Mormons: When does human life begin?

[Chris-WA]

And why do you ignore the context, and why do you twist the words completely out of context? Who said anything about “the Jews believing in the pre-existence”? The context suggests that the disciples of Jesus knew abut the pre-existence, presumably because Jesus must have told them. The question asked and answer given can only make sense if they believed in the pre-existence, and if Jesus agreed with them. There is no other way in which that question and that answer could be understood.

zerinus

The Disciples were all believing Jews, so I assumed your claim that the disciples believed in pre-existence was an indication of Jewish belief at that time. But you have clarified that the disciples, not the Jews in general, believed in pre-existence. You have made a huge assumption that Jesus taught this doctrine to them based on your interpretation of the context. You should never assume Jesus taught a new doctrine like this without more specific mention of such teaching in scripture. We have no record of such a teaching, and for you to assume such a thing is a giant leap to make all on your own. You have a habit of retroactively projecting modern-day Mormon doctrines back on the early Church with very shaky scriptural support at best. The LDS Church, in general, does the same thing with a lot of the bible. It takes parts of certain passages, bypasses their central meaning, and creates whole new meanings from obsure phrases to support their modern day doctrines. It’s a perfect example of the problem of re-interpretation of scripture 2000 years after the fact. It’s why we have thousands of Protestant denominations, Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and the list goes on and on–each one of them claiming (in modern times) to have the right interpretation. If they only knew that Christ left us a Church to interpret scripture authoritatively and guide us into all truth until the end of time.

 

[Jodi]

It is what they believe you do not have to believe the same thing but now hopefully you have some insight into why they hold the positions they do on abortion. It helps if you believe in a spiritual pre-existance and other lds teachings. I like the catholic concept of life beginning at conception. As a woman you get to know your little one even before birth and often their busy hours in the womb become their busy times outside. I do believe life begins at conception. I could believe this and still be lds as the authorities have not issued a definative rulling on this issue.

 

[Chris-WA]

It is what they believe you do not have to believe the same thing but now hopefully you have some insight into why they hold the positions they do on abortion. It helps if you believe in a spiritual pre-existance and other lds teachings. I like the catholic concept of life beginning at conception. As a woman you get to know your little one even before birth and often their busy hours in the womb become their busy times outside. I do believe life begins at conception. I could believe this and still be lds as the authorities have not issued a definative rulling on this issue.

Does any woman out there who has been pregnant really believe that her baby doesn’t have a soul while it’s in the womb?

 

[zerinus]

The Disciples were all believing Jews, so I assumed your claim that the disciples believed in pre-existence was an indication of Jewish belief at that time. But you have clarified that the disciples, not the Jews in general, believed in pre-existence. You have made a huge assumption that Jesus taught this doctrine to them based on your interpretation of the context. You should never assume Jesus taught a new doctrine like this without more specific mention of such teaching in scripture. We have no record of such a teaching, and for you to assume such a thing is a giant leap to make all on your own. You have a habit of retroactively projecting modern-day Mormon doctrines back on the early Church with very shaky scriptural support at best. The LDS Church, in general, does the same thing with a lot of the bible. It takes parts of certain passages, bypasses their central meaning, and creates whole new meanings from obsure phrases to support their modern day doctrines. It’s a perfect example of the problem of re-interpretation of scripture 2000 years after the fact. It’s why we have thousands of Protestant denominations, Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and the list goes on and on–each one of them claiming (in modern times) to have the right interpretation. If they only knew that Christ left us a Church to interpret scripture authoritatively and guide us into all truth until the end of time.

Nonsense. I repeat what I said: “The question asked and answer given can only make sense if they believed in the pre-existence, and if Jesus agreed with them. There is no other way in which that question and that answer could be understood.”

Belief in the pre-existence was not such an unheard of idea as you suggest. It was well known in the early church, and Origen and many early Christian theologians believed and taught it.

zerinus

 

[Enoch]

zerinus:

Perhaps you missed my question earlier, so I will ask it again. What exactly is it that makes a zygote any less of a human life than you?

I would hate to think you are just avoiding me

 

[Good_Daughter]

I have no idea. I doubt if anyone does, including the Catholic Church.

zerinus

I know that a human being is alive and receives a soul at conception. I prayed to the Holy Spirit to know if these things were true. The Holy Spirit let me know that they were true. I had a burning in my breast to confirm it was the Holy Spirit telling me this, and yes, I am quite sincerere.

As I am a Catholic, this is off the topic of Mormonism, sorry.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The lds believe that the spirit and body truely become one and sealed together at birth. There are so many stories told in lds circles of mothers who have had multiple miscarriages to feel that the son or daughter that they were not able to carry to term came to them at a later date. Under this belief system the spirit is redirected to another time or place in which it will be sealed to a physical body. Abortion is still not used casually because mormons believe that providing bodies for gods spirit children is important and also believe that there is a great many waiting for their turn for life. If you do not believe that the spirit and body become unified until birth abortion is not murder of a living soul. This is a different belief system than what the catholics believe. So what where the lds stand on abortion is modified by this belief system.

