Pro-Life Folks In Tx Sing "Amazing Grace," Pro-Abortion" Respond With Chant Of "Hail Satan"

[canard78]

At 18 weeks gestation there is no viability outside the womb.

The morning after pill is not a abortion pill. It simply prevents ovulation.

A condom prevents sperm and eggs from meeting.

There is no affinity with eggs or sperm, and precious little after conception. The woman isn't even pregnant until implantation about a week later. The IUD prevents implantation.

I agree. So in all four cases we have cell clusters that are later non-viable?

Misscarriage is devastating. Mourning is appropriate. But from a doctrinal point of view we are not mourning the death of a child but the lost opprtunity of having a child at that time.

So is abortion at weeks 18 "murder?" No, I don't think so.

Culturally I'm not in favor of eating Fido, but given the choice between eating him or starving to death. Bye Bye doggie.

If we are going to eat animals I think it would be best to treat them humanely, and kill them quickly with as little discomfort, or pain as possible. Then find a practical use for all the parts of the carcass.

At what point does the rights of the fetus override the rights of the woman?

I'm not sure. Like you point out. There are always times when even Fido gets eaten. Morals flex. I'm against abortion. But if a doctor said my wife's life was in danger I'd have a dilemma.

[canard78]

The Prophet Alma, in Alma 39, said the following to his son, Corianton, who had committed sexual transgression:

"3...Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanite, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?"

Poor Alma, I wonder if he's up in the spirit world grinding his spirit teeth at the way we've distorted what he said.

We teach an unmarried couple that their intimate moments are second to murder?

Corianton had done more than the chapter heading's simple, broad "sexual sin."

Actions:

(2)... "not give so much heed unto my words"

(2)... "thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom."

(3)... "thou didst forsake the ministry"

(3)... "did go... after the harlot Isabel."

(9)... went "after the lusts of your eyes"

(He may be married by now, so he may also be commiting adultery)

Consequence:

(11)... "great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites"

(11)... "when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words."

(12)... "lead away the hearts of many people to destruction"

Warning:

(5)... "Know ye not, my son, that these things (plural) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins"

(12)... "command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities (plural)"

(13)... "lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly"

(13)... "acknowledge your faults (plural) and that wrong which ye have done."

(14)... "Seek not after riches nor the vain things (plural) of this world."

So Corianton, son of the prophet and called to be a missionary is sent preaching to the Zoramites. Because of all his (plural) actions they won't listen.

So why is Corianton warned that his actions are "next to murder?" He effectively causes spiritual death. Almost as bad as actual murder or spiritual suicide (denying the HG). All of his actions are collectively referred to in that way.

Also remember he was under the law of Moses at this time. We are not.

If a high profile church leader did all of the above, they might be guilty of "spiritual murder." But if a teenage couple, or a boy in his bedroom, or bewly baptised but unmarried (previously intimate) couple commit a sexual sin, is it really responsible to elevate them to the circumstances of Corianton? I believe not.

I will teach my children chastity. But I will not use Alma 39 to do it.

(Have opened a new thread on this topic, it's too big a tangent for this one: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61215-are-all-sexual-sins-really-second-only-to-murder/)

Edited July 4, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Perhaps the perplexities of the interesting conundrum you pose here are some of the reasons why pre-marital sex, consensual or otherwise, is considered a great sin in the eyes of God -- second only to murder. If the parties that could otherwise be potentially involved in this sinful behavior wisely choose to not willfully violate God's commandment on this sacred issue, they will never have to worry about having to agonizingly chose between life or death for an innocent third party who is not mature enough to have its desires on the subject made known.

I'm opening a new thread to discuss this.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61215-are-all-sexual-sins-really-second-only-to-murder/

Edited July 4, 2013 by canard78

[Bikeemikey]

The Prophet Alma, in Alma 39, said the following to his son, Corianton, who had committed sexual transgression:

"3...Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanite, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?"

Please provide conclusive scriptural support for his sexual transgression (no chapter headings and recognizing that the word harlot is just as often translated as prophetess with no sexual component).

Assuming you can do the first please them provide conclusive scriptural support for the idea that the phrase "second only to murder" is expressly and exclusively limited to the reported sexual sin (a sin not listed in the sins alma accuses his son of).

[teddyaware]

Poor Alma, I wonder if he's up in the spirit world grinding his spirit teeth at the way we've distorted what he said.

We teach an unmarried couple that their intimate moments are second to murder?

Corianton had done more than the chapter heading's simple, broad "sexual sin."

Actions:

(2)... "not give so much heed unto my words"

(2)... "thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom."

(3)... "thou didst forsake the ministry"

(3)... "did go... after the harlot Isabel."

(9)... went "after the lusts of your eyes"

(He may be married by now, so he may also be commiting adultery)

Consequence:

(11)... "great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites"

(11)... "when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words."

(12)... "lead away the hearts of many people to destruction"

Warning:

(5)... "Know ye not, my son, that these things (plural) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins"

(12)... "command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities (plural)"

(13)... "lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly"

(13)... "acknowledge your faults (plural) and that wrong which ye have done."

(14)... "Seek not after riches nor the vain things (plural) of this world."

So Corianton, son of the prophet and called to be a missionary is sent preaching to the Zoramites. Because of all his (plural) actions they won't listen.

