Permissibility Of Abortion

[Ran]

Long time on-and-off Catholic lurker here. Greetings.

For quite some time now, I've been trying, without success, to find out the reason behind the LDS exceptions on abortion. Learning about the role of agency in this thread may lead me closer to finding a resolution.

As I look at it, the offspring conceived remains an innocent human being, regardless of the conditions which led to conception.

I don't think that the LDS position denies that, and that's what I'm unable to resolve -- the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is permitted as a means of redressing the disorder caused by violating the woman's moral agency. I'm not sure how this kind of killing can be justifiable, even if agency is emphasized.

For comparison, a Catholic manual has this to say about the response to rape (emphasis mine):

36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim

of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and

offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information.

A

female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from

the sexual assault.

If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred2

already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation,

or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as

their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a

fertilized ovum.19

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services

http://bit.ly/ykJF9o

(PDF)

The appeal to a woman's self-defense against conception from rape parallels the discussion on agency: a person's freedom has been violated, now we must deal with the consequences. How? Contraception. But isn't this against Catholic teaching? Is this an exception? No, because the Catholic prohibition on contraception regards the "conjugal act"; rape isn't a conjugal act, even though it is an act of a sexual nature. Note also that if conception has already occurred, a human being in an early stage of development now exists and must be protected.

Anyway, I'll study more about the LDS perspective on agency. I suspect the answer is found in that principle.

Thanks for the discussions!

Ran

[Storm Rider]

Long time on-and-off Catholic lurker here. Greetings.

For quite some time now, I've been trying, without success, to find out the reason behind the LDS exceptions on abortion. Learning about the role of agency in this thread may lead me closer to finding a resolution.

As I look at it, the offspring conceived remains an innocent human being, regardless of the conditions which led to conception.

I don't think that the LDS position denies that, and that's what I'm unable to resolve -- the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is permitted as a means of redressing the disorder caused by violating the woman's moral agency. I'm not sure how this kind of killing can be justifiable, even if agency is emphasized.

For comparison, a Catholic manual has this to say about the response to rape (emphasis mine):

36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim

of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and

offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information.

A

female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from

the sexual assault.

If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred2

already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation,

or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as

their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a

fertilized ovum.19

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services

http://bit.ly/ykJF9o

(PDF)

The appeal to a woman's self-defense against conception from rape parallels the discussion on agency: a person's freedom has been violated, now we must deal with the consequences. How? Contraception. But isn't this against Catholic teaching? Is this an exception? No, because the Catholic prohibition on contraception regards the "conjugal act"; rape isn't a conjugal act, even though it is an act of a sexual nature. Note also that if conception has already occurred, a human being in an early stage of development now exists and must be protected.

Anyway, I'll study more about the LDS perspective on agency. I suspect the answer is found in that principle.

Thanks for the discussions!

Ran

Welcome to the forum. Your thoughtful and reasoned approach to understand is appreciated. This is a difficult topic for all concerned about life and the inherent sacredness of innocent life. Regretfully, I do not have a ready answer as to why the LDS Church acknowledges that there may be an exception for abortion in the event of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Even in this instances, it is necessary for deep reflection and counsel. This is not a choice that is taken readily and without great prayer and guidance.

Again, welcome to the Board and I hope too read more of your comments, questions, and input.

[zerinus]

Long time on-and-off Catholic lurker here. Greetings.

For quite some time now, I've been trying, without success, to find out the reason behind the LDS exceptions on abortion. Learning about the role of agency in this thread may lead me closer to finding a resolution.

As I look at it, the offspring conceived remains an innocent human being, regardless of the conditions which led to conception.

I don't think that the LDS position denies that, and that's what I'm unable to resolve -- the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is permitted as a means of redressing the disorder caused by violating the woman's moral agency. I'm not sure how this kind of killing can be justifiable, even if agency is emphasized.

