Mormon pro-life? Hardly.

[Catholic20064]

From the following Catholic Answers link:

catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

This has interested me recently because I have been reading a thread on another board in which Mormons are telling how their mother, or their best friend or someone else they knew went to an LDS bishop who approved their obtaining of an abortion. One case was because the mother’s health was in danger. One was because of rape. One circumstance was not given in detail. It apparently never crossed the mind of the posters that theses bishops actually approved the murder of an innocent life. They all were grateful for the bishops’ understanding of the difficult situation which justified the abortion. I am not sure how the LDS Church can really be considered a pro-life church if it doesn’t assume a baby is a real life from the moment of conception.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

That’s the inherent problem with a doctrine of “continuous revelation,” isn’t it? Unlike Dogmatic Law, it allows for the absolute abrogation of what was previously considered “unalterable.” Such a doctrine allows, ultimately, for a Prophet-President to say that the BoM is no longer to be taken as divine scripture and to be disregarded, because what the Prophet-President says has been revealed to him supplants anything that was revealed before.

So, unerringly for 150-some years, the LDS church may have taught that abortion was sinful, but now, through a new revelation, it is permissible.

 

[Catholic20064]

That’s the inherent problem with a doctrine of “continuous revelation,” isn’t it? Unlike Dogmatic Law, it allows for the absolute abrogation of what was previously considered “unalterable.” Such a doctrine allows, ultimately, for a Prophet-President to say that the BoM is no longer to be taken as divine scripture and to be disregarded, because what the Prophet-President says has been revealed to him supplants anything that was revealed before.

So, unerringly for 150-some years, the LDS church may have taught that abortion was sinful, but now, through a new revelation, it is permissible.

They are rather laughable in their defense of their bishops. In one instance mentioned on the thread a bishop tells a woman it is between her, her husband and their Lord. But the LDS defender claims that is not approval from the bishop to have an abortion. The bishop has just chosen to stay out of it. Can you imagine an orthodox Catholic priest telling a parishioner that it is between her, her husband and their Lord whether or not they murder their child?

 

[why_me]

They are rather laughable in their defense of their bishops. In one instance mentioned on the thread a bishop tells a woman it is between her, her husband and their Lord. But the LDS defender claims that is not approval from the bishop to have an abortion. The bishop has just chosen to stay out of it. Can you imagine an orthodox Catholic priest telling a parishioner that it is between her, her husband and their Lord whether or not they murder their child?

The mormons have a good record with not having abortions. In fact, better than the catholics. Most mormons would never consider having an abortion. In salt lake, LDS Social Services would encourage adoption. But when the life of the mother is threatened, it is permitted to have an abortion. We need to remember that the lds have a different way of looking at preexistence. An abortion would not prevent a spirit from receiving a potential body.

 

[Catholic20064]

The mormons have a good record with not having abortions. In fact, better than the catholics. Most mormons would never consider having an abortion. In salt lake, LDS Social Services would encourage adoption. But when the life of the mother is threatened, it is permitted to have an abortion. We need to remember that the lds have a different way of looking at preexistence. An abortion would not prevent a spirit from receiving a potential body.

This seems to me to be a major flaw in their theology. There is nothing in Mormon theology that would keep the spirit from uniting with the body at the time of conception. Mormons just refuse to take a stand on when life begins. They allow abortion in many cases, not just when the life of the mother is threatened. Rape, incest, health of the mother (including mental health) are all reasons for Mormons to approve an abortion. I really do wonder how many Mormons get permission from their bishops to have an abortion, but I am sure that is confidential information as it should be.

 

[why_me]

I really do wonder how many Mormons get permission from their bishops to have an abortion, but I am sure that is confidential information as it should be.

I don’t think that it has anything to do with getting permission. The bishop gives counsel about this issue. And even if it is rape or incest the counsel can be negative toward abortion but it is left up to the people involved.

But it goes like this: if an abortion occurs the spirit will inherit a different body. I believe that I am correct about this.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

The Mormon theological view is vastly different from Catholic or other mainstream christian theologies. “Spirit children” do exist in their view, so I think why me’s explanation of the spirit going to a different body is accurate and in line with their theology. That is probably why the necessity of pinning down the exact moment that life begins is less important. As Catholics, we believe that abortion at any time after conception is wrong. Indeed, we believe so strongly in the potential for life, that masturbation is also categorized in a similar group of sins. But because Mormons believe that they are procreating in heaven and preparing spirit children for earth, it’s not unreasonable to believe that an aborted child will be incarnated again and again until they are able to be born.

