Mormonism and Euthanasia

[soren1]

For people who have not studied Mormonism in detail, I advise discussing with Mormons only two topics: the perpetuity of the priesthood and life issues. That is because these are the areas where the Catholic position is so clear and intelligible that virtually anyone can make the case with only a moderate amount of study. Moreover, neither topic depends on any difficult metaphysical precisions, but are rooted in concrete evidence and moral reasoning that basically anyone can understand.

Nevertheless, there are better and worse ways to take up these topics, and I am writing to point out just one of the better ways to talk about life issues. Most Catholics who respond to the Mormonism’s attempted pro-life teachings know how to point out the obvious problem: that the exception clauses allowing abortion for rape, incest, etc., are inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the sanctity of human life. In and of itself, this is a totally satisfactory, QED-quality argument that has a claim on the conscience of anyone who hears it. Yet it can be augmented by pointing out another inconsistency so glaring that for years I have not heard a marginally reasonable response to it from any Mormon at all. Here goes:

There is a formal contradiction between Mormon teaching on abortion and on euthanasia. One of the exceptions in which a Mormon woman who has sought counsel from her bishop on prayed on the matter can have an abortion is “when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” That comes from the official website here, but if you look up the LDS teaching on euthanasia, we find something else:
Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.
Do I even need to explain the contradiction? Just in case, I will: since killing a fetus is “deliberately putting to death a person” and since terminal birth defects are “an incurable condition or disease,” the Church’s own definition of euthanasia, which they use in condemning it, elsewhere serves as the justification for some abortions. It is, therefore, an strictly accurate, non-satirical representation to Mormon teaching to say that “The Church counsels its members against euthanasia and against abortion, which are both grave sins, except in cases where to perform an abortion also constitutes euthanasia.”

It should also be noted that the LDS Church does not consider the performance of euthanasia to be a matter subject to individual discernment through prayer, as in the case of abortion. This can be seen in its contrasting teaching about ending life-support in the following paragraph. Here, the Church says that the restriction against euthanasia does not imply an imperative to preserve life through extreme, radical means, but that families may consider ending life support “after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.” Why do they extend this liberty in considering ending treatment except in contrast to the absolute prohibition of euthanasia given previously? Thus, even the standard Mormon defense of pointing out the role of prayer in discerning whether to euthanize and unborn child is at odds with LDS teaching as well.

 

[Jesus_123]

**+ I posted this on another thread . . . thought it might help here . . . **

• … I was raised as a child in the heart of “Mormon” country here in the United States … Though I knew many Mormons as friends in school and our neighborhood . . . their belief system is known to Catholics and Protestants alike essentially as a CULT . . . and it is an immensely large one . . . and their understandings, definitions and usage of the same religious and scriptural words are RADICALLY different . . .

Definition:

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below are several more of the radical anti-Christian heresies taught by the Mormons . . . courtesy of EWTN . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210

MORMONISM

1. Teaches that there are many gods, and that humans can become gods and goddesses in the Heavenly kingdom: “History of the Church” 6 p. 306; “Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” pp. 28, 51-53.
2. Teaches that God the Father was a man like us who progressed to become a God and presently has a body of flesh and bone. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”—“Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 345-47.
3. Teaches that Jesus is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, after being procreated in spirit by the Father and a heavenly mother, and conceived physically by the Father and an earthly mother. “The Restoration of Major Doctrines Through Joseph Smith.” in, “The Ensign,” Jan 1989, pp. 28-29. They hold that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers—“Mormon Doctrine,” pp. 192, 546-47, 589-90.
4. The Holy Spirit is a spirit in the form of a man and only his influence is present everywhere.—“Doctrines of Salvation” I. pp. 38, 49-50 by Joseph Fielding Smith.
5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods—“Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” p. 370.
6. The Bible is corrupt, missing many “plain and precious parts” and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel—“Doctrines of Salvation” III. pp. 190, 191.

 

[soren1]

These citations of Mormon teaching in the above posts have no relation to the topic at hand. Moreover, they have no context with respect to whole of Mormon theology. They only express hard anti-Mormon sentiment without engaging the topics by reasoned discourse. This is exactly the sort of thing I didn’t want on this thread. Mormonism can be refuted without emotionalism or alarmism. Patient, prayerful study, without anger, is the right approach; writing in all caps is not.

