Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not being clear…do you believe the below is a moral approach to end of life care, especially the bolded part?

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/5/e2022057011/186860/Guidance-for-Pediatric-End-of-Life-Care?

Yes I believe it's ethical to give nonlethal medication to someone who is going to die, that may shorten the time of life they have left, as long as the medication isn't given in order to shorten the time they have left. 

But that is different than where you said "You really can’t think of any circumstances where it might be better for an infant to die sooner rather than later and therefore you would make the move to kill in mercy".  I can't think of any circumstances where it would be better to make the move to kill the infant, even if the intention was mercy.

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  This ignores imo that there are pressures to prevent expansion, both social and legal.  In some places it will expand, others it won’t.  

Serious question as I am curious as to how you are framing these ideas (there is a large range of assumptions that have been attached to pro abortion and antiabortion positions, neither are monolithic, so I must asked for details to understand your actual position).  Do you believe that pushing for religious freedoms always expands and therefore some in such groups will eventually be pushing for to a theocracy?

Pushing for gun freedoms always continue to expand till there is no regulation at all?  No legal limits?  Or is there some sort of social or self regulation that will occur?

If you don’t believe it will expand for the last two, why would it expand for the top?

If you believe that it will always expand no matter what position it is, why don’t we have either anarchy or a total tyranny at this point (mankind being around for a number of millennia at least)?

Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering | Assisted dying | The Guardian https://share.google/afltIgWIExlE5C84q

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

The Cautionary Tale of Euthanasia in Canada | Dordt University https://share.google/A6QWCbEQ8nJsWab0O

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes I believe it's ethical to give nonlethal medication to someone who is going to die, that may shorten the time of life they have left, as long as the medication isn't given in order to shorten the time they have left. 

But that is different than where you said "You really can’t think of any circumstances where it might be better for an infant to die sooner rather than later and therefore you would make the move to kill in mercy".  I can't think of any circumstances where it would be better to make the move to kill the infant, even if the intention was mercy.

I was expressing myself poorly because I believe, probably differently than many or most others, that if one knows a medication will kill someone and gives it to them anyway no matter why, that is having the intent to kill the person even if it’s a side effect so to speak.  I believe it is ‘intent to kill’ even if not the primary intent because one can choose to not kill the person by withholding the treatment.

So I would phrase the question now as ‘can you think of any circumstances where you would consider an infant’s earlier death as acceptable, such as due to drugs given to relieve extreme suffering while knowing death will also occur?’

The mercy shown is the giving of drugs for comfort, not the killing.  Their death is the tragic, but acceptable cost for acting in mercy to give relief.

Does that make sense?

Not saying it’s wrong to see it differently, I am just explaining why I think I was confusing people by choosing the language I did. 

I will try and explain the situation I am curious about one more time, though I am hoping I did it well enough in the above. If it’s still too confusing to people I will drop it after that. 
 

Point 1:  A terminal patient is suffering in extreme discomfort and pain.  Doctors have given him significant levels of painkillers, etc during the time he has been treated.  This has led to an increase of tolerance of these drugs needing to raise the dosage, even with all the efforts to alternate between drugs and to keep them at the lowest working dose.  
 

Point 2:  But between the tolerance and the symptoms getting worse, they have now reached the point where the levels of the drug that will be needed to give any relief will also cause suppression of breathing and other effects such that death will shortly follow, very shortly, likely within an hour, maybe even minutes of giving the medicine for relief.

Point 3:  The choice is now between relief/comfort for a short time and then death at the end of that period or extreme discomfort and continuing life until death naturally occurs.  (This is not an uncommon situation even for infants as demonstrated that there is a policy about it)

My question…is it acceptable to give lethal levels of drugs if for the purpose of relief even though you know death will follow not long afterwards?

