Questions for Your Notre Dame Mormon

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

In the case of rape, since the action was not voluntary by one party, but was forced upon her against her wishes, then she must also have some say on whether she wishes to carry through with the consequences of that involuntary act or not.

The rape itself was an involuntary act on the victim’s part, true. For this violation of her rights there are legal means of recourse of which she can avail herself. The conception was a separate and distinct act that occurred sometime following the rape. She also did not consent to conception. Because she did not consent to this separate act (which was a consequence of the first), you think she is now morally justified in killing the human being inside of her all the way up to delivery (but not after, even if the delivery is premature).

But surely my given examples still hold, since the contracepting mothers did not consent to their pregnancies, since the would-be parents did not consent to having girls or Down’s syndrome children. Simply because they engaged in a separate related act which happened to be voluntary, how does that change the moral analysis of the killing of an unborn human being?

Finally, you claim that the woman waived her rights in her person by engaging in a voluntary act with her spouse, and yet you say that she did NOT waive her rights to kill a “defective” unborn child. What is your basis for parsing her rights? Perhaps it would be more efficient if you simply defined what “rights” you think the woman has. Is it the right to control her procreation? Is it the right to control what happens to her body? What “rights” are you talking about? Unless you define what “rights” you (and the LDS church) claim these mothers have, I’m afraid this will be an exercise of trying to trap water in a corner. Please be explicit.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[majick275]

So amgid, when does life begin? If it’s at birth then no abortion is ever wrong because it’s just a mass of tissues. If it’s at conception then no abortion is ever right because it’s the intentional shedding of innocent blood.

You seem to be taking the position that it’s somewhere in between that we can’t clearly define so we counsel and pray and hope that we excised a mass of tissues instead of murderinig a baby. I would certainly challenge that. Your own personal interpretation appears faulty as well. Where do you get these beliefs that the uunborn have no consciousness or feel no pain? These have been PROVEN in numerous medical studies to be incorrect. Fetuses act and react and feel. I am surprised to hear this from an LDS.

as to your apostasy theory… It has NEVER been the pattern. The Bible is very clear in showing us that God has NEVER left the entire earth without his authoratative guidance. His “church” has always been present. What of the millions of people born during this “apostasy” who spen their entire lives serving Jesus Christ…they weren’t true believers? priesthood leaders who called and ordained others through the guidance of the Holy Spirit just started calling apostates, died and left the world with no valid priesthood? please… there is no pattern, history scriptural suport for that ever being the case and it flies in the face of what Jesus taught. Jesus set up the church correctly he didn’t need Joseph Smith Jr. to come and “fix” it after it “failed”.

repent and be baptized.

 

[PaulDupre]

So how do they use the Bible if they don’t believe in the God that inspired it ?

Mormons do believe that God inspired the original manuscripts (as do Christians). But Mormons teach that the bible has been thoroughly corrupted (mostly by the Catholic Church) and so is currently unreliable for teaching sound doctrine. They teach that the bible is missing several books of scripture and hundreds of verses have been deleted. They also teach that the bible is full of faulty translations, additions, distortions and outright forgeries.

They only use the bible to try to appear Christian, cherry-picking a few verses here and there.

Paul

 

[amills]

zerinus thank you for your response.

The Apostasy was not an event, it was a process. With the death of the Lord’s Apostles, and the loss of direct communication with the heavens, the church drifted, both doctrinally as well as procedurally and organizationally, and went into apostasy. This does not mean that there were no more good Christians left in the world; it means that the divine authority of the church was lost

Your response at first glance looks good. However, let’s take this a bit deeper. If it was not an event but rather a process we should be able to follow this process through historical documents. So - could you perhaps give some specific dates through which this process took place. For example, we know approximately when the Protestant Reformation took place and we can define exactly what the doctrinal differences were. I would think logically we should be able to do the same thing with following an apostacy that took place over time. We should be able to trace the doctrinal changes through the historical documents. Could you also give some examples of documents through which we could see how the doctrines changed over time.

