soul with relation to your stance on late term abortion?

your response

BDawg:

There are different opinions about that, and it’s considered “not yet revealed”. Sorry I can’t be more specific.

BDawg

BDawg,
I believe it was “revealed” in the new testament Luke 1:41-44

41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44"For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

Is the soul of John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus Christ not in the unborn infants of Elizabeth and Mary the mother of God? If the evidence of this is stated so clearly in Luke 1:41-44 how come the LDS church will not take a stand on defining when a soul is present in the unborn? Just some food for thought.

God bless,

ex-mo

 

[Tmaque]

Chris-WA:

Nobody doubting your conservatism here, BDawg. I wish more Catholics were as conservative. I was making a general reference to times when the LDS church changed certain policies/practices as a result of societal pressure or pressure from its own membership. You would say they changed them as a result of revelations. I know we will disagree on this, but I believe the following items were such cases:

1. Suspension of polygamy.
2. Blacks allowed into the priesthood.
3. Temple ceremony changed–got rid of certain “controversial” items.
4. Abortion allowed in certain special circumstances.

You forgot artificial contraception which was absolutely forbidden until the latter half of the 20th century. A few quotes from some LDS prophets:

July 1916
Joseph Fielding Smith
“Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord, and to prevent their offspring from coming into the world…are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise of eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they.”

June 16, 1947
David O. McKay
“The Church does not approve of any form of artificial birth control. It would seem, however, that in your having four babies within five years of your marriage, you are submitting your body to an almost superhuman test, especially with your threatened affliction of arthritis. The proper spacing of your babies is your responsibility.”

One wonders what President McKay had in mind to create the “proper spacing”. It could only be abstinence or some sort of NFP. Sounds Catholic to me. But back then, Catholic and Mormon doctrine looked at contraception the same way.

 

[ex-mormon]

Originally Posted by ex-mormon
No I don’t think we can argue this one out. I know were the LDS church stands on the definition and I know were the Catholic church stands on this definition. My next question is when does a person get a soul with relation to your stance on late term abortion?

Originally Posted by BDawg
There are different opinions about that, and it’s considered “not yet revealed”. Sorry I can’t be more specific.

BDawg

ex-mormon:

BDawg,
I believe it was “revealed” in the new testament Luke 1:41-44

41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44"For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

Is the soul of John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus Christ not in the unborn infants of Elizabeth and Mary the mother of God? If the evidence of this is stated so clearly in Luke 1:41-44 how come the LDS church will not take a stand on defining when a soul is present in the unborn? Just some food for thought.

God bless,

ex-mo

Here is some more food for thought revealed in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.

Here again we clearly have the word of God telling us that we have a soul in the womb.

God bless,

ex-mo