There is no such thing as a liberal Mormon

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I can't agree with you here. Being a long time resigned member I don't think The Church belongs to the Elder oaks or even Prophet Monson to throw you out. It's totally up to you how much comfortable you feel in it or not. If Robert Kirby feels OK in Church then it is not impossible for anyone feel uncomfortable. 

I won't go as far as declaring "I love this Church & People" but I like the people and have very little communication  with Church. The Land of Utah is magical though, there are very few (if any) highways I did not travel on. People have been always cordial and alot to share, my last visit I met a gentlemen who played football at BYU, telling me how many operations he went through and his encounter with Football Gods, like Merlin Olsen....I told him my good years at U when Jim McMahon, Steve Young regularly whipped their rear end. Utah is such a place I think Darwin would trade Galapagos Islands on a heartbeat to be here.

I don't see me disagreeing what you've said.  I agree.  Many, like Kirby, who is just getting better and better in his articles, it seems, have made themselves a great spot in the Church and seem to enjoy it.  I was there not too long ago.  But now I'm feeling a bit pushed out again.  I got back and forth too much, I guess.  I can't tell right now if I'm welcome or if I'm being asked to leave.  Such feelings haven't been my deciding factor of whether I'm in or out, though.  I do what I want and what I think is best for me and my family.  In the sum, I'm still in and don't really see myself getting out. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Brother Bundy said:

I think Mason is way off on this one.  I just don't see how a faithful mormon could justify supporting planned parenthood and requiring companies to provide birth control etc.  Do we really want members like that preaching their liberal values in Sundays School class and church picnics?  

I probably wouldn't.  I despise labels too much.  He seems open and free, pretty relaxed compared to most members.  That's how I see myself.  I don't know that he embraces the liberal field biblical criticism or not, though.  I believe in one of his articles he recounts how he conducted a gay wedding ceremony with no local backlash.  So in that view he may be liberal. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Brother Bundy said:

Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but I grew up hearing over and over again about the evils of birth control.  I have family members that absolutely refused to get birth control when they got married because of the teachings they heard in young men's and women's classes.  They were married and had kids in 10 months, and considered it their duty to do so.

 

I'm I crazy, or did I get taught false doctrine?

Sounds like someone was combining their political views with old situational statements from 19th century leaders and topped it with a sprinkle of borrowed Roman Catholic ideology and taught it in Sunday School.

Much like a nutcase in my ward insists that if we do not elect a chronic serial fornicator and adulterer President of the United States that we are morally doomed.

[Atheist Mormon]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see me disagreeing what you've said.  I agree.  Many, like Kirby, who is just getting better and better in his articles, it seems, have made themselves a great spot in the Church and seem to enjoy it.  I was there not too long ago.  But now I'm feeling a bit pushed out again.  I got back and forth too much, I guess.  I can't tell right now if I'm welcome or if I'm being asked to leave.  Such feelings haven't been my deciding factor of whether I'm in or out, though.  I do what I want and what I think is best for me and my family.  In the sum, I'm still in and don't really see myself getting out. 

stem,

The reason Kirby is very comfortable is because he likes himself projecting who He is and really doesn't care what others think, whether they judge or like him.... Whatever direction your life takes it's alright.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

Of course it means I'm pro-choice. It's not my position or desire to declare where the boundaries of sin lie, but I find opposition to the legality and accessibility of abortion absolutely unconscionable.

So am I correct in presuming that for you the only morally repugnant and unconscionable position one can take in the whole abortion controversy is to declare that, generally speaking, the destruction of human life is a sin?

[maklelan]

Just now, Bobbieaware said:

So am I correct in presuming that for you the only morally repugnant and unconscionable position one can take in the whole abortion controversy is to declare that, generally speaking, the destruction of human life is a sin?

No, I don't find that to be a morally repugnant position, I find the notion that that declaration is relevant to the abortion debate to be a naive category error that serves the interests of petty identity politics. What I find morally repugnant is men's prioritization of those petty identity politics over the health and safety of women.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

According the manual, abortion is permitted in cases of incest or medical danger. Abortion has to be legal in order for women to have abortion in those circumstances. Ergo the official position defaults to pro-choice, but  generally anti-abortion.

I don't think that follows.

Being pro-choice implies that the abortion be available by choice, ie, whenever requested.
The Church position is that the abortion only be available when absolutely necessary - required, not elective.
 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

No, I don't find that to be a morally repugnant position, I find the notion that that declaration is relevant to the abortion debate to be a naive category error that serves the interests of petty identity politics. What I find morally repugnant is men's prioritization of those petty identity politics over the health and safety of women.