Aside:  The medication can be called “lethal” even if its purpose is comfort, imo.  They talk about lethal doses often taken accidentally, so intent seems to be irrelevant for the most part imo when defining if a medicinal dose is labeled lethal or not.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering | Assisted dying | The Guardian https://share.google/afltIgWIExlE5C84q

 

No, I am asking for evidence that this is inevitable which is what you appear to be claiming. 
 

I don’t think you can demonstrate this, definitely not easily, but I think I can show that the slippery slope doesn’t always apply.  For example, when abortion was made legal in the US, some argued that it would lead eventually to murder of children on demand (my phrasing) or similar results.  But instead it’s gone the other way in many places, restrictions are tightening up.

So pressures can cause either a loosening of restrictions or reversing course and adding more restrictions. 

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The Cautionary Tale of Euthanasia in Canada | Dordt University https://share.google/A6QWCbEQ8nJsWab0O

 

Based on my 13 years of living in Canada and hearing Americans report on what was happening there, I don’t trust American reporting of Canadian events.

The reverse is true as well, I don’t trust Canadian reports of American events.

Do you have a Canadian source, preferably one with less bias and therefore less likely to inflate or deflate events reporting the details (centrist Iow)

[gopher]

On 12/26/2025 at 10:59 AM, MustardSeed said:

Obviously, it would feel better to have no issues of trust.  
I would much rather be married to somebody who always followed through with what they promised than somebody who was wrong or who changed their mind or who made mistakes.

It would be an easier ride that’s for sure. Where might I find a spouse like that? 

I warned you it was a bad analogy.

[gopher]

On 12/26/2025 at 12:26 PM, The Nehor said:

I aborted him.

That's more like it.  Years ago when you were somewhat defending the church, it was alway entertaining to see how confused and frustrated you would make the evangelicals that would come here confident in their talking points against the church.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The Cautionary Tale of Euthanasia in Canada | Dordt University https://share.google/A6QWCbEQ8nJsWab0O

 

Some of the facts are wrong, though quite a few are accurate.

The government did not approve MAiD being offered to vets inquiring about other issues, the vet department does not offer the service and they are supposed to refer to the primary care doctor if it gets brought up.  That was misconduct on the part of one employee on four occasions according to documentation when claims had names attached and weren’t just rumors.  The department had significant training and followed up with vets, sounds like the error is unlikely to happen again.

Other instances of promotion are anecdotal, individual which may or may not be accurate and is not evidence of an official promotion.

https://veterans.gc.ca/sites/default/files/maid-investigative-report.pdf?

Having said that, it’s quite concerning.  (Serious here)

———

an afterthought….
 

Who knows, maybe sometime in the future Canada’s deaths by legal suicide may even catch up to the US deaths by illegal firearm suicide, though it has a massive gap to close. (Also serious here, but also being caustic)

[gopher]

On 12/26/2025 at 12:28 PM, california boy said:

I think you are saying that modern prophets are something more special than just being the head of the Church.  Would you say that a prophet receives direct revelation from God for the Church?  And can you point to anything a prophet in your life time that would point to them actually having claimed some direct revelation with God?  

Or would you say that a prophet is just someone who gives personal advice on what he thinks is good advice.

Do you feel that modern prophets have always been trustworthy in what they said was a claimed revelation from God?  

I accept the definition of a prophet shown here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/prophet

Yes, I feel modern prophets have been trustworthy.

What would it take to convince you that they are trustworthy?

[gopher]

On 12/26/2025 at 1:11 PM, Rain said:

If everyone had spouses they could trust to be 100% true there wouldn't be rules/ideas like husbands and wives should share social media accounts, RS presidents and bishops shouldn't ride together to meetings, women shouldn't wear skimpy clothes because it might tempt a man - all things church leaders have put out because they find that humans can't be 100% trusted.  Yet, most of the people who follow those ideas don't feel a real lack of trust in their spouses.  They just recognize that no one is perfect. 

And that includes the prophet. He is human.  He can make mistakes.  You can have a ton of trust in a prophet and still understand he may make a mistake.  That doesn't mean you find the prophet untrustworthy.