 

[bz5]

Could you explain, Soren, more about their priesthoods? I’ve never really seen the connection between the Levitical priesthood and the way they practice the Aaronic priesthood. Is it another case of taking terms from the Bible or church history and changing the meaning? And what, please tell, is the Melchizedek priesthood? I know he was a priest/king in the Old Testament who offered bread and wine, and I think Jesus was called ‘a priest in the order of Melchizedek,’ but after that I’m lost. I didn’t think there was an ‘order’ in the sense of the Dominican order, for example, but that Jesus was a priest/king’in the manner of’ Melchizedek. Thanks

 

[bz5]

And thanks for the info on euthanasia, I’d never known their view. I’d always thought one thing LDS and the Catholics had in common was a central authority. It seems odd to me that on an important moral issue like abortion, not only has the central authority’s position changed over the years, but that a woman can consult her own conscience and a local bishop to make an individual decision. It sounds more Protestant.

 

[CopticChristian]

**+ I posted this on another thread . . . thought it might help here . . . **

So it would be safe to say that Protestant thought has given rise to a group of people that have redefined Christianity and want to be called Christians.

 

[Telstar]

These citations of Mormon teaching in the above posts have no relation to the topic at hand. Moreover, they have no context with respect to whole of Mormon theology. They only express hard anti-Mormon sentiment without engaging the topics by reasoned discourse. This is exactly the sort of thing I didn’t want on this thread. Mormonism can be refuted without emotionalism or alarmism. Patient, prayerful study, without anger, is the right approach; writing in all caps is not.

That person has that entire post, and several other versions of it (obnoxious colors, large text and all), in some kind of file on his/her PC. They repeatedly post it in any thread they can find that’s related to Mormonism. It’s just anti-Mormon spam that is never really on topic in any thread, it’s just plain rhetoric.

 

[soren1]

That person has that entire post, and several other versions of it (obnoxious colors, large text and all), in some kind of file on his/her PC. They repeatedly post it in any thread they can find that’s related to Mormonism. It’s just anti-Mormon spam that is never really on topic in any thread, it’s just plain rhetoric.

Alas. Is there a way to get the moderators to remove it?

 

[Telstar]

Alas. Is there a way to get the moderators to remove it?

I was tempted to report the post as being off topic, as well as being something that the poster does, repeatedly. There’s a (!) surrounded by a red & white triangle in the top right corner of all posts where you can report it to the Mod, and ask that it be removed. It would be much more effective coming from you, since it’s your thread.

 

[soren1]

I was tempted to report the post as being off topic, as well as being something that the poster does, repeatedly. There’s a (!) surrounded by a red & white triangle in the top right corner of all posts where you can report it to the Mod, and ask that it be removed. It would be much more effective coming from you, since it’s your thread.

Done.

 

[soren1]

Could you explain, Soren, more about their priesthoods? I’ve never really seen the connection between the Levitical priesthood and the way they practice the Aaronic priesthood. Is it another case of taking terms from the Bible or church history and changing the meaning? And what, please tell, is the Melchizedek priesthood? I know he was a priest/king in the Old Testament who offered bread and wine, and I think Jesus was called ‘a priest in the order of Melchizedek,’ but after that I’m lost. I didn’t think there was an ‘order’ in the sense of the Dominican order, for example, but that Jesus was a priest/king’in the manner of’ Melchizedek. Thanks

I think you meant to put this post on the other thread where I posted about Matthew. I will put a response there later this evening.

And thanks for the info on euthanasia, I’d never known their view. I’d always thought one thing LDS and the Catholics had in common was a central authority. It seems odd to me that on an important moral issue like abortion, not only has the central authority’s position changed over the years, but that a woman can consult her own conscience and a local bishop to make an individual decision. It sounds more Protestant.

There is a curious tension in Mormon theology between a strong form of individualism (testimony, agency, etc.) and a strong authoritarianism (obedience to bishops, prophets, etc.). In itself this is not a criticism. The same tension exists in Catholicism. What is a criticism, however, is that Mormon theology hasn’t got a whole lot of insight into how to resolve this tension. For us, the unity of individual and collective salvation are understandable in terms of the doctrine of a mystical body, and the transcendent character of the Common Good. But these are not concepts that Mormonism accepts, or even thinks upon. Consequently, there is no consistently hierarchy of principles in discernment of truth or in moral counsel.