Why does the convenience of an otherwise safe and healthy woman take precedence over the sacredness of the innocent human life that is growing within her? Are you saying the Lord's definitions of right and wrong should not be upheld and defended in the secular world? Should the Latter-day Saints just sit back and passively allow the people of the world to drag themselves down to utter degradation and hell in the name of godless secular humanism? In case you are unaware of the fact, the Lord is going to judge the non-members of the world by the standards of the Gospel and by the whispering so inborn light of Christ -- sacred whisperings of faith, hope and love the people of the world are learning to ignore more and more with each passing day.. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[maklelan]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why does the convenience of an otherwise safe and healthy woman take precedence over the sacredness of the innocent human life that is growing within her? 

First, "convenience" is an awfully reductive and presumptuous characterization of an experience I don't think you've ever had. Convenience is having an airport within 30 minutes of your house, not deciding whether or not you want to abandon all your plans for the future and forever alter the course of your entire life. 

Second, a fetus is not a human life. It's certainly the seed of human life, but throughout history we have always put unborn children in a separate and subordinate category from born children. In all our different modes of conceptualization, life begins at birth. The only place that is different is the abortion debate. You cannot find any examples in contemporary Western culture of anyone ever answering a question about their age or about how long they've been alive with a reference to any point prior to their birth. We conceptualize of human life beginning at birth. Even the Church does not allow sealings for stillborn children because there is no revelation indicating the spirit enters the body prior to birth. 

Third, the state of that otherwise safe and healthy's woman's body is her prerogative, not yours. 

Quote

Are you saying the Lord's definitions of right and wrong should not be upheld and defended in the secular world? 

First, it's not the Lord's definitions of right and wrong. I don't recall anywhere where abortion is specifically singled out in revelation from God as something that is ok in some circumstances, but inexcusable in all others. It's certainly never been confirmed to me by the Spirit that such revelation exists or is of God, and if we require revelation before we provide sealings for stillborn children, why do we not require it for determining the Lord's will regarding abortion?

Next, you're not upholding and defending it, you're attempting to impose it, and that should absolutely not be done according to our own ideology.  

Quote

Should the Latter-day Saints just sit back and passively allow the people of the world to drag themselves down to utter degradation and hell in the name of godless secular humanism? In case you are unaware of the fact, the Lord is going to judge the non-members of the world by the standards of the Gospel and by the whispering so inborn light of Christ, sacred whisperings the people of the world are learning to ignore more and more with each passing day.. 

Here you double down on attempting to impose your own version of morality on people who do not want it, and you are insulting and degrading those people at the same time. These are all things that directly and flagrantly violate LDS standards. 

 

[Damien the Leper]

Very well argued, @maklelan. I am reminded of this meme and religions would do well to remember it: 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

First, "convenience" is an awfully reductive and presumptuous characterization of an experience I don't think you've ever had. Convenience is having an airport within 30 minutes of your house, not deciding whether or not you want to abandon all your plans for the future and forever alter the course of your entire life. 

Second, a fetus is not a human life. It's certainly the seed of human life, but throughout history we have always put unborn children in a separate and subordinate category from born children. In all our different modes of conceptualization, life begins at birth. The only place that is different is the abortion debate. You cannot find any examples in contemporary Western culture of anyone ever answering a question about their age or about how long they've been alive with a reference to any point prior to their birth. We conceptualize of human life beginning at birth. Even the Church does not allow sealings for stillborn children because there is no revelation indicating the spirit enters the body prior to birth. 

Third, the state of that otherwise safe and healthy's woman's body is her prerogative, not yours. 

First, it's not the Lord's definitions of right and wrong. I don't recall anywhere where abortion is specifically singled out in revelation from God as something that is ok in some circumstances, but inexcusable in all others. It's certainly never been confirmed to me by the Spirit that such revelation exists or is of God, and if we require revelation before we provide sealings for stillborn children, why do we not require it for determining the Lord's will regarding abortion?

Next, you're not upholding and defending it, you're attempting to impose it, and that should absolutely not be done according to our own ideology.  

Here you double down on attempting to impose your own version of morality on people who do not want it, and you are insulting and degrading those people at the same time. These are all things that directly and flagrantly violate LDS standards. 

Here are some statements from official Church sources that discuss the reasons why members need to attend disciplinary councils. Among those who need to attend disciplinary councils are those who ENCOURAGE others to have abortions. 

• A member submits to, performs, encourages, pays for, or otherwise arranges an abortion. Disciplinary councils are not held, however, if the pregnancy resulted from rape or forcible incest; if the life of the mother is in jeopardy; or if it is shown that the fetus has severe defects which will not allow it to survive the birth [LDS Church (2006). Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, p. 111].