 

[soren1]

They are rather laughable in their defense of their bishops. In one instance mentioned on the thread a bishop tells a woman it is between her, her husband and their Lord. But the LDS defender claims that is not approval from the bishop to have an abortion. The bishop has just chosen to stay out of it. Can you imagine an orthodox Catholic priest telling a parishioner that it is between her, her husband and their Lord whether or not they murder their child?

First of all, it isn’t laughable. There are few barriers between Mormons and the gospel that are harder to overcome than their common impression that detractors of their church are bent on mocking them. Any time you talk that way, using words like “laughable” or “ridiculous” you will reinforce that impression among any Mormon who reads it. If we are to make a meaningful witness to them, me must distinguish ourselves from the many crass bullies who create this problem and (alas) are often their most vocal and visible critics. The best way to keep words like that out of our mouths is to keep them out of our minds, by having respectful thoughts towards the Mormons.

Having said that, they have some replies to this argument. The reason Mormon bishops don’t decide for the mother’s is because of the LDS belief that all members of the Church have the right to receive revelation, including the mother. Yet only the Prophet receives revelation in behalf of other members in the church. For that reason, a revelation pertaining the whether to have the abortion is properly given to the mother rather than the bishop.

I doubt that sounds any more convincing to you than it does to me, but Mormonism places such an emphasis on experiential testimony, that it seems very reasonable, indeed obvious, to Mormons. In fact, Mormons easily interpret our disgust with this teaching as distrust of revelation on our part. They might ask, “Who are you to say that God can’t speak to an individual person?”

This makes it quite tricky, but I have found the best response to give them, in order to avoid such quagmires, is to note the plain and evident contradiction between Mormon teaching on abortion and on euthanasia. At their website, the LDS Church defines euthanasia as “deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease” and then condemns this as “a violation of the commandments of God.” This is a carpet condemnation with no loopholes. Nevertheless, one of their exception clauses for abortion is when:

A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

As anyone can see, this type of abortion fits the definition of euthanasia that is condemned without qualification by the LDS Church elsewhere. In effect, their teaching condemns abortion and euthanasia except in cases where to commit an abortion constitutes euthanasia. I only reasonable responses I have ever encountered to this from Mormons have entailed some kind of denial that a fetus is person. Why then, I ask, does the LDS Church invoke “Thou shalt not kill” to justify its attempted pro-life teaching?

 

[Catholic20064]

I don’t think that it has anything to do with getting permission. The bishop gives counsel about this issue. And even if it is rape or incest the counsel can be negative toward abortion but it is left up to the people involved.

But it goes like this: if an abortion occurs the spirit will inherit a different body. I believe that I am correct about this.

But if the member decides against the Bishops counsel on such a matter they would be committing a sin.

 

[Catholic20064]

The President of the Church can receive revelation for the entire church. A President of a Stake can receive revelation for an entire stake. A Bishop can receive revelation for an entire ward. Parents can receive revelation for their family. A person can receive revelation for him or herself. So a Bishop can receive revelation for an individual within a ward and the CHI tells the member to prayerfully counsel with the Bishop in making the decision about abortion. It doesn’t say talk to the Bishop and then do what you want to do. If you go against the Bishop’s counsel in such a serious manner you are sinning in the LDS Church and subject to a church court.

First of all, it isn’t laughable. There are few barriers between Mormons and the gospel that are harder to overcome than their common impression that detractors of their church are bent on mocking them. Any time you talk that way, using words like “laughable” or “ridiculous” you will reinforce that impression among any Mormon who reads it. If we are to make a meaningful witness to them, me must distinguish ourselves from the many crass bullies who create this problem and (alas) are often their most vocal and visible critics. The best way to keep words like that out of our mouths is to keep them out of our minds, by having respectful thoughts towards the Mormons.

Having said that, they have some replies to this argument. The reason Mormon bishops don’t decide for the mother’s is because of the LDS belief that all members of the Church have the right to receive revelation, including the mother. Yet only the Prophet receives revelation in behalf of other members in the church. For that reason, a revelation pertaining the whether to have the abortion is properly given to the mother rather than the bishop.