When one Apostle died, another was chosen to succeed him. It is when that institution disappeared from the earth, and the church’s link with the heavens was lost, that the Apostasy began to set in. By the Apostasy we mean the loss of divine quthority to lead the church. We don’t mean that there were no more good Christians left.

So are you saying there was a gradual loss of the communication with heaven? Maybe you can explain more what you mean by communication with heaven. Did they talk to God directly? We do know that in the Catholic Church the process of ordination has continued since the first Apostles. This really doesn’t make much sense to me - kind of sounds like Christ went through a lot of suffering for nothing.

There are many doctrines of the Catholic Church that we do not agree with, infant baptisms being one example.

Well, using this example we should be able to trace some sort of change through the historical documents. Where would you suggest I look?

 

[FCEGM]

. . . I am surprised to hear this from an LDS. . . .

I’m not surprised. It seems such an approach to the issue of abortion must almost be de rigeur for a LDS in order to sustain belief in a church that is less-than-certain on the subject.

 

[christianley]

Not to change the subject too much, but I don’t really find any evidence for an apostasy beyond the imagination of those who claim there was one. That is all in the eye of the beholder.

The more important question when discussing Mormonism is the foundation of the Mormon Church. Even if there was an apostasy, the Mormon Church is not in any position to claim they are the restoration of God’s Church on earth. All of their early documents fail the test of credulity. It is beyond me how anyone can believe the Book of Mormon with what we now know about ancient America. The Book of Mormon falls short completely and there simply is no good reason to believe in its truthfulness. There is nothing to suggest that native Americans descended from ancient Hebrews. My relationship with Christ surely cannot be measured by belief in the Book of Mormon.

 

[zerinus]

Are you saying, as I am a Catholic, that I am not a “true believer” of Christ?

No, I am saying the opposite. I am distinguishing between the ordinary common believers in Christ, who have had a simple faith in Him, such as yourself, and the organizational establishment of the church.

zerinus

 

[NotreDameMormon]

My Friends,

I have not “left the building.” But thanks for your concern. I had a couple of meetings yesterday, an activity last night, and a job interview today. I have been busy. However, I am happy to resume our discussions.

Based on some feedback, I think we may have a solution to our troubles here.

Based on the discussion and your personal messages (thank you all, by the way), I think we can adapt the structure of these question/answer and discussion attempts to allow for a more accurate discussion of LDS and Catholic doctrines.

I accept responsibility for my part in any miscommunications or inaccuracies in the responses I gave. While I tried to qualify my ability to respond, I could have done more to ensure an accurate and more authoritative response was given, particularly by taking time to locate and post the authorities from which my positions and understanding were derived. Unfortunately, time was a factor.

I believe my attempts to answer every question and to do so quickly and off the top of my head have proven to not be of much benefit to anyone. It is hard to debate and discuss an abstraction or summary that is not demonstrated in actual Church authority, particularly when we want to compare that position to other statements that may or may not also be taken as authority.

In order to accomplish a more accurate statement and dialog in the limited time I have to offer this forum, I will take questions regarding the LDS religion in the form of personal messages. Every weekend I will review those questions and select the most prevalent question or topic and post a response Sunday night. Before posting the response, I will research the official Church statements or positions on the topic from its handbooks, scriptures, manuals, etc., and include the citations or links in the response. If there is no official position on point, I will pull quotes from various authorities relating to the topic and attempt to summarize, as best I can, the LDS view given those statements. If I am unable to find any statements on point, I will give my own understanding of the LDS teachings (identifying it as such) given my experience and cite supporting authority.

I think this will work to everyone’s satisfaction. The postings should more accurately state the official LDS view and provide all that is needed for an accurate discussion of the Catholic view of the LDS belief (or an attack on my characterization of it). This ought to work out well for the edification of those who seek edification and sport for those who seek sport, light for those who seek the truth and an opportunity for all to shine the light of truth!

So, once again, I am accepting all questions you may have regarding the LDS faith and religion. Send them to me in the form of a personal message. I may not repoly to your particular question initially, but hopefully we will get to it eventually. I appreciate your patience.

