LDS--Why is it acceptable for prophets to ever teach error?

[mormon_fool]

How does a position which goes from (mostly) anti-abortion to one allowing abortion for every commonly known exception constitute a change in “emphasis and nuance”?

One has to have a frame of reference to measure “change”. I have already claimed there has been no change in position and indicated the evidence will vindicate this claim. If this is even still a question, I will be happy to compile a survey of quotations that conclusively demonstrate this. Since both types of quotations exist side by side chronologically, Occam’s razor tells us the reason behind differences is not that the LDS church’s position has changed, but that different author’s have different points of emphasis and willingness to elaborate on details.

later,
fool

 

[Batjacboy]

Mormon Fool,

Thank you very much. That helped quite a bit. My misperception was based on the fact that I had been led to believe, by Mormons, that “the Mormons, like the Catholics, are 100% anti-abortion.” That is what I was told.

What you’ve made clear is that the Mormons are not now, nor have they ever been, 100% anti-abortion. Thus, there has been no change.

Thanks again,

BB

 

[mormon_fool]

flameburns623:

MF: Sorry but I can only post very briefly. You’ve done an admirable job in articulating a credible LDS pov, even if I don’t find it entirely persuasive and suspect that few others not already firmly committed to LDS theology will feel so either.

I will point out that not everyone presupposes the ‘lineal descent of authority’ theory by which the LDS, RCC, EO, some Anglicans, and a few other justify their systems of ecclesiology. Most Protestants think that authority is conveyed directy through the Word of God and/or by the annointing of the Holy Spirit. So such groups are not ‘usurping’ authority so much as they are disagreeing about the source of that authority. Just thought I’d mention that.

Flameburns,

I continue to appreciate your well articulated viewpoints. I bow to this superior description of competing authority claims in Christianity. You are right in detecting my attempt to build on common ground with Catholics and high church Protestants.
I do need to get out more, like yourself, so I can do a better job!

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Batjacboy:

Thank you very much. That helped quite a bit. My misperception was based on the fact that I had been led to believe, by Mormons, that “the Mormons, like the Catholics, are 100% anti-abortion.” That is what I was told.

Thank you for your gracious response. I can only guess that your informant may have been overconfident of his/her understanding of LDS doctrine, while perhaps not being aware of official sources. It is entirely possible that a mormon, in his/her personal beliefs, believes abortion is 100% wrong. However, it would be inappropriate for them to judge (or force their beliefs on) those faced with exceptional circumstances, since the LDS church’s official position is/was more flexible.

fool

 

[flameburns623]

MormonFool:

If it doesn’t distract too much from the point of this thread–did I arrive in the ballpark when I offered this response? I cleaned-up some of the typos and re-wrote a few sentences for sake of greater clarity.
Flameburns623--Post#45:

There is much greater latitude in the LDS Church for engaging in speculative theology. That latitude has it’s limits. One cannot–in the capacity of a Mormon Sunday-School teacher in an LDS Sunday-School–teach that the Book of Mormon is simply pious fiction which teaches moral truths but lacks any historical basis. This would be shocking to many Mormons and would undermine the testimonies of many Saints rather than being faith-affirming for the membership. The ward bishopric would take steps to curtail such speculations simply to avoid harm to the faith of many within the ward.

However, one could be free to affirm such ideas privately, and might even have latitude to articulate such views in limited settings within the LDS Church. I have heard rather significantly-placed leaders in local stakes speculate in Priesthood Meetings that at some point in the long-distant future even the souls in Outer Darkness, including Lucifer himself, might be given the means to attain to the Celestial Kingdom.

Any number of other points of LDS theology are open to speculation as well. The primary obligation is to keep one’s public statements, especially within the context of ward and stake meetinghouses, faith-affirming and positive rather than engage in public debates within the body which might sow confusion, doubt, discord, and division among the membership-at-large.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

How accurrate is this?

In a general conference address given in October of 1998, LDS President Gordon Hinckley took the opportunity to speak on the LDS Church’s position on abortion. Hinckley noted that, in 1995, abortions in the United States numbered 1.2 million. He then asked, “What has happened to our regard for human life?” (Ensign, 11/98, p.71). His language is noteworthy since he acknowledged that those killed by abortion were indeed “human.” “There is no greater miracle than the creation of human life,” he said.