The conflict between the Church’s teachings on abortion and euthanasia proceeds from two failed ways of handling this tension. On the one hand, Mormonism places an absolute value on individual testimony, and they feel free to reject appeals to other authorities that conflict with their testimonial feelings. By resolving all problems into a matter of personal testimony, they avoid accountability to any principle of truth higher than personal subjectivity. This way of dealing with truth is reflected in their lax teaching on abortion. Yet at the same time, they also place authority in the prophet to the point that no one can gainsay him, and since the prophet’s word is final in matters of counsel, Mormons are not free to seek contrary testimonies when he declares any moral imperative. This way of thinking is reflected in their teaching on euthanasia. These opposite forms of moral reasoning in opposite moral imperatives.

As I said, I think that tensions like these can be harmonized in principle, but I say Mormon does not succeed in doing so either in theory or in practice. Their incoherent teachings on life issues are one particularly grotesque consequence of this failure.

 

[ParkerD]

For people who have not studied Mormonism in detail, I advise discussing with Mormons only two topics: the perpetuity of the priesthood and life issues. That is because these are the areas where the Catholic position is so clear and intelligible that virtually anyone can make the case with only a moderate amount of study. Moreover, neither topic depends on any difficult metaphysical precisions, but are rooted in concrete evidence and moral reasoning that basically anyone can understand.

Nevertheless, there are better and worse ways to take up these topics, and I am writing to point out just one of the better ways to talk about life issues. Most Catholics who respond to the Mormonism’s attempted pro-life teachings know how to point out the obvious problem: that the exception clauses allowing abortion for rape, incest, etc., are inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the sanctity of human life. In and of itself, this is a totally satisfactory, QED-quality argument that has a claim on the conscience of anyone who hears it. Yet it can be augmented by pointing out another inconsistency so glaring that for years I have not heard a marginally reasonable response to it from any Mormon at all. Here goes:

There is a formal contradiction between Mormon teaching on abortion and on euthanasia. One of the exceptions in which a Mormon woman who has sought counsel from her bishop on prayed on the matter can have an abortion is “when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” That comes from the official website here, but if you look up the LDS teaching on euthanasia, we find something else:
Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.
Do I even need to explain the contradiction? Just in case, I will: since killing a fetus is “deliberately putting to death a person” and since terminal birth defects are “an incurable condition or disease,” the Church’s own definition of euthanasia, which they use in condemning it, elsewhere serves as the justification for some abortions. It is, therefore, an strictly accurate, non-satirical representation to Mormon teaching to say that “The Church counsels its members against euthanasia and against abortion, which are both grave sins, except in cases where to perform an abortion also constitutes euthanasia.”

It should also be noted that the LDS Church does not consider the performance of euthanasia to be a matter subject to individual discernment through prayer, as in the case of abortion. This can be seen in its contrasting teaching about ending life-support in the following paragraph. Here, the Church says that the restriction against euthanasia does not imply an imperative to preserve life through extreme, radical means, but that families may consider ending life support “after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.” Why do they extend this liberty in considering ending treatment except in contrast to the absolute prohibition of euthanasia given previously? Thus, even the standard Mormon defense of pointing out the role of prayer in discerning whether to euthanize and unborn child is at odds with LDS teaching as well.

Soren1,

I suppose that I might as well point out the discrepancy within the logic you presented. It has to do with (1) “what is the ideal society that the gospel hopes to establish, and does this action support it or contradict it?” and (2) “what was the root origin of the condition that led to the decision being made?” about a human life or human embryo?

If governments strictly followed the law of Moses or a compassionate derivative with regard to rape or incest, then one could surmise (especially with current DNA science) that laws would be established that would greatly punish the originators of those crimes against the laws of man and God. I am always kind of surprised that I see no outcry within the condemnation of Mormon compassion toward a victim (the woman) on this delicate subject, that would lead to support within the laws for greatly punishing these offenders against the sanctity of marriage and of human life and of the laws of God, both monetarily (let them pay for the permanent support of the child they caused to come into the world), and with imprisonment for an extended period of time, if not for life. Then, one sees that the root cause would be tremendously curtailed if not stopped entirely within a society.

