Mormon Religion

[zaffiroborant]

Where did I say that ‘high standards (against abortion)’ are the cause of dismal abortion statistics?" Pointing out that Catholics world wide have an abysmal record in that area isn’t mentioning that ‘high standards against abortion’ is the CAUSE. Pointing out that the LDS record on abortion is far better, and that perhaps the difference between the way the two belief systems approach it might have something to do with it isn’t saying that ‘high standards’ is the problem.

After all, we have rather high standards against abortion, too…and we have a lot fewer of them.

Throughout the whole “Mormons Pro-life? Hardly” thread.

 

[ParkerD]

I still think it has to do with an impression that may be in society of a “double standard” and also the natural desire women have to have companionship, even at the cost of a risk of grievous sin. So if the men were taught and had conviction deep in their soul as youth that to be with a girl or woman in that way is to commit to being married (obviously before being with them but if not, then understanding that immediate repentance is absolutely obligated including immediate marriage) and supporting a family, and if that teaching were emphasized in the homes by the fathers to their sons in indelible ways that they could teach by having done so through their own example as well as by precept, then that particular statistic would have a dramatic drop in a few short years.

This comment is about going to the root of the problem, not “hacking at the branches”. (Thoreau)

Zaffiroborant,
Since there are several conversations going on, and one is about “abortion statistics”, I offer my opinion on the subject, again, with a desire to have at least one or two people think about the “root” of the problem and realize that the “root” lies more with the men of society than with the women of society.

 

[Answersplease]

Hi, Answersplease,
Sometimes it’s quite funny to think of how you approach your challenge of posting what is on your mind. It brings to my mind the scene in the movie with Danny Kaye, “The Court Jester”, where he pretends that the woman in the wagon is mute and she gives him an answer to pass along to those who are asking questions about the wagon. It’s a funny, funny scene–what a laugh!

So if I am to assume you would like an answer, then the answer is that the Holy Spirit will guide someone who is testifying of truth, and sometimes the person doing the teaching will have a very strong impression at the very moment they are teaching, which will let them know (if they have been paying attention) that they have just learned something “new”–something greater than the knowledge they had before. It is a case of being taught by a heavenly source, and acknowledging that and being sensitive to it.

But that kind of inspiration is not an automatic, as shown by those who have brought out websites where they essentially self-justify why they left the LDS church, and trot out all their reasons. It’s no big deal to me. It is a natural expectation that people will do exactly that.

Self-justification has been around forever on this earth–truly, since the very beginning after the fall of Eve and Adam. It is nothing new. One can see it for what it is, or not–choose as you wish.

Funny? Nice, a little mockery along with a half answer.

You completely left out the part about Mormons saying their church is true even if they don’t know it yet. Do you know there is a name for saying something is true when you don’t know it yet?

Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, is not the father of lies Parker.

Satan is the father of lies.

But I give up on whether one such as yourself will ever understand the difference. Oh, well–that’s life.

 

[ParkerD]

Answersplease:
Answersplease,
I have been familiar with that teaching method for young people, and even though I don’t particularly agree with it, it merely means the young person will often recognize that they do “have the Spirit” with them and that it has “testified” to them about the truthfulness of the teachings, but they have to allow themselves an opportunity to bring the awareness into their conscious mind rather than it being something latent inside of their heart.

I wasn’t trying to make fun of your approach–it just happens to bring an image into my memory that brings a chuckle. (I guess you realize that by putting your entire post into quotes, the automatic “quote the post” tool does not pick up the prior quote.)

Have a good day.

 

[why_me]

Jake, the word “cult” does NOT come from the word “occult.” Both words come from the same root, but that’s not at all the same thing. “Cult” simply means 'belief system." That’s it. Any other definition attached to the word “cult” is ALWAYS subjective and generally perjorative…it’s an insult, pure and simple. It means only 'I don’t like you and I think your beliefs are weird."

No matter who uses it.