I doubt that sounds any more convincing to you than it does to me, but Mormonism places such an emphasis on experiential testimony, that it seems very reasonable, indeed obvious, to Mormons. In fact, Mormons easily interpret our disgust with this teaching as distrust of revelation on our part. They might ask, “Who are you to say that God can’t speak to an individual person?”

This makes it quite tricky, but I have found the best response to give them, in order to avoid such quagmires, is to note the plain and evident contradiction between Mormon teaching on abortion and on euthanasia. At their website, the LDS Church defines euthanasia as “deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease” and then condemns this as “a violation of the commandments of God.” This is a carpet condemnation with no loopholes. Nevertheless, one of their exception clauses for abortion is when:

A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

As anyone can see, this type of abortion fits the definition of euthanasia that is condemned without qualification by the LDS Church elsewhere. In effect, their teaching condemns abortion and euthanasia except in cases where to commit an abortion constitutes euthanasia. I only reasonable responses I have ever encountered to this from Mormons have entailed some kind of denial that a fetus is person. Why then, I ask, does the LDS Church invoke “Thou shalt not kill” to justify its attempted pro-life teaching?

 

[soren1]

The President of the Church can receive revelation for the entire church. A President of a Stake can receive revelation for an entire stake. A Bishop can receive revelation for an entire ward. Parents can receive revelation for their family. A person can receive revelation for him or herself. So a Bishop can receive revelation for an individual within a ward and the CHI tells the member to prayerfully counsel with the Bishop in making the decision about abortion. It doesn’t say talk to the Bishop and then do what you want to do. If you go against the Bishop’s counsel in such a serious manner you are sinning in the LDS Church and subject to a church court.

Really? That’s very important. Where can I find that documented?

 

[jay29]

Any group or person who claims to be Christian and accepts abortion in any circumstance is not a Christian and they make me sick. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-024.gif

 

[soren1]

Any group or person who claims to be Christian and accepts abortion in any circumstance is not a Christian and they make me sick. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-024.gif

It doesn’t matter whether they make you sick. What matters is “What are you going to do to create an occasion for the Holy Spirit make them well?” Drawing pictures of people throwing up to illustrate your opinion of Mormons is not going to do that. It will simply convince them that your opinion is not worth taking seriously and give them one more reason to write of the Catholic Church.

 

[ParkerD]

Catholic20064,
I don’t plan to visit this forum much at all in the future, but considering the frequent references to abortion by one such as yourself, I’ll lay out some statistics and you can do likewise to show how “pro-life” you really are when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of life.

Here you go:

I have eight children, including that the youngest has a tracheotomy and a feeding tube which have been quite a challenge but certainly worth it, and she is the sweetest child one could imagine at age 12.

I have eight siblings, three of whom have eight to nine children each, and the others have had health issues leading to smaller family sizes but not by choice. Three sisters have adopted children who have been welcomed into our extended family with not the slightest difference in treatment.

I have perhaps 50 cousins, most of whom are happily married (a few divorces, but that is the exception), and to my knowledge not one abortion has taken place among this group. (I don’t know about other families since that is not a thing discussed.)

So, all you great talkers, show that you live like you talk by explaining how you have chosen pro-birth parenting with your many, many children and been pro-fatherhood in encouraging youth about marriage, and been pro-supportive of womanhood as an equal partner and never been neglectful of the most important duties of life, which happen within the walls of your own home.

I’ll check back in a day or so and be interested in whether anyone demonstrates the reality that they have lived like they talk.

 

[soren1]

That’s the inherent problem with a doctrine of “continuous revelation,” isn’t it? Unlike Dogmatic Law, it allows for the absolute abrogation of what was previously considered “unalterable.” Such a doctrine allows, ultimately, for a Prophet-President to say that the BoM is no longer to be taken as divine scripture and to be disregarded, because what the Prophet-President says has been revealed to him supplants anything that was revealed before.

So, unerringly for 150-some years, the LDS church may have taught that abortion was sinful, but now, through a new revelation, it is permissible.

You’re raising some good points here, but I’m not sure the pieces fit in quite the way you think they do. First off, it is not, I think, a problem inherent in “continuous revelation,” for the simple reason that at one time revelation as such was still in the making. You could raise this objection against Isaiah.