For comparison, a Catholic manual has this to say about the response to rape (emphasis mine):

36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim

of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and

offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information.

A

female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from

the sexual assault.

If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred2

already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation,

or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as

their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a

fertilized ovum.19

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services

http://bit.ly/ykJF9o

(PDF)

The appeal to a woman's self-defense against conception from rape parallels the discussion on agency: a person's freedom has been violated, now we must deal with the consequences. How? Contraception. But isn't this against Catholic teaching? Is this an exception? No, because the Catholic prohibition on contraception regards the "conjugal act"; rape isn't a conjugal act, even though it is an act of a sexual nature. Note also that if conception has already occurred, a human being in an early stage of development now exists and must be protected.

Anyway, I'll study more about the LDS perspective on agency. I suspect the answer is found in that principle.

Thanks for the discussions!

Ran

I don't see abortion as being identical to murder. In the Bible, the death penalty is appointed for murder; but a lesser punishment is appointed for causing the death (abortion) of an unborn child:

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,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

In other words, if you hurt a pregnant woman so as to cause her foetus to be aborted, you are punished, but not unto death. But if any "mischief follow" (meaning that if the woman herself is badly hurt, such as being killed, or suffer other serious injury), then appropriate punishment is applied, including the death penalty where applicable. As long as the foetus is unborn, the life of the mother has a higher priority than the life of the foetus. And where a foetus is aborted, it is not treated as being equivalent to murder. The problem I see with the Catholic stance on this issue is two things: Firstly, it equates abortion with murder, which scripture doesn't. Secondly, it assigns no rights to the mother whatsoever. The mother is nothing more than a dead corpse as far as the Catholic rule is concerned. She has no say on the matter. I don't think that that is a valid theological concept. The woman is not just a dead corpse carrying a human foetus. She is more than a mechanical incubation chamber like you see in Si Fi movies. She is a human being in her own right, and has certain rights and privileges that cannot be violated. You want to deny the woman any rights whatsoever, including the right of life over the life of the unborn foetus. Even if the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, the Catholic rule says let the woman die, but save the foetus. I think the life of the woman has far higher priority than the life of the foetus. I call that the the theology of "hang the woman no matter what!" Well I don't think that is right. I think that where a woman's rights have been violated, she has the right to have a say on what the outcome shall be.

Edited September 23, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

Since LDS believe that “man is spirit (D&C 93:33),” the spirit exists before, during and after the soul exists on earth and into the resurrection (the soul being the body and the spirit). The spirit cannot be killed; the body can be; the resurrected soul (which all children of God will become) is a gift of the Lord’s Atonement. Death is not necessarily the worst thing someone can do to another, and sometimes God commands or condones killing.

The permissibility of abortion under the conditions of rape, incest, and life or health of the mother has to do with the mother’s complex and sacred stewardship for bearing the souls of men with her husband (D&C 132:63). Following the pattern of Eve, in this world she continues to be placed in the complex and sacred position of choosing to multiply and replenish the earth or keep the commandment not to kill (which is essence was the purpose of forbidding the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).

I believe conceiving a child outside of legal and lawful marriage (including rape, incest and in my opinion, “marital rape”) is against the consent of God, the woman and her husband. The mother’s mortal life, which governs the lives of those borne of her, is a divine gift to be preserved according to the will of God, the woman and the husband.

Where it is the Lord’s will that the woman’s life be preserved, and this will is revealed, abortion would be permissible. Where it is known that the Lord’s, and woman’s and husband’s consent (in righteousness) have been violated, abortion would also be permissible.

The guidance is that these decisions be approached prayerfully and with all the resources the saints involved have at their disposal.