I warned it was a bad analogy.  But haven't you posted here that you no longer believe and trust prophets today speak for God?  What will it take for you to change your mind?

It's been implied, but maybe not stated clearly that the discussion is really about prophets making mistakes in official, revealed doctrine.   If President Oaks tells someone in the grocery store that the BYU football team is better than Georgia Tech, he would be mistaken (down at halftime and I'm not even a BYU fan).  But if President Oaks publishes through the church that 18 year old young women can now serve missions, I'm not going to accuse him of being wrong or making a mistake.

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So CFR still stands and now you need to demonstrate it’s frequent advocation among pro choice advocates for killing inconvenient children, which is going to take a lot more than one source not saying what you want it to say.

I suppose you are right there are no clear policy published by any established organizations that I could find. Some probably are undercover about their support for the procedure. But what frequently occurs is "noise from the streets" that I have read (mostly opinion pieces and commentaries) over several decades. It is evident legacy media and social media platforms are tamping down those extreme views that do occasionally pop out. Do you deny that sometimes abortionists used partial birth procedures? No matter if there were laws against the practice in the states?

Edited December 27, 2025 by longview

[gopher]

On 12/26/2025 at 3:59 PM, Calm said:

I think there is more than enough evidence they are not infallible (added:  it’s in scripture as well as them admitting it from time to time plus obviously wrong comments, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Fielding_Smith_acknowledge_that_he_was_wrong_when_he_said_that_Man_would_never_walk_on_the_Moon%3F ).  The question is, imo, how much God micromanages, if he does, the errors so it may only be trivial, little impact decisions that God keeps a hands off policy for or major, life altering, church culture altering errors that he allows (possibly to keep agency intact as much as possible) or somewhere in between, exactly where might even varied due to circumstances.

My opinion is that the more we focus on the infallibility of prophets, the more likely we are going to later hesitate or refuse the follow the counsel of prophets in the future.  How will we respond when the prophet asks us to do something really difficult as has been done in the past?

So even though we say we believe prophets are not infallible, will we ever agree on actual examples of errors by prophets?  Especially when a prophet never admitted he was mistaken? 

That's why I'm content with having the opinion that I don't understand the reasons for everything prophets have done instead of declaring they were mistaken.  I can also withhold judgment on the weird stuff especially in the Old Testament until we get the whole story someday.  But I also trust the God won't allow His prophets to lead us astray today. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, longview said:

But what frequently occurs is "noise from the streets" that I have read (mostly opinion pieces and commentaries) over several decades.

From abortion advocates or anti-abortion advocates?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Nice job of soft-pedalling concerns about partial-birth abortions (and frequent "noise" about potential killing of "inconvenient" children post natal) by diverting into a whole series of "what abouts".

A “partial birth abortion” is a non-medical term created for political purposes.

So you are complaining that someone is attempting to divert the conversation from being about a fictional construct.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, longview said:

Do you deny that sometimes abortionists used partial birth procedures? No matter if there were laws against the practice in the states?

Used in the past when they were not illegal?  Certainly, the stats (which I don’t know how reliable they are) suggest percentages were quite low, less than .2% iirc, that would mean numbers were still at least a couple of thousand.  I see any occurrences as unacceptable.  I don’t see what difference it would make to the mother’s health to deliver an intact newly dead fetus or a live one.  Willing to be educated, but it would take some massive data to change my mind on this.  Therefore, the fetus should be allowed to live and the mother give up custody rights if she is unable or unwilling to raise it (though I would heavily prefer a third option of substantial financial and other aid for mothers and young children so that less women feel the need to abort or give up their children if they would prefer to raise them).