So why is Corianton warned that his actions are "next to murder?" He effectively causes spiritual death. Almost as bad as actual murder or spiritual suicide (denying the HG). All of his actions are collectively referred to in that way.

Also remember he was under the law of Moses at this time. We are not.

If a high profile church leader did all of the above, they might be guilty of "spiritual murder." But if a teenage couple, or a boy in his bedroom, or bewly baptised but unmarried (previously intimate) couple commit a sexual sin, is it really responsible to elevate them to the circumstances of Corianton? I believe not.

I will teach my children chastity. But I will not use Alma 39 to do it.

(Have opened a new thread on this topic, it's too big a tangent for this one: http://www.mormondia...only-to-murder/)

In the list you provide, much of Corianton's wrongdoings have their genesis in his lusting after the harlot; and the sin of boasting in his own strength likely gave the adversary of Corianton's soul the opening to entice him with the fleshly lusts that caused him to abandon his ministry. By the way, Alma was not the only one who placed sexual sin in order of severity next to murder. In 1942, the First Presidency proclaimed: ""The doctrine of this Church is that sexual sin--the illicit sexual relations of men and women--stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under His solemn and awful condemnation"

[Hamba Tuhan]

Both modern and pre-modern societies,Christian and non-Christian societies (almost universally) have clear boundaries against stealing and murder.

All communities establish formal and informal laws/rules that govern human behaviour. That's why, in the area I studied for my PhD research, killing one's father would get a person in trouble ... though killing a member of a rival clan one might randomly happen upon in the jungle wouldn't. In like manner, taking something that belonged to the village chief would be punished, whilst looting and burning a neighbouring village would earn one praise and admiration. There was a fundamental shift, however, when introduced Christian morality started equating the killing of one's father with the killing of a rival clan member, theft from the chief with the looting of a non-related village.

Of course Christ's teachings have had a huge impact on the world - the invention of morality was not one of them.

But Christian principles have completely reshaped all the previously competing moralities in the world, becoming the domesticated and normalised foundation for what now discursively masquerades as universal, natural 'morality'. As just one example, the fact that broad sections of the 'international community' have been concerned about the way the US has recently been treating enemy combatants highlights the degree to which 'love your enemies' has trumped 'eat your enemies' in the competition amongst previously common systems of moralities.

This point is important simply because it reveals the silliness behind the notion that religious people oughtn't be attempting to 'impose' their values on others. The world we live in, though far from perfect and fraught with all kinds of violations of now nearly universal moral codes -- is a far better place to what it used to be precisely because religious people in the past actively sought to introduce their values/perspectives into the public discourse.

[canard78]

In the list you provide, much of Corianton's wrongdoings have their genesis in his lusting after the harlot; and the sin of boasting in his own strength likely gave the adversary of Corianton's soul the opening to entice him with the fleshly lusts that caused him to abandon his ministry. By the way, Alma was not the only one who placed sexual sin in order of severity next to murder. In 1942, the First Presidency proclaimed: ""The doctrine of this Church is that sexual sin--the illicit sexual relations of men and women--stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under His solemn and awful condemnation"

I've taken this conversation to the other thread to avoid derailing the conversation about abortion her.

[USU78]

Nope. They have as much right to discuss it in general as women do.

Just to be clear---in the cases of specific pregnancies, I believe there are a very few circumstances where the man should not be held responsible---specifically be forced to pay child support or have a say in raising the child---if he was clear that he was making efforts not to have children and in the first case, the woman actively interfered with those efforts or in the second, he decides after the fact he wants to be involved and gets in the way of an adoption. However he should never be able to try and force a woman to have an abortion by refusing to pay for child support when he shares equal responsibility for the pregnancy. Nor do I believe a woman should be automatically allowed to have an abortion without informing the father first and discussing it with him. While I don't believe a man has the right to force an abortion, I don't believe a woman has a right to insist she get one just because she wants it. I think there may be viable circumstances where a woman should be required to carry the child to term and then give the child to the father if she would have aborted the child if left alone. Under those circumstances, the father needs to assume as much of the burden of the pregnancy as possible, including compensating the woman for her time and effort as a 'surrogate mother', so to speak.

We are all but 100% in agreement on all points. Thanks for clarifying. Feckless sperm donors need to be made to hurt a whole lot more than they do under present law, IMNSHO.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree. So in all four cases we have cell clusters that are later non-viable?

Misscarriage is devastating. Mourning is appropriate. But from a doctrinal point of view we are not mourning the death of a child but the lost opprtunity of having a child at that time.

So is abortion at weeks 18 "murder?" No, I don't think so.

I'm not sure. Like you point out. There are always times when even Fido gets eaten. Morals flex. I'm against abortion. But if a doctor said my wife's life was in danger I'd have a dilemma.

If someday we are able to create an artificial womb we might have the discussion on viability. But even then there will be legitimate disagreements as to when human life begins. I'm not so wise as I can demand of others that my deeply held religious beliefs supersede their equally deeply held religious beliefs.

Actually miscarriage is just spontaneously occurring abortion, and most occur long before the woman even knows she's pregnant. I agree that it can devastating later in pregnancy, especially where the child is wanted.

In the US by definition murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. I believe that abortion should be limited to the rare cases of rape, incest, life/health of the mother are in jeopardy, or where the baby can't live outside the womb after normal gestation. Legally I don't know how such a law could be enforced.