B
BartBurk
Guest
This says more about the Mormon “courts of love” than it does about abortion.
- Status
R
RAR
Guest
My apologies TOm, I dropped the ball on the link during work yesterday and did not get back to your comments.
I appreciate your position as stated on abortion and can personally understand how you might “just lack the faith in the human part of the human/God decision.” I agree. Humans have proven time and again that we truly are just children, making mistake after mistake. We need to be very careful when discerning the Will of God and I personally have never trusted myself (or really anyone else either). As a side note, that is why I find the Catholic Church so compelling (Jesus endowing us with the Magisterium, etc.).
And I am certain, too, that God can choose to not “ensoul” a baby in the womb, but I’m equally certain that He does not exercise this power. God has a funny way of sticking to His own rules
. This is not an argument to your earlier comment, I don’t think you were making a particular point, I’m just building on it.And which link were you talking about… could you please list it for me again? I only saw what that linked to previous threads.
Finally… I DUMB (my wife always says that… she’s adorable), but what is IMO?
RAR
BTW… you’re “sucked back in”
R
RAR
Guest
Hi again TOm,
Say, I read your link, but help me out… it doesn’t look to me like the Church has changed in regard to abortion. (I think I’m missing your point)
Comments:
I’m not sure how it was used (again if you could point me to references to further our discussion, I’d appreciate it), but terms like “fetus animales” follow the general rules of scientific nomenclature in employing the Latin language. I don’t see it as meant to de-personalize the baby.
By the way… I personally don’t use the term fetus.
RAR
Say, I read your link, but help me out… it doesn’t look to me like the Church has changed in regard to abortion. (I think I’m missing your point)
Comments:
I’m not sure how it was used (again if you could point me to references to further our discussion, I’d appreciate it), but terms like “fetus animales” follow the general rules of scientific nomenclature in employing the Latin language. I don’t see it as meant to de-personalize the baby.
By the way… I personally don’t use the term fetus.
RAR
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Only humans have human souls. Couldn’t animals have non-immortal animal souls and plants non-immortal plant souls? Without some animating force how else would we know they are alive?
With no revelation on ensoulment, how do you know that a new born baby has a soul? What would stop someone from praying about killing a newborn that resulted from incest or rape?
I am quite sure there is no LDS position on this.
Orson Pratt in a series of publication that was ultimately condemned (most like for other specific issues, but not excluding or specifically including this) wrote of animal and plant souls. This has generally been something LDS critics have highlighted to make LDS look silly which seems to be Namesake’s view on the whole thing.
It is interesting that Jimmy Akin spoke about this. Do you have a link?
So, I do not know if animals have animal souls and plants have plant souls.
To my knowledge there is no question in LDS thought as to whether a newborn baby is ensouled. I personally speak against the morality of praying about infanticide and seek to sanction those who did such things or advocated such things. That being said, LDS stand in the Biblical tradition where God speaks to man and man should listen. I am quite uncomfortable as to what one must make of God’s direction to Abraham. I would have no problem demanding that those who pray to know if God desires them to walk the path Abraham was told to walk are in error and must be corrected. The with this is that I have communicated with God sufficiently to know much about the course my life should take, but I have not received communication of the strength and clarity that would be necessary to cause me to walk a path so foreign to all God has revealed such as Abraham began to walk. This is a failure of faith. I stand in a tradition (the CoJCoLDS) that embraces divine communication of the force and magnitude Abraham received in the modern age. I just personally have never received (never needed???) such communication.
So, I know of only one man who in response to prayer was told to kill his child. His name is Abraham. Fortunately God later told this man not to kill his child. The Bible teaches us that this was done so God could learn what Abraham would do. I do not have a clean place for God’s being educated through Abraham’s “challenge.”
I know of no LDS women who in response to prayer were told that less evil would result from the termination of a non-ensouled fetus resulting from rape than letting development occur and a fully human person be born. I am aware of instances were children of rape were in fact born to LDS woman. IMO this is preferable. It is however the LDS position that God KNOWS and COMMUNICATES with men. This is the witness of the Bible (though one of the outstanding questions of the story of Abraham is did God not know? In this case I lean towards God generally did know, but this is exta-Biblical). It is quite possible (by my read of LDS thought) that all babies are ensouled at conception except for those conceived in mentally unstable rape victims who will seek God’s will for their lives. Yes, God is that smart, that resourceful. Do you doubt it?
I hope I answered your question (this time) and offered other things to think about.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Part of me is very pro-Magisterium-concept. I like the black and white of it all. That being said, I believe the tradition of the CoJCoLDS is somewhat opposed to such things.