Procedures used now in abortion clinics disguising them as legal procedures…seems unlikely and very stupid as these clinics already have a big target on them and I suspect there are people watching them like hawks.  But people are stupid, so it might be happening somewhere in the US. There are probably illegal ones occurring if it’s an easier procedure for the illegal practioner as there are no doubt some doing those strictly for money.  Hopefully both types are caught and imprisoned.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The Cautionary Tale of Euthanasia in Canada | Dordt University https://share.google/A6QWCbEQ8nJsWab0O

 

There isn’t a cautionary tale in there. Just a lot of suppositions and unsubstantiated anecdotes mixed in with a religious message.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, longview said:

I suppose you are right there are no clear policy published by any established organizations that I could find. Some probably are undercover about their support for the procedure. But what frequently occurs is "noise from the streets" that I have read (mostly opinion pieces and commentaries) over several decades. It is evident legacy media and social media platforms are tamping down those extreme views that do occasionally pop out. Do you deny that sometimes abortionists used partial birth procedures? No matter if there were laws against the practice in the states?

So you would have evidence but there is a massive conspiracy to cover it all up.

Somehow though this vast conspiracy only infiltrated the scientific and statistical world but isn’t covering up random unsubstantiated anecdotes for therefore the anecdotes are proof of the conspiracy and must be true?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering | Assisted dying | The Guardian https://share.google/afltIgWIExlE5C84q

She wanted to die due to her suffering. That is literally what the law was for. She spent a decade trying to alleviate the pain. What more do you want from her?

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, gopher said:

My opinion is that the more we focus on the infallibility of prophets, the more likely we are going to later hesitate or refuse the follow the counsel of prophets in the future.  How will we respond when the prophet asks us to do something really difficult as has been done in the past?

Perhaps it’s my experience with FAIR as well as other places where individuals discuss how they used to view prophets before they had their faith crises.  I see massive damage occurring right now because of the view that prophets are practically infallible even if not technically.  I tend to think we should deal with what’s happening now and try and resolve it in a way that inspires faith over a wide range of scenarios.  It would be unfortunate if that means later most members won’t follow the prophet when he asks us something hard, but the ideal would be people develop the habit of receiving their own spiritual witnesses and would do the same in this case.
 

I am also not sure if viewing prophets as practically infallible actually would help members endure particularly difficult requests/commands.  Seems without a personal spiritual witness to hold on to (which could be of the prophet’s calling even if one doesn’t view him as infallible, just the man God wants as his spokesman, but I think it’s better to have faith in the work and the gospel, which will then encompass much, if not all of one’s relationship with the prophet), burnout could set in quicker once obstacles are hit.  I base this on people watching, including what happened to many members when COVID hit and the Prophet shut things down and promoted vaccines.  It wasn’t in my experience the individuals who had nuanced views of the Prophet and his role, who had already questioned whether he was trustworthy and came to terms with him being fallible in a way that worked for them, who started questioning whether the Church had fallen into apostasy or not.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

She wanted to die due to her suffering. That is literally what the law was for. She spent a decade trying to alleviate the pain. What more do you want from her?

Quote

“In the three and a half years this has taken, I’ve never hesitated about my decision. I have felt guilt – I have a partner, family, friends and I’m not blind to their pain. And I’ve felt scared. But I’m absolutely determined to go through with it.

From the link…add the ten years of sustained effort in trying any treatment available including ECT (which helped my daughter’s depression a great deal, but also messed with her memory big time which has increased her anxiety) and her experience since early childhood, this was not an impulsive decision by a woman who just doesn’t want to bother with life.

If I had to choose pain or the constant feeling of disaster, uneasiness, fear, nausea, tension, etc that is chronic anxiety eating at my soul, I will say give me the pain (I will also take depression over anxiety).  I have finally found a medicine that has removed the constant erosion of any sense of joy or happiness and I struggle anytime I consider that some day it might stop working or I might have to come off of it.

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[gopher]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I warned it was a bad analogy.  But haven't you posted here that you no longer believe and trust prophets today speak for God?  What will it take for you to change your mind?

It's been implied, but maybe not stated clearly that the discussion is really about prophets making mistakes in official, revealed doctrine.   If President Oaks tells someone in the grocery store that the BYU football team is better than Georgia Tech, he would be mistaken (down at halftime and I'm not even a BYU fan).  But if President Oaks publishes through the church that 18 year old young women can now serve missions, I'm not going to accuse him of being wrong or making a mistake.