• Concerning the subject of abortion, The Church of Jesus Christ teaches:

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" (Doctrine and Covenants 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. (True to the Faith manual)

 

In light of the above, please explain to me how your thinking on abortion is not out of harmony with the teachings of the Church and with the above first-person declaration of the Lord?

 

 

 

 

[maklelan]

46 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Here are some statements from official Church sources that discuss the reasons why members need to attend disciplinary councils. Among those who need to attend disciplinary councils are those who ENCOURAGE others to have abortions. 

• A member submits to, performs, encourages, pays for, or otherwise arranges an abortion. Disciplinary councils are not held, however, if the pregnancy resulted from rape or forcible incest; if the life of the mother is in jeopardy; or if it is shown that the fetus has severe defects which will not allow it to survive the birth [LDS Church (2006). Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, p. 111].

• Concerning the subject of abortion, The Church of Jesus Christ teaches:

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" (Doctrine and Covenants 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. (True to the Faith manual)

 

In light of the above, please explain to me how your thinking on abortion is not out of harmony with the teachings of the Church and with the above first-person declaration of the Lord?

 

Suggesting I need to be excommunicated is precisely the kind of petty identity politics I referenced earlier. I'd appreciate it if you'd apologize.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

Suggesting I need to be excommunicated is precisely the kind of petty identity politics I referenced earlier. I'd appreciate it if you'd apologize.

What in the world are you talking about with regard to the Church standards having something to do with "petty identity politics?" Is that all the Church is to you, just another cheesy sub-category political pressure group? You sound like a scripted leftist political hack.

While reading your posts, I imagined a pregnant young LDS woman reading your words and thinking to herself that if, according to your own unambiguous and clearly-stated point of view, her unborn child was not a human life she might be encouraged to have an abortion if she had been considering one as an option. After all, if one of the heads of the LDS Church's Scripture Translation Department (a most sacred responsibility) asserts, with an air of supreme confidence, that it's no big deal for a member of the Church to have an abortion, and that having the abortion could even be considered a most noble and heroic act that asserts the sacred secular principle of a woman's right to choose, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched to imagine she might be persuaded to believe the end-result of the abortion of her unborn child wouldn't be the destruction of an innocent human life.

Since I honestly believe your words might very well have the power to persuade a wavering Church member to have an abortion (you are no slouch when it comes to debate), it would be disingenuous on my part to say I didn't believe you were potentially, if unwittingly, offering very real encouragement for some to go ahead and violate the Church's policy on abortion. And since in my post I never mentioned excommunication (a Church disciplinary council does not necessarily equate to excommunication or even to any other form of punishment), I will not apologize for something I never said (have you not heard of Church councils where no disciplinary action was taken?). But perhaps by you've hoisted yourself on your own petard because it could just be that a guilty conscience saw something in my post that wasn't actually there.

Anyway, even if you were called to a disciplinary council it seems unlikely to me you would be punished for your position on abortion. I say this because with your great rhetorical skills and tremendous powers of persuasion you would likely be able to persuade the officiators and participants that the Church's position on abortion is nothing more than a prime example of petty identity politics irun amok.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Members do not need to get permission from their Bishop to have an abortion.  They are counseled to consult with their bishops and seek divine confirmation through prayer.

Here is the full policy from Handbook 1:

 

Which is self contradictory. It is trained doctors who perform abortions including the LDS ones. 

[maklelan]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What in the world are you talking about with regard to the Church standards having something to do with "petty identity politics?"

Mainly I'm addressing the fact that it's not your job in any way, shape, or form to go around policing what you believe to be the uncrossable lines of Mormon orthodoxy.

Quote

Is that all the Church is to you, just another cheesy sub-category political pressure group? You sound like a scripted leftist political hack.

 No, that's not "all the Church is" to me at all, and I'll thank you to stop passing such broad and sweeping judgments on me.

Quote

While reading your posts, I imagined a pregnant young LDS woman reading your words and thinking to herself that if, according to your own unambiguous and clearly-stated point of view, her unborn child was not a human life she might be encouraged to have an abortion if she had been considering one as an option. 

 Ah, so I should qualify for excommunication because of the hypothetical case of someone being convinced to have an abortion because of my posts? Why so much zeal for kicking people out of the Church? 

Quote

After all, if one of the heads of the LDS Church's Scripture Translation Department (a most sacred responsibility) asserts with an air of supreme confidence that it's no big deal for a member of the Church to have an abortion, and if having that abortion would even a most noble act of the assertion of a woman's right to choose, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched to imagine she might be persuaded to believe the end-result of the abortion of her unborn child wouldn't be the destruction of an innocent human life. Since I honestly believe your words might very well have the power to persuade a wavering Church member to have an abortion (you are no slouch when it comes to debate), it would be disingenuous on my part to say I didn't believe you were potentially, if unwittingly, offering very real encouragement for some to go ahead and violate the Church's policy on abortion.