The modern connotation is mind-controlled belief system and this is why it is used by antimormons to describe the lds church. They know that the word cult and occult will have a strong negative emotional current regardless if it is without substance in describing the lds church.

The words also have a very strong consonant which allows the antimormons to release stress as a strong consonant curse word would. .

 

[jake23]

The modern connotation is mind-controlled belief system and this is why it is used by antimormons to describe the lds church. They know that the word cult and occult will have a strong negative emotional current regardless if it is without substance in describing the lds church.

The words also have a very strong consonant which allows the antimormons to release stress as a strong consonant curse word would. .

I wouldnt call me anti mormon but more a christian proclaiming truths. You find it offensive because the truth does not taylor to your agenda. Proclaiming truth is charity weither some one likes what they hear or not. The mormon beleives are not of christ and therefore dangerouse and I would rather come across rude proclaiming the reality of truth, rather than just sitting by while someone jeapordizes there soul for a false prophet. These beliefs are offensive in the eyes of Biblical teachings, especialy those in red letters. Anyone with honesty and real education on the matter would aknowledge the same.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for this.

Just thinking out loud here–I wonder if these stats make a distinction between women who aborted who were actually practicing their religion actively and ones who are “adherents” in name only, and those who were somewhere in between?

I think it would be important to know that in order to be able to draw conclusions from the data.

I think that it is a given that a Catholic woman who gets an abortion is, ipso facto, not practicing her religion. The same goes for Mormon women, except in certain rare cases. All we can really go by is what the women self identify as, or how the respective populations are classified as.

 

[dianaiad]

Some abortion providers survey clients regarding non-identifying information like marital status, race, age, highest level of education attained, whether using contraceptives at the time of conception, reasons for seeking abortion, etc. The largest collector of this kind of information is the Guttmacher Institute, former research arm of Planned Parenthood, which creates periodic reports on the data. The most recent is July 2008. Because abortion providers are not required to survey and report in this manner, but only some do it voluntarily, it has limitations. But it’s the best information of this kind available, as far as I know.

In the July 2008 report, 27% of women obtaining abortions in the United States “identify themselves as as Catholic.” As far as I can tell, it is only a question of religious self-identification, and does not make any attempt to discern whether a person is practicing or nominal.

Well, as I mentioned just a second ago, we have to take it as a given that any Catholic woman who gets an abortion is not a ‘practicing’ Catholic…or she wouldn’t be getting the abortion. That act all by itself puts her in rebellion, doesn’t it?

So all we really have to go by is self identification.

 

[dianaiad]

ANY Catholic excommunication is a “formal” excommunication. It is an authoritative statement by the Church as to the status of “communion” that individual holds with the Church. An “informal” excomm. would simply be mortal sin. Anyone who commits a mortal sin excommunicates themselves automatically.

And no, a “formal” excomm. as you put it by the Church still only has to do with specific action, not on any history of the sinner. And not based on anything outside od the excommunicable offense. The “courts” you speak of would be deciding if that offense indeed was excommunicable and if the person had sufficient knowledge of the gravity prior to the action. Again, excomm. is used to make a wide ranging and public stAtement on specific actions. The personal consequence of mortal sin is sufficient for the indi idual person morally. Again the judgement made by the Church is on the action and whether or not the person committed the action, not the person themselves. The judgement made by God is on the person. The Church is not authorized nor is it capable of doing so.

Bookgirl, I’m not going to get into this one with you, except to say that if those words had come out of my keyboard, the weight of the world would be collapsing upon me within two breaths of hitting the ‘send’ button.

By ‘formal,’ please understand that I am speaking of the excommunication that is initiated by the church after a hearing/trial…one that is imposed by it. I can’t seem to remember the formal name for it, except that it begins with a ‘v’…I think.

However, the concept of latae sententiae excommunication has been burned in my brain, right down to getting royally reamed for switching two vowels in the last word in error, that I don’t think I will EVER forget that term. Suffice it to say that…sorry, you are incorrect. There very much IS a difference between the two types of excommunication. I do hope that one of you who have been so adamant about how abysmally my own understanding of the concept is will please talk to Bookgirl?

thank you.