[Ran]

I don't see abortion as being identical to murder. In the Bible, the death penalty is appointed for murder; but a lesser punishment is appointed for causing the death (abortion) of an unborn child:

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,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

In other words, if you hurt a pregnant woman so as to cause her foetus to be aborted, you are punished, but not unto death. But if any "mischief follow" (meaning that if the woman herself is badly hurt, such as being killed, or suffer other serious injury), then appropriate punishment is applied, including the death penalty where applicable. As long as the foetus is unborn, the life of the mother has a higher priority than the life of the foetus. And where a foetus is aborted, it is not treated as being equivalent to murder.

It's not clear from this passage whether the death of the child is a direct and intentional act of killing. If it isn't, the child's death is akin to "collateral damage". As an unintended side effect, it doesn't have the same moral quality as murder, and as unintentional homicide, one would expect the penalties to be lesser in severity.

The problem I see with the Catholic stance on this issue is two things: Firstly, it equates abortion with murder, which scripture doesn't. Secondly, it assigns no rights to the mother whatsoever. The mother is nothing more than a dead corpse as far as the Catholic rule is concerned. She has no say on the matter. I don't think that that is a valid theological concept. The woman is not just a dead corpse carrying a human foetus. She is more than a mechanical incubation chamber like you see in Si Fi movies. She is a human being in her own right, and has certain rights and privileges that cannot be violated. You want to deny the woman any rights whatsoever, including the right of life over the life of the unborn foetus. Even if the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy, the Catholic rule says let the woman die, but save the foetus. I think the life of the woman has far higher priority than the life of the foetus. I call that the the theology of "hang the woman no matter what!" Well I don't think that is right. I think that where a woman's rights have been violated, she has the right to have a say on what the outcome shall be.

To clarify, direct/procured abortion -- that is, willed either as an end or a means -- is equated in the Catholic moral tradition with murder.

I don't see any indication that the Catholic position implies a denial of her right to life, for example. One may licitly save the mother's life, even if the death of her child is an unintended consequence. What is excluded is the means of directly and intentionally killing her child in order to achieve this end.

These issues certainly are difficult no matter one's religious or ethical background.

[DavidB]

Long time on-and-off Catholic lurker here. Greetings.

For quite some time now, I've been trying, without success, to find out the reason behind the LDS exceptions on abortion. Learning about the role of agency in this thread may lead me closer to finding a resolution.

As I look at it, the offspring conceived remains an innocent human being, regardless of the conditions which led to conception.

I don't think that the LDS position denies that, and that's what I'm unable to resolve -- the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is permitted as a means of redressing the disorder caused by violating the woman's moral agency. I'm not sure how this kind of killing can be justifiable, even if agency is emphasized.

For comparison, a Catholic manual has this to say about the response to rape (emphasis mine):

36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim

of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and

offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information.

A

female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from

the sexual assault.

If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred2

already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation,

or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as

their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a

fertilized ovum.19

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services

http://bit.ly/ykJF9o

(PDF)

The appeal to a woman's self-defense against conception from rape parallels the discussion on agency: a person's freedom has been violated, now we must deal with the consequences. How? Contraception. But isn't this against Catholic teaching? Is this an exception? No, because the Catholic prohibition on contraception regards the "conjugal act"; rape isn't a conjugal act, even though it is an act of a sexual nature. Note also that if conception has already occurred, a human being in an early stage of development now exists and must be protected.

Anyway, I'll study more about the LDS perspective on agency. I suspect the answer is found in that principle.

Thanks for the discussions!

Ran

Ran,

the problem you are encountering is expecting to be told "why". Being told isn't something we are garunteed for every command. Why is tithing called tithing? That is what is so significant about a tenth, why not a 3rd to represent the God head, or a seventh with seven being what is termed in some circles as a "Holy Number".

There is no given reason for the three exceptions. The LDS have the 3 exceptions because God said.

Anyone providing reasons beyond "God said" should stop.

[CV75]

Anyone providing reasons beyond "God said" should stop.

But only if they are speaking for God and not trying to understand His ways and making it clear that they are only expressing their thoughts and opinions about it.