Thanks, Jodi. Do you know if these beliefs are actually based on anything?

 

[Good_Daughter]

When it comes to knowing the ways of god, we are all fallible: catholic, mormon, protestant etc. No one is infallible in the ways of god.

If we were infallible, we would be perfect or at least on the road to assured perfection.

One may be infallible in the ways of God if God chooses to give that gift. Wouldn’t you say the prophets, at least in some instances, have spoken infallibly and their words been made doctrine? It is best not to limit God in the gifts he chooses to give.

Infallibility and impeccability are two different things. A person could be given the gift of infallibility in some things and still sin. Hopefully we are all on the road to assured perfection.

 

[Jodi]

Good daughter you ask if these beliefs are based on anything. I will have to interpret that question to are the lds beliefs based on any scriptures they share with the roman catholic church. Zerimus has already stated the scriptures that they use from the cannon to back up this and other claims but the majority of the scriptures backing up this set of beliefs come from the other books lds members use as scriptures. Namely the Pearl of great price, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. I do not agree with Zerimus on his interpretation of the cannon scriptures, but if I did I would probably still be lds. If you use the lds scriptures there are many more revelations and passages that would back up this common belief of the members. Hope this helps.

 

[zerinus]

I know that a human being is alive and receives a soul at conception. . . .

That depends on how you define “life;” or what you mean by “being alive”. A fertilized egg is obviously “alive,” in the same sense in which an amoeba is alive, or any other cell in the human body alive. It is capable of receiving nourishment, and dividing and growing into an embryo. But that does not give it the same sanctity of life that one accords to a mature human being. If I killed an amoeba, or injured one of the cells in my body, I wouldn’t consider committing murder. In fact, I wouldn’t consider myself committing any crime at all. Even if I killed a fly (which is a much more complex organism than an amoeba), I wouldn’t consider it committing some kind of a crime.

Another definition of “life,” or “being alive” is a more philosophical one. It is defined as the state of being conscious of ones environment, and to intelligently respond to stimuli received from that environment. In that sense of the term, an amoeba is certainly “alive;” but a fly would be even more “alive” than an amoeba. It has a higher and better quality of life. A dog would be more “alive” than a fly, and a man more than a dog. This definition of “life” or “being alive” seems to come closest to how the scriptures define “life”. The scriptures define the highest quality of life (which is eternal life) that any being can enjoy with knowing God (John 17:3). In other word, to be “alive” consists of knowing something or being conscious of something. The higher that level of consciousness, the greater the quality of “life”. If some being is incapable of knowing anything at all, then it is dead. It has no life at all. An amoeba has some conscious of its environment; but that consciousness is so low that for all practical purposes it may be regarded as being dead. It is no crime killing an amoeba. A cat, however, enjoys a different kind of life. I think that killing a cat would be a crime, unless for some reason it became necessary (e.g. if it had a contagious disease, or if it was so badly injured that killing it would be an act of mercy).

So how should we define the quality of life an embryo in the womb? And how does that affect our decision to abort it or not to abort it? A fertilized egg is not conscious of its environment, is incapable of experiencing pleasure or pain, and is certainly incapable of “knowing” anything or anybody. As it grows and develops, however, it gradually acquire some of those capabilities; but in the initial stages it has none of them. It is not equivalent to a fully grown human being. Does that mean that killing it is OK? No! I say that killing it is a crime because it has the potential to develop into a fully mature human being. It is on a certain pre-planned rout that God has determined for it to become a full human being. God has placed it on a certain conveyor belt, so to speak, to lead it to that stage of development. When we terminate it, we are interfering with what God has planned to do with it. In that sense it is a crime—and a very serious one. However, I don’t think that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother—or that killing it is identical to murder. There is a qualitative difference. The natural world in which we live is imperfect. It is capable throwing clangers. Things can go wrong in it. Pregnancies can go wrong; and safeguarding the health and wellbeing of the mother is of paramount importance. Terminating a pregnancy to further that end is a must and a moral obligation. That is no crime. Abortion is not equivalent to murder—as serious a crime though as it is (when carried out for the wrong reasons). That is how I personally tend to look at it.

As I am a Catholic, this is off the topic of Mormonism, sorry.

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Thanks, Jodi. Do you know if these beliefs are actually based on anything?

Those are hearsay and speculation and gossip, not belief.

zerinus

 

[Enoch]

Zerinus

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over your twisted logic. According to your logic if someone kills me in my sleep it would be less of a crime than if they killed me when I was awake. So that must mean my life automatically become less valuable every night when I fall asleep because I am less aware of my environment.