With regard to a woman dealing with the life of a baby when a doctor has advised an abortion, I have known of many cases where the mother chose to keep the baby including having pre-birth operations on the baby and including being bed-ridden the entire pregnancy, and have not heard of any case through either my wife or anyone I have known where a woman faced that decision and chose to have an abortion. I think it is a hypothetical where the real world is that women choose to believe a miracle will happen and their baby will survive (which has happened many, many times in cases I have known about).

With euthanasia, no law of God was violated for the condition to exist of a terminally ill situation. It is a clear-cut case–we leave the matter in the hands of God, and we learn patience while supporting one who may have a terminally ill condition, and still pray and hope for miracles to occur–which they do, sometimes, but not every time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The prohibition against abortion is based on not interfering with the will of God, as to, where a pre-existing spirit should be born, to whom, and under what circumstances. The death of an unborn otherwise is irrelevant (theologically speaking). A child under the age of 8 is “saved” no matter what.

While Catholic teaching is, a person is created as a whole person, body and soul, Mormon teaching is a person is the shell of a body that has been prepared for an existing spirit. Breathing on this earth being the important event.

An unborn is a shell of a body,which may or may not have a spirit inhabiting it just yet. It may also be their God’s will that an expectant mother experience the struggle decision to terminate a pregnancy. Which term I use on purpose as they aren’t perceiving they are ending a whole hman life. Believing instead, the shell of a human is being destroyed and their God will see that the existing spirit is put into another.

There is not all this to consider in euthanasia. Once a person is born, it is that person’s meaning of existence, to live the life God gave them. Suicide not being something that a person can pray about and get a pass.

 

[CopticChristian]

Soren1,

I suppose that I might as well point out the discrepancy within the logic you presented. It has to do with (1) “what is the ideal society that the gospel hopes to establish, and does this action support it or contradict it?” and (2) “what was the root origin of the condition that led to the decision being made?” about a human life or human embryo?

 

[mark_a]

For people who have not studied Mormonism in detail, I advise discussing with Mormons only two topics: the perpetuity of the priesthood and life issues. That is because these are the areas where the Catholic position is so clear and intelligible that virtually anyone can make the case with only a moderate amount of study. Moreover, neither topic depends on any difficult metaphysical precisions, but are rooted in concrete evidence and moral reasoning that basically anyone can understand.

I agee. I call the Church’s moral teachings, particularly those about contraception, the Catholic slam dunk.

 

[sallybutler]

Soren1,

…

With regard to a woman dealing with the life of a baby when a doctor has advised an abortion, I have known of many cases where the mother chose to keep the baby including having pre-birth operations on the baby and including being bed-ridden the entire pregnancy, and have not heard of any case through either my wife or anyone I have known where a woman faced that decision and chose to have an abortion. I think it is a hypothetical where the real world is that women choose to believe a miracle will happen and their baby will survive (which has happened many, many times in cases I have known about).

I’m not surprised at this. Most women, once they are pregnant, know they have a life inside them. I wouldn’t have some of those tests because I didn’t want to deal with the decision society would force on me. I decided to trust that God would give me only what I could handle.

 

[KathleenGee]

The other problem with euthanasia…is that there are people suffering from mental illness…primarily depression. Those who make decisions to let go of palliative care…which can cover pain and discomfort…are possibly going ahead from the standpoint of mental health issues, and not wanting to lose control or be a burden to anyone.

In my state, the majority are white men and they do not want to lose control. It is not clear either if they are evaluated for mental health issues either.

It is especially unethical to allow a persons to kill themselves while simultaneously suffering from mental illness, as their decision is compromised.

Being a hospice worker myself, I can attest to the fact that the supreme standard we follow is the patient’s comfort and wishes. Over and over again patients and their families are greatly supported and blessed with hospice workers, making the dying experience a sacred part in the passing of life.

Those men who have no hope and go ahead to be euthanized have deprived themselves of the more valuable comfort of accepting, hope-filled hospice workers who could have brought much meaning to the last days of their lives.

Another interesting point is that an article in the Journal of Palliative Care spoke of caregivers still giving hope to those who knew they were dying, and that those who died alone with no love or support experienced alot of pain in spite of comfort care.

 

[ParkerD]

Simplify this paragraph for me.

Terminally ill situation is a situation that is natural without any intervention of another.