For example, I think the commandment not to murder only superficially addresses a sin against mortals, or for those whom the spirit and the body have become connected. I think it ultimately has to do with having unrighteous anger against another child of God without cause (Matthew 5:21), which affects the offender, the living, the not yet born, and the rest of the family of God not presently in mortality. In the case of abortion, I understand the issue is not about when the spirit enters the body, but about the sanctity of life, the attitudes of those accountable for the abortion and all related invents, and the effects of their actions upon the living and the dead.

So to me the prohibition against abortion is as much about unrighteous anger and its companions such as pride, selfishness, etc. as it is the sanctity of life. When a woman is a victim and yet not blinded by anger, but inspired to take other priorities into account, the abortion is not murder.

This may put a fine line between abortion and euthanasia, which is probably for another thread; in my mind the prohibition against euthanasia is not conditioned by acting outside of consent regarding the institution of marriage and the stewardship to multiply and replenish the earth.

[zerinus]

t's not clear from this passage whether the death of the child is a direct and intentional act of killing. If it isn't, the child's death is akin to "collateral damage". As an unintended side effect, it doesn't have the same moral quality as murder, and as unintentional homicide, one would expect the penalties to be lesser in severity.

The clarification is provided indirectly by comparing it with any other injury that she might suffer as a result of the "strif". If she is killed in the process, the death penalty is applied. If she suffers another injury such as the loss of her eye or her tooth, again corresponding punishment is applied. But if she loses her foetus, no death penalty is applied. There is no reason to treat the loss of her foetus in this case as "collateral" damage, but not the loss of her eye, her toothe, or her life. All the injuries fall in the same category as intended harm---otherwise why apply a punishment for any of them at all?

To clarify, direct/procured abortion -- that is, willed either as an end or a means -- is equated in the Catholic moral tradition with murder.

I don't see any indication that the Catholic position implies a denial of her right to life, for example. One may licitly save the mother's life, even if the death of her child is an unintended consequence. What is excluded is the means of directly and intentionally killing her child in order to achieve this end.

I think that is amusing! How do you differentiate between the two?

These issues certainly are difficult no matter one's religious or ethical background.

Agreed, but I think less difficult than you think.

Edited September 23, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being

Is it "killing" if the spirit that would be associated with that human being is allowed to enter another body and be born with that second body (something that is not allowed to my knowledge once the child has been born)?

[Calm]

as unintentional homicide, one would expect the penalties to be lesser in severity

Is the punishment given for abortion identical to unintentional homicide in the scriptures? If not, why not?

[Calm]

I agree that everything beyond the below is opinion.

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Additional Information

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see “Adoption”).

—See True to the Faith (2004), 4-5

http://www.lds.org/t...ortion?lang=eng

Author: Beard, Mary K.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers the elective termination of pregnancy "one of the most…sinful practices of this day" (General Handbook of Instructions, 11-4), although not necessarily murder. The Lord has said, "Thou shalt not…kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6; emphasis added in Packer, p. 85).

Members of the Church must not "submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion" (General Handbook, 11-4). The only exceptions are where "incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth" (Packer, p. 85). Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Church members are counseled that they should consider abortion in such cases only after consulting with their bishop and receiving divine confirmation through prayer.

"Church members who encourage, perform, or submit to an abortion are subject to Church discipline as appropriate" to help them repent (General Handbook, 11-4). As far as has been revealed, the sin of abortion is one for which a person may repent and gain forgiveness (General Handbook, 11-4; Packer, p. 86).

Bibliography

General Handbook of Instructions. Salt Lake City, 1989.

Packer, Boyd K. "Covenants." Ensign 20 (Nov. 90):84-86.

http://eom.byu.edu/i...ia_of_Mormonism Edited September 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In reference to the spirit entering a body: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/i-have-a-question

The first question is easily answered: Church policy does permit afamily to record stillborn children on their family group record if they wish to do so. If the stillbirth takes place after the sealing of the parents, those children can be identified on the record as being born in the covenant (BIC). Miscarriages, however, are not normally recorded on family group records.