The problem is not with continuous revelation in principle, but with the facts pertaining specifically to Mormon revelation. I am not convinced that the Mormon Church really does change its revelations. I only know of two LDS teachings that were ever claimed as revelations from prophets that have ever been changed, and one of them involves interpretational ambiguities.

The problem here is not I think with continuous revelation, but with the absence of a doctrine of natural law in Mormonism. Mormons deny that God created nature as such; his creation consists only in forming matter, which existed and had its own nature prior to God’s act of creation. More in particular, God did not create the human spirit, and so he did not create human nature. Indeed, he is himself a human. So our first assumption, that God writes his law into the order of nature, determining natural goods and evils in an absolute sense, is a meaningless proposition in their theology, because for them, God is not prior to nature. How then could he write his law into it? The only think that could be taken as a natural law for them is whatever cosmic process it was that allowed God to become God. (Perhaps some first God is the cause of all or perhaps there is an infinite regress of gods.) In any case, Mormonism posits no conscious and purposive source for nature itself. As a result, you cannot by natural reason find any purpose in nature apart from revelation from God. It is glorified positivism. This makes suspensions of basic ethical imperatives conceivable, since those imperatives are not as basic to their worldview as they are to ours.

 

[soren1]

Catholic20064,
So, all you great talkers, show that you live like you talk by explaining how you have chosen pro-birth parenting with your many, many children and been pro-fatherhood in encouraging youth about marriage, and been pro-supportive of womanhood as an equal partner and never been neglectful of the most important duties of life, which happen within the walls of your own home.

I’ll check back in a day or so and be interested in whether anyone demonstrates the reality that they have lived like they talk.

For myself, I have been married three years and have two children already. A third is expected next year. I am broke because of those kids, and have no regrets about that fact. Because I believe that the sanctity of the family is the most important moral issue in modern times, and because I have been disappointed by Catholics who have not taken the stand that they should, I feel the emotional force of the argument you are making. But that emotional force has no bearing on what are objective moral principles.

Your argument reminds me of a rebuttal published in FARMS Review of Books to Isaiah Bennett’s Inside Mormonism. Barry Bickmore, a prominent LDS scholar, addressed Bennett’s claims that the LDS Church is not pro-life by pointing to statistics showing the much lower rate of abortions in Utah than are to be found among Catholics. Bickmore claimed, “The proof is in the pudding.”

But it is? Is that really an argument at all, or is it not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, whereby a personal judgment substitutes for a reasoned response to a reasoned argument? Even if only one LDS woman had an abortion for every thousand Catholics, the criticism we have been making here would stand firm, for the single reason that the one LDS woman would be acting with the approval of her Church and none of the Catholic women would be.

Every single Catholic who is involved in an abortion knows that it separates him or her from communion with the Church. Each one of those people is called to repentance by the Church, and is confronted by the Church with their need as sinners to confess and repent. Not so in Mormonism. Every Mormon who is involved in an abortion can find shelter in one or more of the Church’s exception clauses, especially the all-embracing threat to a woman’s good health (which happens to include emotional health).

Admittedly, there is talk in LDS teaching about repentance for abortion, as when Elder Russell M. Nelson writes:

Is there any hope for the person who has participated in the act of abortion? Is there any hope for those who have so sinned and who now suffer heartbreak? The answer is yes! “As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.” We know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant."

That sounds good, but to how many Mormons who have been involved in abortion is this statement actually directed? Only those who didn’t consult with their bishop. Those who did consult with their bishops have a pass. They are not informed by their church as to what judgment they have brought upon themselves, for that church itself has condoned their sin.

 

[jay29]

It doesn’t matter whether they make you sick.

Pre-born baby murder should make everyone sick. Jeepers. Think about it

What matters is “What are you going to do to create an occasion for the Holy Spirit make them well?” Drawing pictures of people throwing up to illustrate your opinion of Mormons is not going to do that. It will simply convince them that your opinion is not worth taking seriously and give them one more reason to write of the Catholic Church.

First of all, I attacked their false beliefs on abortion. Secondly, the Holy Spirit brings people in AND removes them from the Church of Christ apart from me.

 

[twopekinguys]

Catholic20064,
I don’t plan to visit this forum much at all in the future, but considering the frequent references to abortion by one such as yourself, I’ll lay out some statistics and you can do likewise to show how “pro-life” you really are when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of life.