 

[dianaiad]

I wouldnt call me anti mormon but more a christian proclaiming truths. You find it offensive because the truth does not taylor to your agenda. Proclaiming truth is charity weither some one likes what they hear or not. The mormon beleives are not of christ and therefore dangerouse and I would rather come across rude proclaiming the reality of truth, rather than just sitting by while someone jeapordizes there soul for a false prophet. These beliefs are offensive in the eyes of Biblical teachings, especialy those in red letters. Anyone with honesty and real education on the matter would aknowledge the same.

Jake, a 'Christian proclaiming truths" would restrict himself to those words in red letters in the NT, and what HE firmly believes they mean. That is sufficient, y’know. If you are correct about what you believe, then don’t you trust the Holy Ghost enough to let your listener recognize that truth and come to it freely?

Well, actually, that’s a silly question because the answer is, of course…no. you don’t trust God enough. You take precious time away from truths to insult, disparage and mock other people…as if you have to tear down someone else’s faith before they deserve to hear Truth as you believe it to be.

The problem with that approach is that, well…it doesn’t work. Since when does God want converts who come to Him out of fear and loathing, rather than joy and peace? Discovering Truth is supposed to be a joyful thing…

there is this parable (yeah, it’s in red letters…) about a merchant who, when he saw a pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and purchased it. Now think; do you think that the owner of the pearl had to disparage all that the merchant had in order to get him to sell his junk to buy the pearl?

Nope…the merchant saw the pearl, saw that it was worth more than anything he had, and willingly–joyfully–got rid of his old stuff in order to gain the new. Nobody had to tell him that his stuff was junk in comparison. He made his own comparison, and purchased the pearl.

Anti’s can’t seem to get it through their heads that their methods are the OPPOSITE of that parable. They hide what they believe to be the pearl of great price, and defend it against all comers by disparaging, attacking and abusing those who, if they only knew what you have hidden, would also go sell all that they have to purchase it.

Anti’s…no matter who they are attacking…do more to cement the opinions of those they hate than can possibly imagine, and I do believe that God will not be happy about their methods. Not one little bit.

 

[aspirant]

I think that it is a given that a Catholic woman who gets an abortion is, ipso facto, not practicing her religion. The same goes for Mormon women, except in certain rare cases.

I suspect that what was really being asked, though, was something like “Apart from this abortion, do we know whether and to what extent these women actually believe/practice Catholicism or Mormonism?” And I think the answer is “No, we have no idea. These could, for all we know, be the people sitting next to us at church every week and leading local Bible studies. Or they could, for all we know, be people who self-identify as Catholic or Mormon even though they’ve never darkened a church door since their baptisms and don’t even believe there is a God. Or something in between.”

 

[sablouwho]

I suspect that what was really being asked, though, was something like “Apart from this abortion, do we know whether and to what extent these women actually believe/practice Catholicism or Mormonism?”

Thanks aspirant–what you have said here is indeed what I meant, I hadn’t expressed it with enough precision upthread.

 

[dianaiad]

I suspect that what was really being asked, though, was something like “Apart from this abortion, do we know whether and to what extent these women actually believe/practice Catholicism or Mormonism?” And I think the answer is “No, we have no idea. These could, for all we know, be the people sitting next to us at church every week and leading local Bible studies. Or they could, for all we know, be people who self-identify as Catholic or Mormon even though they’ve never darkened a church door since their baptisms and don’t even believe there is a God. Or something in between.”

Possibly…but even so all we have are the statements of those who self identify…oh, and we also have the numbers of representative geographical areas, where we can compare relative populations of religious affiliations. That’s what I did with Utah and Rhode Island. That rather neatly avoids the ‘does this person actually go to church?’ question.

Then we can look at relative activity levels of the faiths involved and incorporate that.