A miscarriage is delivery of a dead fetus, before it is viable—that is, before it could have lived on its own outside the mother’s womb. Astillbirth is delivery of the dead fetus that has developed to the point where it would normally have been viable, but for some reason is born dead. The line between a miscarriage and a stillbirth is not clear cut, and sometimes there is a question as to whether the fetus was viable. In this case, the decision to record or not to record the name on the family records is up to the family. The family may give the stillborn child a name for recording purposes, if they desire, and funeral services may even be held. But such children are not reported as births or deaths on Church records.

It should be noted, however, that no temple ordinances are performed in behalf of a stillborn child. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting President Brigham Young, wrote that “‘they are all right,’ … and nothing in the way of sealings or ordinances need be done for them.” (Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955, 2:281.)

The question of whether stillborn children will be resurrected and belong to their parents in the hereafter is really the crux of the matter. This question is, as yet, impossible to answer with certainty. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that “there is no information given by revelation in regard to the status of stillborn children. However, I will express my personal opinion that we should have hope thatthese little ones will receive a resurrection and then belong to us.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:280.) He said nothing about miscarried children.

One issue involved is whether an unborn child in the mother’s womb is a living soul. The answer to that question may depend in part on the answer to another question—When does the spirit enter the body? On this second question some Church leaders have made comments. President Brigham Young said he believed that “when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body.” (Journal of Discourses, 17:143.)

The message “The Origin of Man” issued by the First Presidency in 1909 stated: “The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.” (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970, 4:205.)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, referring to “The Origin of Man,” expressed his opinion that the message “appears to bear out the concept that the eternal spirit enters the body prior to a normal birth, and therefore that stillborn children will be resurrected.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 768.)

It is not clear exactly at what point of development that “certain stage” of quickening—when the spirit makes eternal claim to the body—occurs. Even though quickening occurs before birth, we still do not know definitely when a living soul comes into existence. In fact, some Church leaders have suggested that a living soul does not exist until three essential elements—the body, the spirit, and the breath of life—are all present.

Unfortunately, grief, disappointment, and lack of knowledge sometimes lead some persons to doubt the justice and love of God when a child is delivered without taking the breath of life. At such times, our Savior Jesus Christ, who has suffered for all, has invited us to turn to him so that he may help us bear our burdens:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11:28.)

Traumatic as miscarriage and stillbirth may be from our perspective, they need not end in sorrow. The Apostle Paul has written about how suffering can turn to hope when we experience the love of God:

“We glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

“And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

“And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” (Rom. 5:3–5.)

Though our knowledge of the plan of salvation does not explain why miscarriages and stillbirths take place, nor what the eternal result will be, we can know with confidence that God, who is the father of all spirits, is merciful and just. We can know also that there is hope. Worthy parents can trust in him and know that they and all his spirit children will—one way or another—receive a just reward for their efforts and sacrifice, perhaps in ways that we do not presently comprehend.

[Calm]

Since LDS believe that all children who die before adulthood will not be deprived of any of the blessings of adulthood though exactly how or when they finish their growth is not necessarily revealed (some teach that mothers will be able to finish raising their children during the millennium), even if a spirit has made enough of a connection with a body that is then aborted in late term, that child will not suffer in any eternal sense due to its mother or another's (if the mother is a minor or mentally or physically incapable of making decisions such as in the case of a comatose patient) decision.

[SamIam]

Greetings fellow pro-lifers!

I was wanting to start a discussion on the permissibility of abortion within the LDS church.

However, from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

I agree that this is a difficult arena to discuss objectively in a way that reflects the way LDS apply reason to the process. I can say that when I had to deal with these cases that the church as a rule is adamant and consistent in condemning abortion. The exclusions that we provide are reasonable based on the principles that others have already outlined relative to a mothers choice to exercise agency where it was deprived her or in the case of the risk of her own life or health. Still while these options exist way more often that not, in my experience, mothers at health risk have chosen to risk their life and complete the process rather than abort.