Here you go:

I have eight children, including that the youngest has a tracheotomy and a feeding tube which have been quite a challenge but certainly worth it, and she is the sweetest child one could imagine at age 12.

I have eight siblings, three of whom have eight to nine children each, and the others have had health issues leading to smaller family sizes but not by choice. Three sisters have adopted children who have been welcomed into our extended family with not the slightest difference in treatment.

I have perhaps 50 cousins, most of whom are happily married (a few divorces, but that is the exception), and to my knowledge not one abortion has taken place among this group. (I don’t know about other families since that is not a thing discussed.)

So, all you great talkers, show that you live like you talk by explaining how you have chosen pro-birth parenting with your many, many children and been pro-fatherhood in encouraging youth about marriage, and been pro-supportive of womanhood as an equal partner and never been neglectful of the most important duties of life, which happen within the walls of your own home.

I’ll check back in a day or so and be interested in whether anyone demonstrates the reality that they have lived like they talk.

If you want to talk numbers, fine.

My mother was 1 of 13 children. My father was 1 of 2. I have 3 siblings, I have 1 child, 1 grandchild, 8 nieces and nephews, cousins too numerous to mention, and the same for great nieces and nephews. I should also add here that due to the depression, my mother and many of her siblings were put in an orphanage, and ultimately adopted. That raises the number of Aunts, Uncles, and Cousins considerably. But I have limited my numbers to only blood relatives.

Yes, there have been congenital birth issues among the family, ranging from childhood arthritis, to the need for kidney and heart transplants. There have also been several adoptions,

Not an abortion among them, and only 1 divorce.

What’s your point?

What I am reminded of is a young couple in our area a few years ago. They hadn’t been married long, and were expecting their first child. All seemed to be going well, until one of the ultrasounds revealed that the child was anacephalic. (No brain, only a partial brain stem) Once the couple learned of this, they were given the option to terminate the pregnancy. They flat out refused. The mother carried the child to full term, delivered the baby, only to hold him for a few minutes until he passed away.

Does that cover your thoughts on talking the talk, and walking the walk? I think it does.

In case you are wondering, Yes, they were a Catholic family.

 

[soren1]

If you want to talk numbers, fine.

My mother was 1 of 13 children. My father was 1 of 2. I have 3 siblings, I have 1 child, 1 grandchild, 8 nieces and nephews, cousins too numerous to mention, and the same for great nieces and nephews. I should also add here that due to the depression, my mother and many of her siblings were put in an orphanage, and ultimately adopted. That raises the number of Aunts, Uncles, and Cousins considerably. But I have limited my numbers to only blood relatives.

Yes, there have been congenital birth issues among the family, ranging from childhood arthritis, to the need for kidney and heart transplants. There have also been several adoptions,

Not an abortion among them, and only 1 divorce.

What’s your point?

What I am reminded of is a young couple in our area a few years ago. They hadn’t been married long, and were expecting their first child. All seemed to be going well, until one of the ultrasounds revealed that the child was anacephalic. (No brain, only a partial brain stem) Once the couple learned of this, they were given the option to terminate the pregnancy. They flat out refused. The mother carried the child to full term, delivered the baby, only to hold him for a few minutes until he passed away.

Does that cover your thoughts on talking the talk, and walking the walk? I think it does.

In case you are wondering, Yes, they were a Catholic family.

To that I might add two Catholic friends of mine who gave birth to children with terminal birth defects. One of them is a remarkable story. The child had a condition in which her brain was growing on the outside of her head. Rather than have an abortion, the woman went to the UCLA Medical Center, where a doctor placed the brain back inside the child’s skull. The child survived and was born, although blind and retarded. She lived for just under one year.

The other story is less dramatic but still edifying. The child was missing some portion of her backbone, she lived for only four or five weeks and died overnight in her mother’s arms.

 

[ParkerD]

For myself, I have been married three years and have two children already. A third is expected next year. I am broke because of those kids, and have no regrets about that fact. Because I believe that the sanctity of the family is the most important moral issue in modern times, and because I have been disappointed by Catholics who have not taken the stand that they should, I feel the emotional force of the argument you are making. But that emotional force has no bearing on what are objective moral principles.

Soren1,
Thanks for being an example among your fellow Catholics. I wasn’t raising the issue as a rebuttal–I was sincerely interested. Thanks again.