I will post a response to the questions Sunday night under the thread, “Your Notre Dame Mormon on ( topic) .”

Thank you, again, for your questions, comments, and good will. May God bless our discussions with His Spirit.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you Ryan for taking the time to give a lengthy reply to my post. In response, I have to say that I don’t really have a lot to add to what I had previously said. My previous arguments I believe are still valid. I agree that abortion is a very serious sin. The LDS Church does too. But I refuse to put it on the same level as murder; and I believe that in very rare and limited circumstances it can be permissible.

zerinus

 

[BJRumph]

Good to see you back, NDM.

While I appreciate the intent of your most recent post, I cannot say I personally accept it at the intended “face (superficial) value” you were aiming for.

If you would demonstrate your sincerity with a breif response; **could you please point to a single topic discussed upon this particular thread that addresses anything but a well known doctrine of mormons **among mormons who are either “Active” members, have read any of the SW, or have ever taught/heard the Missionary or New Member discussions?

Granted, if you are a newbie, I can believe you have never heard of the much hidden “Blood Atonement” teachings of BY, as you (if this is the case) have likely never actually read the Journal of Discourses except for the empty quotations extracted for the teaching manuals. However, that topic alone was very cursorial or tangental to the discussions otherwise found here. As such, it is the only exception that I find credible to “excuse”; nor was it a subject of your responses (which means you cannot claim “responsibility” for any misunderstandings regarding it).

I’d like to take it at face value. Unfortunately, my experience, and the particular phrasing used, will not allow it. Please, prove me wrong in this. It would be more beneficial for the sake of Truth for me to be wrong on this particular, and so I’d love to be able to admit my error.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Good to see you back, NDM.

While I appreciate the intent of your most recent post, I cannot say I personally accept it at the intended “face (superficial) value” you were aiming for.

If you would demonstrate your sincerity with a breif response; could you please point to a single topic discussed upon this particular thread that addresses anything but a well known doctrine of mormons among mormons who are either “Active” members, have read any of the SW, or have ever taught/heard the Missionary or New Member discussions?

Granted, if you are a newbie, I can believe you have never heard of the much hidden “Blood Atonement” teachings of BY, as you (if this is the case) have likely never actually read the Journal of Discourses except for the empty quotations extracted for the teaching manuals. However, that topic alone was very cursorial or tangental to the discussions otherwise found here. As such, it is the only exception that I find credible to “excuse”; nor was it a subject of your responses (which means you cannot claim “responsibility” for any misunderstandings regarding it).

I’d like to take it at face value. Unfortunately, my experience, and the particular phrasing used, will not allow it. Please, prove me wrong in this. It would be more beneficial for the sake of Truth for me to be wrong on this particular, and so I’d love to be able to admit my error.

You’ll have to forgive me, but I am not sure I understand the question. I thought you (among others) accused me of being “ignorant or lying about [my] company’s teachings.” I am just trying to give everybody what they want, namely, answers about LDS beliefs from a believing LDS (cited to authority) for a more meaningful and accurate discussion.

 

[BJRumph]

Sigh.

And here I was going to tell you not to bother, as I had already made my point, and people are going to fall for your tactics regardless.

Then you go and prove everything I have said about your present behavior.

You claim to accept responsibility for the confusion “you” caused in your responses, on the basis of “While I tried to qualify my ability to respond, I could have done more to ensure an accurate and more authoritative response was given, particularly by taking time to locate and post the authorities from which my positions and understanding were derived.”

In response, I asked, and even highlighted the question so as to be unmistakable, to point out a single instance within this thread wherein a question was asked that could not have been answered directly utilizing the simple common knowledge that every mormon possesses every Sunday at sacrament meeting.

*No one asked you for citations, and as you can see from our discussion with AMGID, we don’t really need them.
*No one mentioned or asked anything that every mormon already “knows to be true”.