We are all to individually seek a RELATIONSHIP with God. As a feeble human who seeks relationship with our omnipotent Father, there are many risks. God could become our super buddy who sweeps enemies and problems from before us, but we could not enter into the relationship God desires for us if we viewed Him as super man rather than Father/Elder Brother. God could be so distant that He never responds to us, but this obviously would not result in relationship. So, we seek God through prayer and receive more and more as we turn over our will to Him. The lack of guidance in all things from the magisterium necessitates our turning to God as individuals. The lack of guidance from God in all things necessitates our choices and our individuality. Our individual will is the only thing we can give to God that we actually possess to give.
I think God does generally stick to His rules. I think His rules are predicated upon creating a space for us to choose to return to Him. Some of our differences are surely what His rules are. But, let me explore sticking to his rules in Catholicism.
Catholic thought has struggled to align the fate of deceased unbaptized children (or aborted children) with God’s sacramental requirements. Very long ago the prevalent position was such children go to hell, but Catholic voices throughout the years have spoken about possible reasons to not be so sure. The prevalent position today in Catholicism is that God has in fact established the sacramental means to establish a salvific relationship, but that men are bound by these rules, God is not. So, God can (and likely does in some or many or ??? instances) save unbaptized children (and even adults who live and die never hearing of Christ) contrary to the “rules” He established.
I merely suggest that even if the general rule is that ensoulment occurs at conception (which as a non-Catholic I do not even need to postulate) it is possible for God to save pre-mortal spirits (which non-LDS do not believe in anyway) from being part of a rape induced abortion preformed to save the life of the mother.
RAR
BTW… you’re “sucked back in”
In My Opinion. Often people say In My Humble Opinion IMHO, but touting ones humility seems to be self defeating IMO. Plus after I say, “you are wrong because of this, and this, and this, and this, …” I do not feel too humble.
Yes, it seems there has been some sucking back in!
Charity, TOm
M
mark_a
Guest
TOm-
The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is evil. There was at one time a discussion about when ensoulment occurs. It took an existing Church, not a non-existant one, to declare that life begins at conception.
Honestly, you’ll make a better case for yourself against the Catholic Church by attacking Mary, transubstantiation, purgatory, or the papacy.
You can beat this issue like the deadest horse it is, but if your church is not teaching the evils of artificial contraception, its not telling the whole truth.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
The issue is not the peculiarity of the Latin, but the fact that before 1869 there was a distinction between the ensouled fetus and the non-ensouled fetus.
Sungenis was once my favorite Catholic apologist (I still like him a lot, but he has fallen mightily in the minds of other Catholic apologists). Here is a very thorough treatment of these issues, including the 1869 decision to no longer use two terms. I have not read all this (at least recently) so if you like you may be able to dent my position with Sungenis’s arguments (he has dented me in the past).
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm
When I discuss these issues in a political forum, neither do I. When my church’s position is attacked as not sufficiently pro-life, such words become necessary.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
TOm-
The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is evil. There was at one time a discussion about when ensoulment occurs. It took an existing Church, not a non-existant one, to declare that life begins at conception.
I do not think on this thread, or the previous thread to which I linked, I ever suggested that abortion was not evil.
In fact, I claimed that abortion is always evil in my church and then had to defend this to Catholics who IMO did not read close enough my words.
Abortion is always evil in Catholic thought, but it has not always been considered murder in certain instances.
Yes, it takes an existing Church to declare when life begins. This is one of the reasons that I often refer positive to the Catholic position when discussing these thing with pro-choice folks and I think Protestant have a weaker position. My church of course is an existing one that claims Peterine primacy too, so our view stands upon a stronger foundation than that of Protestant too. Of course if my foundation is false or your foundation is false, the presence of said foundation matters little.
mark_a:
Honestly, you’ll make a better case for yourself against the Catholic Church by attacking Mary, transubstantiation, purgatory, or the papacy.
Understanding Latria and Dulia, I have little problem with Mary worship.
I think the Catholic Church wins the Transubstantiation battle (except for the archaic word/concept which EOs do not dogmatically embrace). And while this is a victory it is not quite as complete as most Catholic believe it is since as universal as the believe in the real presence is, it still does not follow the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins.
I have never found anti-purgatory arguments convincing especially since I do not see a protestant reason to reject the “apocrypha.”
Now, the papacy is an avenue that I have explored a great deal. I think I win by enough to very much offset your victory on the real presence.
I am not so much making a case against Catholicism with this abortion argument. I have claimed that the CA documents are dishonest in that the partially quote to created evidence of change (someone suggest there are other evidences of change and I have not explored this sufficiently) in LDS teaching. I have claimed that the Catholic position on ensoulment and abortion has changed from a position that I view as present in my church. And, I have claimed that the only place were I differ from Catholicism personally is in the rare cases were Catholic theology approves of the termination of ectopic pregnancies.