Euthanasia is an action of one person on another.

What is a clear cut case in your explanation?

CopticChristian,

I meant that every situation of what would be described as “pre-euthanasia” would mean there was a terminal illness and terminal conditions. So I meant that euthanasia is clearly going against what one would see as “God’s will” because if the person is alive without extensive life support, then it is God’s will that they be alive, period. Those needing to learn from that situation may be those caring for the person, learning patience and compassion. Some are tough cases, no doubt, but clearly euthanasia would never be the right answer.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
I suppose that I might as well point out the discrepancy within the logic you presented. It has to do with (1) “what is the ideal society that the gospel hopes to establish, and does this action support it or contradict it?” and (2) “what was the root origin of the condition that led to the decision being made?” about a human life or human embryo?

If you want to talk about logical coherence, you need to explain how these questions about the ideal society and the origins of problematic conditions reveal a logical discrepancy in my post. I grant these are very relevant matters to consider in the broader discussion of life issues, but they do not happen to answer my particular contention. Specifically, I said that Mormonism has a carpet condemnation on euthanasia, yet contradicts this by using the purposes of euthanasia as a moral justification for some abortions. If you have not addressed that contention, you have not addressed my argument, and I can find no place in your post where you even mention that this is my position let break down its logical underpinnings. Rather than pointing out an actual discrepancy in my logic, you have instead proposed a different set of values to determine our moral judgments. That is a legitimate kind of argument, but it is not to be confused with an actual critique of my logic, which still stands uncontested.

You first ask “what is the ideal society that the gospel hopes to establish, and does this action support it or contradict it?" In the case of euthanizing an infant, this question is not hard to answer. In fact, it is easier to answer when you have a consistent teaching on euthanasia than when you do not; for the self-consistency of Catholic teaching is a consequence of its disciplined grounding in objective moral principle – the kind of principle that can inform a just society. A Christian society (I don’t necessarily mean an ideal society, just a Christian one) knows that man is the purpose of creation, bears a spiritual likeness to God himself, and is the ultimate recipient of all the good that God wills for creation. For this reason, such a society refuses to assert power over human life according to any form of utilitarian calculation. Man is a per se end, and so he cannot be used as a means to any other end. For that reason, society has no right to evaluate one person’s life by criteria based on the private interests of some other person or group, as if a person could be a means. This is most poignantly true of innocent life, and it shows among other things that the gospel calls mothers to an heroically self-sacrificing attitude towards their children, and likewise calls the whole of society to assist mothers by every moral means to fulfill the call to care for their children, for the good of the child is the good of the mother. Euthanizing an infant to save the trouble of dealing with a serious illness, or to put the child out of his misery the same way one might an animal, has no place in the values of such a society. Respecting t hose values will often involve painful decisions, but the gospel is not here to save us from pain; it is here to teach us love, especially for the weak and dying.

Your second question: “What was the root origin of the condition that led to the decision being made?” This is what you spend most of your post talking about, and I will deal with your development of the question piece by piece. My general answer for starters is that if one takes the sanctity of human life as a primary value (as Mormon teaching claims to do) then “How did this come to be?” is a secondary, not primary question. Rather, the primary question is “What is the nature of this action?” If the action is to take the life of an innocent person whose very being is invested with inherent sanctity, then the answer is “murder.” The fact that people may be faced with difficulties through no fault of their own, or by the fault of someone else does not constitute a license to solve the problem by any available means.

This is not to say that inquiry into causes does not matter, just that is doesn’t matter in the way your you are applying it, as a primary question. Here’s how it really works: When we have a variety of options before us, and all of those options are licit and moral, then we may favor one moral option over another moral option because one takes more account of the causes that demand us to make the decision. In this way, concern for causes enters into serious moral deliberation, but only when we presuppose a range of moral choices. Thus its importance is not as a standard for which types of choices are intrinsically ethical or not. It is a later consideration to determine which ethical options are most ethical. It applies only after matters of absolute right and wrong have been settled. Therefore, unless we have already settled the question of whether euthanizing an unborn child is intrinsically ethical, the question of causes is premature. If you could show that it is ethical or at least potentially ethical either to keep or abort a dying fetus, then asking about the causes of distress would become important, but that would presuppose the very conclusion that I am calling in question.