A fetus cannot become anything but an infant and an infant cannot become anything but an adult. According to your logic killing a 10 year old is more of a murder than killing a 5 year old, and killing a one year old is more serious than killing a one month old.

BTW… All you have done is stated that you fall into the fascist ideal that some humans are worth more than others, but haven’t been able to give a satisfactory explanation exactly what qualities it takes for one human to be worth more or less than the other.

However, your response doesn’t really surprise me considering the common belief that some humans are better than others throughout mormon history.

 

[Lehl]

Zerinus

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over your twisted logic. According to your logic if someone kills me in my sleep it would be less of a crime than if they killed me when I was awake. So that must mean my life automatically become less valuable every night when I fall asleep because I am less aware of my environment.

A fetus cannot become anything but an infant and an infant cannot become anything but an adult. According to your logic killing a 10 year old is more of a murder than killing a 5 year old, and killing a one year old is more serious than killing a one month old.

BTW… All you have done is stated that you fall into the fascist ideal that some humans are worth more than others, but haven’t been able to give a satisfactory explanation exactly what qualities it takes for one human to be worth more or less than the other.

However, your response doesn’t really surprise me considering the common belief that some humans are better than others throughout mormon history.

WELL SAID!

 

[Enoch]

WELL SAID!

Thank you, and sometimes you have to excuse zerinus. I think his two favorite sources for Catholic teachings are Google and old Chick tracts.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Good daughter you ask if these beliefs are based on anything. I will have to interpret that question to are the lds beliefs based on any scriptures they share with the roman catholic church. Zerimus has already stated the scriptures that they use from the cannon to back up this and other claims but the majority of the scriptures backing up this set of beliefs come from the other books lds members use as scriptures. Namely the Pearl of great price, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. I do not agree with Zerimus on his interpretation of the cannon scriptures, but if I did I would probably still be lds. If you use the lds scriptures there are many more revelations and passages that would back up this common belief of the members. Hope this helps.

I was wondering if the LDS based the pre-existence beliefs you detailed on our (Catholic and Mormon) common scripture, the more “Mormon” scripture or if they were just invented to provide “comfort”, as whyme might describe it. I think you answered my question, thanks.

I’m sure a million people have welcomed you home to the Catholic Church already. Here’s one more for you: Welcome!

 

[Good_Daughter]

That depends on how you define “life;” or what you mean by “being alive”. A fertilized egg is obviously “alive,” in the same sense in which an amoeba is alive, or any other cell in the human body alive. It is capable of receiving nourishment, and dividing and growing into an embryo. But that does not give it the same sanctity of life that one accords to a mature human being. If I killed an amoeba, or injured one of the cells in my body, I wouldn’t consider committing murder. In fact, I wouldn’t consider myself committing any crime at all. Even if I killed a fly (which is a much more complex organism than an amoeba), I wouldn’t consider it committing some kind of a crime.

Another definition of “life,” or “being alive” is a more philosophical one. It is defined as the state of being conscious of ones environment, and to intelligently respond to stimuli received from that environment. In that sense of the term, an amoeba is certainly “alive;” but a fly would be even more “alive” than an amoeba. It has a higher and better quality of life. A dog would be more “alive” than a fly, and a man more than a dog. This definition of “life” or “being alive” seems to come closest to how the scriptures define “life”. The scriptures define the highest quality of life (which is eternal life) that any being can enjoy with knowing God (John 17:3). In other word, to be “alive” consists of knowing something or being conscious of something. The higher that level of consciousness, the greater the quality of “life”. If some being is incapable of knowing anything at all, then it is dead. It has no life at all. An amoeba has some conscious of its environment; but that consciousness is so low that for all practical purposes it may be regarded as being dead. It is no crime killing an amoeba. A cat, however, enjoys a different kind of life. I think that killing a cat would be a crime, unless for some reason it became necessary (e.g. if it had a contagious disease, or if it was so badly injured that killing it would be an act of mercy).

So how should we define the quality of life an embryo in the womb? And how does that affect our decision to abort it or not to abort it? A fertilized egg is not conscious of its environment, is incapable of experiencing pleasure or pain, and is certainly incapable of “knowing” anything or anybody. As it grows and develops, however, it gradually acquire some of those capabilities; but in the initial stages it has none of them. It is not equivalent to a fully grown human being. Does that mean that killing it is OK? No! I say that killing it is a crime because it has the potential to develop into a fully mature human being. It is on a certain pre-planned rout that God has determined for it to become a full human being. God has placed it on a certain conveyor belt, so to speak, to lead it to that stage of development. When we terminate it, we are interfering with what God has planned to do with it. In that sense it is a crime—and a very serious one. However, I don’t think that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother—or that killing it is identical to murder. There is a qualitative difference. The natural world in which we live is imperfect. It is capable throwing clangers. Things can go wrong in it. Pregnancies can go wrong; and safeguarding the health and wellbeing of the mother is of paramount importance. Terminating a pregnancy to further that end is a must and a moral obligation. That is no crime. Abortion is not equivalent to murder—as serious a crime though as it is (when carried out for the wrong reasons). That is how I personally tend to look at it.

zerinus

Interesting post, it sheds alot of light on my original question, thank you.