Wow, President Oaks turned out to be a true prophet even in hypotheticals!  Nice come back, BYU.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, gopher said:

Wow, President Oaks turned out to be a true prophet even in hypotheticals!  Nice come back, BYU.

Oh, my husband is going to be pissed.  He decided to go shopping rather than putting it off till afterwards.

PS:  Gopher, I think I might end up posting endless posts to your potentially endless responses on infallibility if one of us doesn’t consciously break the cycle because you have a way of making me want to continue the conversation (which is a very good thing in my view).  I think I have made all the points I want to make and it would just be likely repeated variations on this sub theme of what I think makes for a more resilient faith in the Gospel and Christ.  Iow, I don’t feel like I am saying anything new and thinking it must be annoying to read, so unless there’s a point you want to explore more, I think I will step back for now at least.

Edited December 28, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I warned it was a bad analogy.  But haven't you posted here that you no longer believe and trust prophets today speak for God?  What will it take for you to change your mind?

I no longer believe that the church is the only one with authority.  I'm unsure that any have authority, and I am unsure of prophets, but I am open to most church leaders speaking for God to some extent. 

Most of what I have been saying on here is that I see how people faithful to this church, specifically, and trusting of its prophets, could believe that those prophets are not perfect and could make some mistakes.  I don't have to believe to know there are spaces between 100% trusting and being disloyal, as I understood long before I ever thought about the church not being "true".   

2 hours ago, gopher said:

It's been implied, but maybe not stated clearly that the discussion is really about prophets making mistakes in official, revealed doctrine.   If President Oaks tells someone in the grocery store that the BYU football team is better than Georgia Tech, he would be mistaken (down at halftime and I'm not even a BYU fan).  But if President Oaks publishes through the church that 18 year old young women can now serve missions, I'm not going to accuse him of being wrong or making a mistake.

I understand this and have understood it all through this thread.  I don't really see anyone here doing that.  What I see is people who have tried to know the will of God and done what the Lord has asked of them in finding answers, and feel they got a different answer on certain subjects.  Maybe you see that as the same thing.  I see a subtle, but important difference.  

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

From abortion advocates or anti-abortion advocates?

I would say a few from the pro-aborts but mostly the antis

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A “partial birth abortion” is a non-medical term created for political purposes.

I don't believe your hogwash. There is great likelihood of the procedure being done over the years in secret.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Used in the past when they were not illegal?

I am inclined to think they never were legal. But likely done over decades regardless of the law.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Certainly, the stats (which I don’t know how reliable they are) suggest percentages were quite low, less than .2% iirc, that would mean numbers were still at least a couple of thousand.  I see any occurrences as unacceptable.  I don’t see what difference it would make to the mother’s health to deliver an intact newly dead fetus or a live one.

I agree.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Willing to be educated, but it would take some massive data to change my mind on this.  Therefore, the fetus should be allowed to live and the mother give up custody rights if she is unable or unwilling to raise it (though I would heavily prefer a third option of substantial financial and other aid for mothers and young children so that less women feel the need to abort or give up their children if they would prefer to raise them).

I like to listen to conservative radio such as Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher and a few others. I frequently hear advertisements for donations to provide free sonograms, in-clinic care, counseling, adoption services, etc. They are all over the country. There is a HUGE waiting list for adoption. Which is a crying shame. Millions of babies butchered needlessly.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Procedures used now in abortion clinics disguising them as legal procedures…seems unlikely and very stupid as these clinics already have a big target on them and I suspect there are people watching them like hawks.  But people are stupid, so it might be happening somewhere in the US. There are probably illegal ones occurring if it’s an easier procedure for the illegal practioner as there are no doubt some doing those strictly for money.  Hopefully both types are caught and imprisoned.

 Not when the LEFT run cover for them.