While recognizing that abortion is an “ugly thing” that causes “remorse, sorrow and regret,” President Hinckley went on to say, “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

President Hinckley said those who face such a question should “pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” Unless the purpose of praying is meant to lead the individual to the prophet’s position, I ask, “why would prayer be necessary?” How trustworthy could this “personal revelation” be if it contradicts the guidelines set forth by the prophet?

While claiming to be led by prophets who are allegedly guided by God Himself, the LDS Church has throughout its history given its members mixed signals on this emotionally wrenching subject. For example, Spencer Kimball taught: “Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day…” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.189). He continued by saying, “Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church, as circumstances warrant. We remember the reiteration of the Ten Commandments given by the Lord in our own time, when he said, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.’” Kimball’s quote comes from Doctrine and Covenants 59:6. It must be also noted that Kimball refers to the Ten Commandments. This is important because the literal definition of the word kill in Exodus 20:13 is the Hebrew word for murder (see Psalm 59:6; Jeremiah 7:9; Hosea 6:9). Does the LDS Church liken abortion to murder? Apparently not.

Under the heading of murder in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Vol.2), it reads, “With respect to related offenses, the Church distinguishes abortion from murder but holds it an extremely grave action, not to be done except in extremely limited circumstances that might include incest or rape, perils to the life or health of the mother, or severe birth defects. As far as has currently been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” This position, while hardly unique, fails to adequately solve the moral dilemma that faces all God-fearing people. If abortion is not the unjust taking of human life, why would the LDS Church consider it a sin? If abortion is not murder, what is it? Webster describes murder as the “unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

No doubt many that defend the practice of abortion would like us to focus on the word unlawful. They would argue that because abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973 it is not correct to say it is murder. This argument is seriously flawed because the conclusion is based on American law and is something that is always in a state of flux. Can we logically and consistently say that prior to January 22, 1973, abortion was murder, but from January 22 onward it was not? The end result was still a lifeless baby. Since abortion is still illegal in some countries, it would be erroneous to assume it is morally right just because a United States court says it is. It is clear in such cases that a higher law must be sought.

I have often heard Mormons boast that what separates them from others who claim to be Christian is that they are following God’s laws and not the laws of men. However, this stance rings hollow when it appears that the official LDS position on abortion sounds more like it is derived from a political party platform rather than on biblical and ethical standards. Spencer Kimball called upon a higher law in properly labeling abortion a sin, yet his church has historically appealed to man’s definitions in order to circumvent the responsibility that comes with such a conclusion.

mrm.org/multimedia/text/abortion-lds-church.html

greaterthings.com/JeanKellySharp/

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

You certainly have the ability to add some valuable insights from you previous experiences. Sometimes it is difficult to assess someone’s subject knowledge from brief postings that miss opportunities to demonstrate a high level of sophistication. Maybe we should hand out quizzes to alleviate some of this difficulty.

Some times it’s easy to speak in lay men’s terms, no need to pontificate on every subject.

The more I discuss things with my peers and read scholarly literature, the more I realize I have many things yet to learn. So I am still learning about the complex issues surrounding polygamy. I share your desire not to retread already discussed subjects unless something new comes up. It all goes into the cost benefit analysis of whether to invest more time into a studying a subject.

Of course I don’t know everything, that shouldn’t be taken literally. What I should say, is I have read up on enough apologetics that I am comfortable I know the Mormon Churches stance on this particular subject.

Fair enough. If we were to discuss right or wrong, I would hope that my previous efforts on the CA boards be consulted. I think establishing possible interpretations of data is but one step. Deciding which (if any) interpretation is the most plausible through rational means takes quite a bit more effort.

Sure but right or wrong isn’t the issue, the issue is the splinter groups all claiming rightful authority to the LDS Church, and their existence, not who’s right as I don’t believe that could ever be proven beyondt a reasonable doubt. To be honest no one has the time to read through the upwards of around 100 links you put to previous discussions. Maybe quote directly and put it into this discussion if it pertains? I am not making a claim that one of the splinter groups have rightful authority to Joseph Smith’s legacy, but merely their existence, and thier claims that their prophet is the true prophet in line with Joseph Smith.