Theoretically, according to your personal outlook, which would be the greater crime, killing a day-old human or killing a seeing-eye dog that provides essential service to the blind?

 

[majick275]

Based on zerinus reasoning it’s not a big deal to kill a severely brain damaged human, especially if they were born that way as they cannot develop into a mature human being by his definition. If they were killed to harvest their organs to save the life of a fully developed human that might even be seen as a “moral obligation” using this criteria. This is what listening to false prophets teaches you.

 

[zerinus]

Interesting post, it sheds alot of light on my original question, thank you.

Theoretically, according to your personal outlook, which would be the greater crime, killing a day-old human or killing a seeing-eye dog that provides essential service to the blind?

Killing a human being is always a greater crime, because God has placed a special value on human life:

Genesis 9:

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

But you are asking the wrong question, and nitpicking. That is not how I would analyze the above statement. The correct analysis of it is as follows:

1. Terminating an unborn fetus is not equivalent to full blown murder. Even the Bible recognizes that. For example, under the old Mosaic law, the penulty for murder as death; but the penalty for causing a woman to abort her fetus was a fine, not capital punishment:

Exodus 21:

22 If men strive , and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her , and yet no mischief follow : he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow , then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Thus according to the Bible, causing a fetus to abort is not equivalent to full blown murder.

1. The life of the mother is of greater value than the life of the fetus. Were there is a conflict of interest, the life, safety, and wellbeing of the mother comes first, and is of paramount importance.
2. Aborting a baby (for convenience) is undoubtedly a grave sin; but there are certain mitigating circumstances where it would be permissible. The LDS Church has identified the following areas where it may legitimately be performed (subject to prayer and divine confirmation):

a) To protect the health and safety of the Mother (as determined by competent medical authority).

b) In cases of rape or incest.

c) When it is known through medical science that the baby would not survive beyond birth.

I believe that these decisions are correct and reached by inspiration, and meet the approval of the Lord in all cases as it is correctly applied

zerinus

 

[majick275]

wow…mosaic law…hard rules for a hard people according to Jesus. Do we still want to by bound by those rules today? (Jesus said no) why that would allow for debt slavery, stoning people to death for something as minor as being disrespectful to parents. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and if you are in the military why you can just take a wife by force. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) but hey abortion is just a fine so go for it.

of course if you read Deuteronomy 13 then we would have had to stone many of the LDS prophets. It would be our “moral obligation”. Can’t you see the difference that Jesus made? We don’t do what the people of Moses did. We can do better. We should be doing what Jesus taught and that is NOT abortion!

 

[Good_Daughter]

But you are asking the wrong question, and nitpicking. That is not how I would analyze the above statement. The correct analysis of it is as follows:

1. Terminating an unborn fetus is not equivalent to full blown murder. Even the Bible recognizes that. For example, under the old Mosaic law, the penulty for murder as death; but the penalty for causing a woman to abort her fetus was a fine, not capital punishment:

Exodus 21:

22 If men strive , and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her , and yet no mischief follow : he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow , then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Thus according to the Bible, causing a fetus to abort is not equivalent to full blown murder.

My question was fair and applicable. Concern regarding the sanctity of life is not nitpicking.

Directly terminating any human, including the preborn, is murder. Even the Bible recognizes this in Gen 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”. Remember?

Your quote of Mosaic Law seems misplaced as majick has stated. You may also misunderstand what the law really intended. If men “…hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her” (Ex 21:22), yes, they encounter a penalty. There is however, no indication they caused her fruit to “depart from her” intentionally, is there? The fine (rather than the death penalty) may be due to unintentional or indirect harm to the baby.

Please consider this excellent interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-23:

22 If men strive [ie. fight], and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [ie. she gives birth prematurely], and yet no mischief follow [ie. no one, neither mother nor child, is killed or injured in the process]: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow [ie. someone, mother or baby, is killed or injured], then thou shalt give life for life

Thus, according to the Bible, causing a preborn child to abort is equivalent to full blown murder.

This reading is more in keeping with Heavenly Father’s regard for human life as revealed in Genesis 9:6, don’t you think? What led you to believe Mosaic Law was concerned only with the safety of adult humans and not the preborn? The text you quoted certainly does not give that impression.