I would like for my church to emphasize the problems with contraception more than they do. There is no absolute retreat on this, but like many Catholic parishes and worse than the better parishes this is seldom if ever mentioned. I am not as concerned with the ARTIFICIAL aspects of contraception as Catholics are. I respect the arguments derivable from Theology of the Body (even though few Catholics develop these as well as I think they should and often make arguments undermined by approved Catholic practice), but in the scheme of determining which church is Christ’s church I do not think artificial contraception arguments are hugely important. And like abortion, I think the PRACTICE of those who call themselves Catholics or LDS is generally a positive for LDS.
Charity, TOm
J
Jerusha
Guest
Tom, I always enjoy reading your discussion of pseudo-Mormonism. Welcome back. Wish that there were more like you.:harp:
Welcome back. Wish that there were more like you.:harp:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Jerusha,Tom, I always enjoy reading your discussion of pseudo-Mormonism.
Despite my persecution complex, I view your statement as a complement with only faint damnation. Rather than “damnation with faint praise.”
I can only be who I am. I share thoughts in church and would not hide any of my views if asked. I have my former bishop’s wife reading Ostler and am excited when we will be able to speak about such things. I am a faithful member of the Church and it is only non-members who call me things like a “pseudo-Mormon.”
Of course, I cannot be a LDS who thinks Brigham Young didn’t say ugly and/or doctrinally problematic things. I also couldn’t be a Catholic who thought anyone in the 1st century had a clue that the Bishop of Rome was prime, not even Clement knew he was at the head of the church … please!!!
But, I choose between being a LDS with the beliefs I have and a Catholic with the beliefs I could embrace. Also, I am a LDS in full communion. As a Catholic, I would accept much upon the developed authority of the Pope and the councils, but there would still be folks who were troubled by my acknowledgement of radical development in doctrine.
Anyway, thanks for the welcome.
Charity, TOm
J
Jerusha
Guest
You are welcome. :yup: Given the LDS trolls we have battled with here, your insights and honesty are a relief, although I disagree with your beliefs. :nope:
M
mark_a
Guest
TOm,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
ABC is wrong dating back to old testament times. How can any Church be Christ’s if it does not still teach so?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
How else could one possibly discern which is Christ’s Church in todays world, when at least superficially, they all preach the two great commandments?
ABC is wrong dating back to old testament times. How can any Church be Christ’s if it does not still teach so?
Could you explain this?
R
RAR
Guest
TOm,
An interesting link (I’m not yet quite done reading it, either), thank you for sharing it with me. I have only been Catholic 10 years and was not aware of the “ensoulment” question, though I’ve thought on it myself. It seems to me that there is no confusion concerning abortion, though. The Church has always taught that the taking of innocent human life is an inherent evil and I don’t believe that Aquinas or any members of the Church were condoning the destruction of the fetus prior to the quickening or before the fetus “became animated” (40-80 day). This would speak only to Aquinas’ opinion on the subject at the time. For example, he did say that if the striking of a woman carrying an animated fetus resulted in either the death of the woman or the fetus, then that person would be guilty of homicide, but he did not say or imply that if the fetus was inanimate that it would not be homicide.
I think the question that arises has more to do with the question of when life begins - namely at conception or the “quickening” and not whether the Church has historically held that abortion is a wrong not to be permitted because I think the position has clearly and consistently been held. Please feel free to point me to further materials… I’ll happily read them.
Another point of consideraion… the Church’s stand on the topic of ectopic pregnancy has specifically to do with direct and indirect actions that lead to the death of the embryo. You commented that you think that chemical means may be a more preferred way of handling the doomed pregnancy, but the difference would be that, while either case the primary intent is not to kill the developing human being (it is to save the mother), the one (chemical means) kills the embryo directly and the other (excision) indirectly. You may be right, the Church’s handling of double effect does seem a little legalistic… but I like it… I’m a nerd. It makes sense to me.
And… why did you leave the Catholic Church and how did you come to the LDS? I know you’ve probably answered that question before, but I’m sincerely interested. If you don’t want to answer it on this forum, please consider PMing me.
RAR
T
TOmNossor
Guest
How else could one possibly discern which is Christ’s Church in todays world, when at least superficially, they all preach the two great commandments?
ABC is wrong dating back to old testament times. How can any Church be Christ’s if it does not still teach so?
“What is new is not true” is a very Catholic saying. Concerning artificial contraceptives, there is little evidence a position on said things could be anything but new.
The most clear read of the Bible is that what is new may be true if it comes from God. There were rules for divorce in the Old Testament. Clearly it was not optimal, but this seemed to be a change.
Polygamy in the case of taking your brother’s wife was required in Old Testament law. It seems rather frowned upon today.