I did however find your phrasing very curious, "from the Catholic point-of-view, the child is not attacking the mother, so the self-defence exemption does not apply." This phrasing is very interesting and I wonder if it is just standard Catholic definition, or if it is your own, or do you otherwise recognize the origin of this idea?

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam

[canard78]

Jesus not Kesis sorry for typo.

Lol - thanks for the clarification... I was wondering who this new BOM character was!

[cinepro]

Jesus not Kesis sorry for typo.

You should be able to edit your posts.

FWIW, Bruce McConkie theorized that the voice heard in the Book of Mormon was actually an angel given authority to speak as if he were Jesus.

[mfbukowski]

The difference is simple: Our leaders have wives, the Catholic leaders do not.

It is not an abstract question for us; as family men we understand all the ramifications better. We do not want to lose our wives or force them to bear a child of rape.

Under no circumstances is my wife's life as a mother to my children an my eternal companion and a fully developed human being equal to that of a few cells. Sorry- but that is the truth.

Abortion is a tragedy, but sometimes in life we are forced into lose-lose situations and must choose the lesser of two evils. It's that simple.

[Calm]

Still while these options exist way more often that not, in my experience, mothers at health risk have chosen to risk their life and complete the process rather than abort.

I believe there have even been articles in the Ensign celebrating them for doing so IIRC. My own mother's reaction was that sometimes it is harder to live for your children than die for them and she wished attention was paid to all those women who struggled with their health and such but worked hard to be able to stay and function as a parent for the children they had brought into the world and covenanted to care for.

[Calm]

The difference is simple: Our leaders have wives, the Catholic leaders do not.

But they have mothers so I doubt it is all that abstract to them.

[Freedom]

There is a difference between transgression and sin. For example, the police are allowed to transgress traffic laws. Abortion in some cases is a transgression of Gods law but not a sin. Since abortion does not necessarily permanently alter the unborns eternal destiny, and since we do not know when life begins, then both the interests of the mother and the child must be considered.

Concerning birth control, there is a difference between medically and financially responsible family planning and electing not to have children. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, for a couple not to take precautions for at least 6 months after the birth of a child, or if the family income could not support more than, say, 3 children.

God, in his wisdom, has not provided clarity on these matters so any firm stances are difficult to justify and would constitute adding to the word of God.

[Freedom]

Part of this is based on Jesus appearing to a prophet in the BoM the day before His birth.

Jesus did not appear to a prophet, rather the prophet heard the voice of the Lord. Revelation comes through the holy ghost so this revelation would have been received through the Holy Ghost and not directly through the Savior. The simple technology of today which allows for the broadcast of prerecorded messages makes it very reasonable to understand how a prophet can hear the voice of the Lord while the Savior is resting in his mothers womb on the other side of the globe.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

Why does God need a tape recorder?

[ERayR]

But they have mothers so I doubt it is all that abstract to them.

It helps but I don't think it is the same.

[blueadept]

[

The difference is simple: Our leaders have wives, the Catholic leaders do not.

While the majority of Catholic priests are not married, we do have a few married priests. Most of our permanent deacons are married. That said though, it's the practice of the Latin Rite that it's easier for them to serve the people of God by not being married. Your simplistic statement is nauseating.

But they have mothers so I doubt it is all that abstract to them.

Thank you Cal

[MiserereNobis]

The difference is simple: Our leaders have wives, the Catholic leaders do not.

So, the subjective personal experience of your leaders is more important in determining moral questions than the objective truth of God... I get it!

Abortion is a tragedy, but sometimes in life we are forced into lose-lose situations and must choose the lesser of two evils. It's that simple.

Ever seen the play "The Crucible"?