Furthermore, and in particular, you did, in an early response to my own objections to your false assertations of a common Christology, demonstrate that you were, indeed, in full possession of the necessary facts needed to avoid the very falsehood you promulgated.

All this shows, that contrary to your superficial assertions for “taking responsibility” or apologizing, or accurately representing your religion’s beliefs, or even your intentions, that you are still acting in the same deceitful manner as I had originally called you on.

Finally, your demonstrated mastery of the English language, clearly noted in all of your articulate responses, also calls into question your inability to understand the very clearly, if uncomfortable, question of my own. It is stretching credulity to assert you cannot understand what I was asking.

Your dodgeful response only confirms what I have said, and am saying about your past, present, and likely future behaviors.

Would you trust a theif that you caught to never steal again, regardless of how heart-felt, emotional, convincing, repentant, articulate, emphatic, ect. his cries of “I’m sorry I got caught!” ?

Neither would I.

Now, as I was going to say when I logged on. My point, even more so now (thanks NDM), has been made and proven. If others want to believe you, simply because you possess a talent for words, rather than the truthfulness of them, then I cannot stop them. I have pointed out the truth, not much more I can do. To continue on in this capacity is to devolve into the very brow-beating that RyanL asserted much earlier. I still prefer the Spotlight to the club.

So, lucky for all, I have served my purpose here, and you don’t need to worry about me interrupting your missionary work again here. The teachings of God don’t allow me to wish you luck in your endeavors, but I can pray that you eventually embrace the Truth, as that is where you are going to find Him.

 

[zerinus]

Your response at first glance looks good. However, let’s take this a bit deeper. If it was not an event but rather a process we should be able to follow this process through historical documents. So - could you perhaps give some specific dates through which this process took place. For example, we know approximately when the Protestant Reformation took place and we can define exactly what the doctrinal differences were. I would think logically we should be able to do the same thing with following an apostacy that took place over time. We should be able to trace the doctrinal changes through the historical documents. Could you also give some examples of documents through which we could see how the doctrines changed over time.

By the Apostasy we mean the loss of divine authority by the church; and that is a spiritual phenomenon that does not leave a historical record behind it. If you insist that I should fix a date on it, I would say that it occurred when the last Apostle died.

So are you saying there was a gradual loss of the communication with heaven?

No, when the Apostolic leadership of the church died or were martyred, the communication ceased, the authority no longer existed, and the Church began do drift into doctrinal and procedural errors.

Maybe you can explain more what you mean by communication with heaven. Did they talk to God directly?

Absolutely! That is exactly what I mean. That is the power by which the church was led when the Apostles were alive and were leading it.

We do know that in the Catholic Church the process of ordination has continued since the first Apostles.

Nominally maybe; but the Apostles held the keys of the authority over the priesthood of the whole church. When they died, the keys were lost, and the priesthood of the church no longer possessed the legitimacy.

This really doesn’t make much sense to me - kind of sounds like Christ went through a lot of suffering for nothing.

Not at all. The true Church has been re-established with all the divine authority that it once possessed, with the keys to bind on earth and bind in heaven, and loose on erth and loose in heaven; and with the authority to perform ordinances which extend beyond the veil of death.

Well, using this example we should be able to trace some sort of change through the historical documents. Where would you suggest I look?

Spiritual apostasy does not leave a historical document behind. The historical document of it is to be seen in the record of the infighting, the controversies, and the divisions that arose in the church shortly after the Apostles died, and has continued to increase ever since.

zerinus

 

[kellie]

No, I am saying the opposite. I am distinguishing between the ordinary common believers in Christ, who have had a simple faith in Him, such as yourself, and the organizational establishment of the church.

zerinus

You really confuse me

I am a true believer and a Catholic.

But Catholics aren’t true believers?? Is that what you’re saying?

Due to it’s organizational establishment???

Why?

And isn’t the LDS an organizational establishment??

 

[majick275]

Despite amgids failed attempts to justify Joseph Smith’s attempt to usurp priestly authority the truth should be obvious.