That would be the Temple Lot group. Since we are investigating possibilities, it is possible that the Independence temple does not have to be built.

That’s a whole other topic in and of itself, but again this does show that some of these groups can have a legitimate claim to the Church.

I am not sure I follow. I have in mind not just the RCC and EOC but Protestants and every historical splinter group. If all these splinter groups aren’t claiming to have the authority of Peter in regards to being the earthly head of the church, they are in the very least usurping that authority.

Yes they are usurping his authority no Catholic will argue that, but they are not claiming his authority, that’s the difference here I think. And I believe that to be a substantial difference. The EOC still does refer to the Pope as first amongst equals. If there were say 1,000 scismatic and heretical groups from Catholicism and ALL claiming that their leader was the rightful ‘Pope’, through apostolic succession, then a comparison could be made. Especially if there were some that did have at least a legitimate argument. But you won’t find another Christian group Orthodox or not, who claims rightful succession from Peter.

 

[mormon_fool]

flameburns623:

MormonFool:

If it doesn’t distract too much from the point of this thread–did I arrive in the ballpark when I offered this response? I cleaned-up some of the typos and re-wrote a few sentences for sake of greater clarity.

Your observations are spot on! If this was its own thread we could have fun illustrating your points wih more anecdotes as well as guidelines given to Sunday School classes, for participating in public forums, possible disciplinary actions, etc.

-fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

Some times it’s easy to speak in lay men’s terms, no need to pontificate on every subject.

Fair enough. In the future I will spent a little more time trying to determine what you mean. For example, I missed the verbal cues that you were throwing out possibilities rather than making definitive statements. And I tend to respond when I see definitive statements made about LDS beliefs that don’t jive with my LDS perspective. But I will try to ask more questions when your posts confuse me with your lay men’s terms.

One other part of your otherwise well written post I would like to respond to:

Yes they are usurping his authority no Catholic will argue that, but they are not claiming his authority, that’s the difference here I think.

Flameburns post helped me realize I was being unfair to Protestants with my remarks about “not claiming authority” and “usurping” it. Protestants do make claims to authority, those claims just take a different form then what Catholics and Mormons find essential.

Sincerely,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Daniel Marsh:

How accurrate is this?

mrm.org/multimedia/text/abortion-lds-church.html

greaterthings.com/JeanKellySharp/

In my opinion, the analysis I have contributed to this thread is already is superior to the MRM article. What you posted quickly gets off on the wrong track and never recovers. It tries to think about things in black and white, but I think in exceptional cases we are dealing with shades of dark gray, with careful and prayerful discernment being required to discern between the lesser of two evils.

The LDS position on abortion reminds me of how the scriptures discuss divorce like Matt 19:8 and other places. In this case, we have Jesus himself observing the divorce policy in the scriptures has not always been consistent. Concessions away from an ideal have been made in exceptional cases because of human weakness.

The ideal for marriage is to be very forgiving, reconcile differences, don’t beat your spouse, be able to economically support the marriage, don’t commit adultery, share a common faith, etc., etc. But because human weaknesses, bad things happen and add a lot of tension to making such a decision to divorce. The inconsistent divorce policies (to draw a parallel, these are a result of different authors choosing to emphasize different points.) try to work with individuals in their weakness. Some passages describe the ideal situation and can help inspire someone in that direction. Other passages allow practical concessions for intolerable situations. From the individual’s perspective, their choice of action can be informed by both of these influences.

McKeever writes:

President Hinckley said those who face such a question should “pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” Unless the purpose of praying is meant to lead the individual to the prophet’s position, I ask, “why would prayer be necessary?” How trustworthy could this “personal revelation” be if it contradicts the guidelines set forth by the prophet?

This misrepresents the prophet’s position. The prophet’s position is that personal revelation to an individual faced with an informed, but tough decision in exceptional circumstances is the court of final appeal. That is the guideline set forth by the prophet, so receiving a personal revelation confirming a decision made either way can not contradict that guideline.

–fool