I believe God’s church should have continuous revelation rather than no ability to receive supernatural public revelation. (SPR is the term I use to indicate what a LDS believes, Pres. Monson, St. Peter, and Abraham receive and what a Catholic believes St. Peter and Abraham receive but the Pope does not).
I think the most important avenues for discussion are the areas that relate to the apostasy and restoration. Either the Catholic authority continued from Christ to today and the “restoration” is something other than God restoring His church OR the Catholic authority did not continue from Christ to today and the restoration was a restoration done by God.
I have come to find philosophical problems with Catholic theology that IMO require less judgment to act upon, but these things are far less frequently discussed than apostasy/restoration things.
mark_a:
I think the percentage of folks who call themselves Catholic who use artificial birth control (and specifically use birth control to limit their family size to 1-3 or so) is much higher than the percentage of LDS who use birth control.
The reason I say, “call themselves Catholic” is because technically using artificial birth control makes one cease to be a Catholic (until reconciliation).
Charity, TOm
B
BartBurk
Guest
R
RAR
Guest
TOm,
I’m interested to hear what these philosophical problems are, can we start with one?
And, what in the name of all that is holy and good in the world does IMO mean? I’ve been drivin’ myself batty with this. It might help me understand a few of your statements better.
RAR
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I think the question that arises has more to do with the question of when life begins - namely at conception or the “quickening” and not whether the Church has historically held that abortion is a wrong not to be permitted because I think the position has clearly and consistently been held. Please feel free to point me to further materials… I’ll happily read them.
I agree that the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is wrong. It is my position that my church’s position is that abortion is always wrong even in the case of rape/incest. It is my position that my church’s position can be viewed in two ways both of which should give pause to those who think they can rightly condemn my church’s position.
- The rape victim had here agency (a very important LDS concept) taken. God sufficiently knows the future that He can know the unstable rape victim will die (killing her baby in the process). God knows the ensoulment status of the developing baby. God can communicate that terminating this pregnancy pre-ensoulment while wrong is less wrong that the loss of agency and likely death of mother and child.
- God can know that the baby and mother will die just as surely as the Catholic doctor knows that the mother with the ectopic fetus will die together with her baby. Catholic bioethics approves of actions that result in the termination of this baby. LDS who place huge emphasis upon God’s ability to communicate with humans, suggest that a similar situation exists for the unstable rape victim.
I am more pragmatic than the Catholic Bio-ethicist is allowed to be. I hope that does not make me less of a nerd!!!
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=57483&postcount=8
I knew I had answered this before.
Charity, TOm
M
mark_a
Guest
Not quite so. I remember reading something about the ancient Egyptians and crocodile dung and lemons. Herbal abortificients have been used for thousands of years.
Philosophical theology is far too complex for me.
I’m the kind that needs to know the speed limit, not the physics of how a highway is designed for a certain speed limit.
Catholics are the worst. That doesn’t make the Church’s teachings wrong. It makes them unpopular and us willfully ignorant.
You’re right.
Should we chase them away? ABC and the Catholic view of marriage is the main reason people leave the Church, although they will quickly find a theological one (or dozen).
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Here is a wonderful article by two folks who both were Evangelical Christians. One because of his interaction with Mormonism is no longer an Evangelical (he is moving towards Catholicism partially because he can see the futility of answering Mormonism from his former Evangelical Christian position).
The article is title:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html
Catholicism has nobody engaging LDS thought comparable to Owen, Mosser, Beckwith (well Beckwith is a Catholic now though he did not SPECIFICALLY claim Mormonism compelled him to Catholicism like Owen did), and perhaps a few others. Maybe Beckwith will continue discussion Mormonism, but he has his hands full with EC’s who are attacking him these days.
You have Patrick Madrid and Isaiah Bennett (and I think Jimmy Akin is coming out with something), but believe me or not, Madrid’s and Bennett’s work is of the same rigor as James White’s work. Madrid is a far more charitable than White, but neither of them seek to understand what LDS apologists postulate before they attack.
Catholics are loosing the battle against the BOM and when it comes to tearing down the CoJCoLDS.
Catholics fair much better when it comes to defending Catholicism, but I think modern Catholic apologists do not deal with the full picture folks like Newman, Father Sullivan, and Robert Eno do. Still, pro-Catholic work produced by Catholics is much better than anti-Mormon work produced by Catholics.
So, my point is that I have researched the BOM extensively. I think the BOM fraud theory is much weaker than the BOM comes from God theory. I think the positives for the BOM and the responses to the positives by the FEW critics who dare far out weight the negatives of the BOM and the responses to the negatives offered by LDS apologists.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Two links for you:
One philosophical problem:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932
Concerning IMO, you asked me this already and I did answer. I guess I must overuse the term.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3298379&postcount=45
Charity, TOm
- Status