NO gloabal apostasy ever occured. LDS say that this a pattern yet the bible is very clear that at no time has God EVER left the world without his divine guidance. He has always had his authorized servants on the earth leading his people. From Adam through John the Bible shows an unbroken record. That’s sacred scripture. We have historical verification of sacred tradition showing an unbroken line from Jesus calling Peter to the clergy of today having that same authority.

The very idea of Jesus himself estblishing a church in person that failed so completely after a single generation that all of it’s authority was removed for over 1500 years is preposterous. The dodge that somehow faithful christians still existed over that time period but their faith was inadequate to maintain authority and communication with God is equally ridiculous. either the people apostatized or they did not. If they did then they weren’t faithful if they did not then they couldn’t lose the authority they had been given. We know from historical record that what was taught didn’t change nor has it now. So what apostasy?

That’s just a pathetic excuse for Joseph Smith to make up his own doctrine. The ironic thing is that his own doctrine changed during his own lifetime, and in less than a generation after his death his own church had strayed far from what he taught. The LDS church today doesn’t have tbhe same structure, teachings or practices that it did even 30 years ago. There’s your apostasy.

on abortion… how can it be a serious sin that is okay because of the mother’s “rights”? only one who has bought into the LDS concept of “good sin” (The fall of Adam and Eve) could even consider “justifiable” sin. Killing a fetus is shedding innocent blood. how is that not the same as murder? unless you believe the false idea that a fetus isn’t “alive” but then if it’s just a lump of tisue how is “excising” it a sin? do we need prayer and counseling to have warts removed? of course not. That’s because we should know that the unborn ARE humans and thus the same as any other children in the eyes of God. to use amgids reasoning we could “prayerfully” euthanize severely disabled children and comatose adults since they don’t feel pain or think or meet any of his other criteria for being entitled to life. Is is just a “forgivable sin” that sometimes is even justified for families whose loved ones have been born disabled or even closer to the example given what if a drunk driver injured them so severely that they are in a persistent vegetative state? is it okay to make the survivors care for them? don’t they have "rights? what if a rapist is killed by the police and leaves a small child behind with no fasmily? should the child be killed so that society doesn’t have to raise a rapists child? don’t we have rights?

these ethical dodges are similar to those that Joseph Smith used to justify his adultery and other grivous sins. Stop the blasphemy and leave behind the false doctrines of the LDS.

 

[Chris-WA]

zerinus;:

Nominally maybe; but the Apostles held the keys of the authority over the priesthood of the whole church. When they died, the keys were lost, and the priesthood of the church no longer possessed the legitimacy.

Why do you think the keys were lost when the Apostles died? Why don’t you think they set up a system for the keys to be passed on? Did they just forget?

Spiritual apostasy does not leave a historical document behind. The historical document of it is to be seen in the record of the infighting, the controversies, and the divisions that arose in the church shortly after the Apostles died, and has continued to increase ever since

Did not the same thing happen in the early LDS church? You certainly wouldn’t argue that the LDS church lost its authority because of the infighting, controversies, and divisions that arose already within the lifetime of Joseph Smith, and grew thereafter.

 

[zerinus]

You really confuse me

I am a true believer and a Catholic.

But Catholics aren’t true believers?? Is that what you’re saying?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the Apostasy consists of the loss of the divine authority to lead and guide the church by revelation; and that that divine authority rests above all else in the organizational leadership and structure of the church. But that does not mean that good Christians did not exist who had a simple believing faith in Christ.

Due to it’s organizational establishment???

Why?

And isn’t the LDS an organizational establishment??

I never said that “organization” in itself was a bad thing. What I did say was that the apostasy consists in the loss of divine authority by the church, which divine authority resides in the organizational leadership of the church.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Why do you think the keys were lost when the Apostles died? Why don’t you think they set up a system for the keys to be passed on? Did they just forget?

The Twelve Apostles form a quorum. That is why when one died another was ordained to replace him. And being a quorum, means that collectively they form the governing head of the church; and a certain minimum number of them must be present for their decisions to represent the quorum as a whole.