 

[sablouwho]

Possibly…but even so all we have are the statements of those who self identify…oh, and we also have the numbers of representative geographical areas, where we can compare relative populations of religious affiliations. That’s what I did with Utah and Rhode Island. That rather neatly avoids the ‘does this person actually go to church?’ question.

Can you clarify dianaiad, how the “do they go to church” question is avoided? I think I must be missing something.

 

[dianaiad]

Can you clarify dianaiad, how the “do they go to church” question is avoided? I think I must be missing something.

There was quite a conversation regarding polls and studies about who actually GOES to church, amongst American Christians. According to those studies, the level of ‘activity’ in both Catholicism and Mormonism is about the same–a few more Mormons are active, a few less Catholics are, but the ‘inactivity level’ is still between 20 and 40%, depending on who is asking and how the questions are put. So, if we simply go with the geographical comparisons, so that we have two similar areas with a similar population size and religious affiliation, then we can compare the abortion rates that way. We can assume that since the ‘activity rate’ between the two faiths are fairly close (and they are…) and the proportion of each faith to the general population is roughly the same… then the results would automatically take into account the activity level. We who are looking don’t have to deal with it.

In fact, attempting to include that raises a lot more problems than it solves, given the great disparity between abortion rates…If ONLY “inactive” members of either faith have abortions, that raises a huge question in regard to the relative abortion rates, since the activity levels of the two faiths have absolutely NO relationship to the disparity between abortion rates. It gets way too complicated…and noting that even INACTIVE Mormons are less likely to get abortions than Catholics do is not something that gives any ammunition to the Catholics who excoriate Mormons for being ‘pro-abortion.’

…which, by the way, we are not.

 

[sablouwho]

In fact, attempting to include that raises a lot more problems than it solves, given the great disparity between abortion rates…If ONLY “inactive” members of either faith have abortions, that raises a huge question in regard to the relative abortion rates, since the activity levels of the two faiths have absolutely NO relationship to the disparity between abortion rates. It gets way too complicated…and noting that even INACTIVE Mormons are less likely to get abortions than Catholics do is not something that gives any ammunition to the Catholics who excoriate Mormons for being ‘pro-abortion.’

…which, by the way, we are not.

Well, I assume I’m in the minority on CAF, but I certainly wouldn’t characterize LDS as “pro-abortion”.

As for the rest of it…it does sounds complicated, I’m still trying to tease out the meaning of the paragraph above (I’m unusually tired tonight–synapses not firing at warp speed) so I won’t ask more question on it for the time being.

Thanks Diana.

 

[aspirant]

we have are the statements of those who self identify

Which doesn’t really answer the question.

I certainly wouldn’t characterize LDS as “pro-abortion”.

Nor would I.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,
I have been familiar with that teaching method for young people, and even though I don’t particularly agree with it, it merely means the young person will often recognize that they do “have the Spirit” with them and that it has “testified” to them about the truthfulness of the teachings, but they have to allow themselves an opportunity to bring the awareness into their conscious mind rather than it being something latent inside of their heart.

Lying is lying no matter what you call it or how you try to finesse it.

The testimony is in their heart, and they “have to allow themselves an opportunity to bring the awarness into their conscious mind”?

Matthew 15:19

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, I assume I’m in the minority on CAF, but I certainly wouldn’t characterize LDS as “pro-abortion”.

As for the rest of it…it does sounds complicated, I’m still trying to tease out the meaning of the paragraph above (I’m unusually tired tonight–synapses not firing at warp speed) so I won’t ask more question on it for the time being.

Thanks Diana.

Sorry about that…I was in pure academic mode–still using “thesisese”–and the point of THAT is to be as confusing as possible in such a way as to make the reader think that it really SHOULD make sense, if one were only smart enough, when in reality it’s just confusing.

 

[scottj]

Dear Heavens, has anyone even thought if we weren’t caught up in the debates of the differences, maybe we could work on the commonalities (i.e. abortions) and make a dent for Jesus in that or any other cause that is a commonality in HIS NAME???