Did not the same thing happen in the early LDS church? You certainly wouldn’t argue that the LDS church lost its authority because of the infighting, controversies, and divisions that arose already within the lifetime of Joseph Smith, and grew thereafter.

Not exactly; in the early days of the Church there were some who broke off and splintered away from it—none of whom have so far ever presented a serious challenge to it. In the case of the early Christian Church, however, controversy after controversy, and division after division, arose within the church itself, which are a clear sign ot the Apostasy.

zerinus

 

[NotreDameMormon]

BJ,

Of course I accept responsibility for the confusion I caused. I had no malice or intention to deceive, but in trying to communicate the LDS viewpoint I stated it according to my own study, experience, and understanding. I could have done more, which I thank you for pointing out. My summary and understanding is irrelevant, particularly when it is to be discussed, debated, or refuted. What is needed is Church authority, on point, and accurately portrayed so that you can credibly debate the Church’s stance, teaching, or interpretation. You cannot do that if what you are debating is my supposed ignorance or misunderstanding of what the Church teaches. Again, I think you were right to point that out.

In response to your challenge, I do not think a single question asked here has been sufficiently “answered directly” especially since some of what was offered was “the simple common knowledge that every Mormon possesses every Sunday at sacrament meeting” (that you claim are lies the Church feeds the ignorant anyway) and much of the rest was unsubstantiated arguments without cites and quotes from actual authority. Personally, I do not agree with most of what has been said, by Mormon and non-Mormon alike. I do not think it adequately states the doctrine and teachings of the Church, and I am happy to resort to the Church’s authorities to prove it.

The truth of the matter is that “common knowledge” is not had, or is not sufficient, to discuss details, dates, and historical events of the apostasy, the extremely rare occasions and reasons abortion might be justified, the conception of Christ, or the manner in which truth is properly received and understood. But, the Church authorities have taught and do teach these things and I am happy to research and provide those authorized positions and statements.

Again, I object to your characterizing me as a deceiver, a thief, and a liar. I am willing to accept your attack on my character as a righteous intention, but you are wrong, and people know it. Just because I agree I can do better to state the Church’s beliefs and practices by using their words instead of my summary doesn’t mean that I am taking back anything I have said. On the contrary, I intend to provide you with the authority from which the positions were derived that you may better take issue and debate them. This is as much an act to help you teach the Catholic position as it is to provide others with the LDS. I am sure you will say you do not need my help, but you do if you want to add credibility to your passion.

I hope you will not leave, BJ. You provide an invaluable service to everyone in stirring the pot and shining the “spotlight of truth.” You have helped me see where I can do better, and you are most informed and able to speak clearly and convincingly for the benefit of your Catholic brothers and sisters. Do not rob them of your insight and ability simply because you question my motives. You have indeed served a great purpose here, but you are not interrupting “missionary work”, you are standing for and arguing the “Truth” you hope I will “eventually embrace.” You will be always welcome and appreciated in any thread I post.

Thank you, BJ.

 

[RyanL]

…I have to say that I don’t really have a lot to add to what I had previously said. My previous arguments I believe are still valid…

I do not know the logic behind the LDS teaching on this matter, but I’m certain it cannot be any of the arguments you put forward. I have shown you where your arguments fail, and you have not refuted my logic. All you have said is that abortion is a serious sin, though it is not an objectively sinful act (as there are plenty of circumstances where it is not at all sinful). That leaves me with the idea that the LDS teach either a Relativist or Subjectivist (or some combination thereof) morality.

As I never really thought that the LDS were either Relativists or Subjectivists, you are either (1) misrepresenting your church’s position or (2) accurately representing a position built in sand. Either way, whatever it is that you believe, you’re wrong.

…I refuse to put it on the same level as murder; and I believe that in very rare and limited circumstances it can be permissible.

At issue isn’t necessarily what you subjectively believe (as people believe all kinds of falsehoods), but rather what actually is. Logic and science show that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Please address the point - are there innocent human beings whom it’s morally acceptable to kill? How does your church justify this?

God Bless,
RyanL