Ah, now I'm using my position as one of several scripture translation supervisors (not the head of a department, and there is no scripture translation department) to influence others to have hypothetical abortions. I'd point out that I don't believe I ever said any of this was "no big deal." In fact, one of my first points was precisely that that decision is an extreme experience I don't think you've had and so are in no position to dictate how a person is to feel about it. 

Quote

And since in my post I never mentioned excommunication (a Church disciplinary council does not necessarily equate to excommunication or even to any other form of punishment), I will not apologize for something I never said (have you not heard of Church councils where no disciplinary action was taken?). But perhaps by you've hoisted yourself on your own petard because it could just be that a guilty conscience saw something in my post that wasn't actually there.

Ah, you weren't talking about excommunication, you just suggested I needed to be grilled in a disciplinary council, which, obviously, often does result precisely in excommunication. Don't patronize me, Bobbieaware. It's an insult to both your and my intelligence. 

Quote

Anyway, even if you were called to a disciplinary council it seems unlikely to me you would be punished for your position on abortion. I say this because with your great rhetorical skills and tremendous powers of persuasion you would likely be able to persuade the officiators and participants that the Church's position on abortion is nothing more than a prime example of petty identity politics irun amok.

Maybe instead of just growing increasingly belligerent in your mischaracterizations of my person and my statements, you could take the time to consider what I'm saying and engage me like an adult. I'd first appreciate that apology.

[The Nehor]

On 8/22/2016 at 9:52 AM, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  The path should be built to accommodate billions not a few thousand. 

The path to eternal life tied to the nature of eternal life. You cannot loosen the standards of it arbitrarily even if you are God. Now some members may try to expand or even further restrict the path but such efforts are fruitless.

[Doctor Steuss]

On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 0:41 PM, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot.  I question whether I fit, for sure.  If Elder Oaks had his way, I might be out.  But I'm here.  I don't know if I'm welcome.  It's a mixed bag on that.  I guess we'll see. 

Sometimes I get encouraged that we are becoming open, thoughtful and helpful.  Other times I get discouraged as it seems many in the Church want me out, hoping to secure themselves a more comfortable place called Church. 

I'm not sure what to make of this.  Thanks for your thoughts though.

Don't know why, but this post made me think of an exchange between Brigham Young, and Edwin Woolley.  After the two had a rather heated exchange, President Young said to Bishop Woolley, "Now, Bishop Wooley, I guess you will go off and apostatize."

To this, Bishop Woolley responded:  "If this were your church, President Young, I would be tempted to do so.  But this is just as much my church as it is yours, and why should I apostatize from my own church?"

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=HtbtAAAAMAAJ&q=Now,+Bishop+Woolley,+I+guess+you+will+go+off+and+apostatize&dq=Now,+Bishop+Woolley,+I+guess+you+will+go+off+and+apostatize&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFp8ufnNjOAhVS42MKHQ4TDgMQ6AEIJDAB

[waveslider]

19 hours ago, maklelan said:

Second, a fetus is not a human life.

Then how come planned parenthood sells the mutilated parts of the fetus as human parts, or at least did until they got caught doing it?

[maklelan]

21 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Then how come planned parenthood sells the mutilated parts of the fetus as human parts, or at least did until they got caught doing it?

You either already know none of that is true and just don't care, or are too blinded by your obdurate dogmatism to care what the facts say. Either way, I'm not interested.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

Then how come planned parenthood sells the mutilated parts of the fetus as human parts, or at least did until they got caught doing it?

 

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

You either already know none of that is true and just don't care, or are too blinded by your obdurate dogmatism to care what the facts say. Either way, I'm not interested.

Agreed.

[UtahTexan]

A fetus IS a life.  it has its own DNA and heartbeat.

I understand the need to argue that....it makes it much easier to end that life.

 

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, maklelan said:

You either already know none of that is true and just don't care, or are too blinded by your obdurate dogmatism to care what the facts say. Either way, I'm not interested.

I don't know that isn't true. What do the facts say? CFR

[maklelan]

2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

A fetus IS a life.  it has its own DNA and heartbeat.

It is not a human life equivalent to that of a born human. All of our laws and all of our cultural mores and standards and assumptions recognize an important qualitative difference between a born human and an unborn one.

Quote

I understand the need to argue that....it makes it much easier to end that life.

No, there's clearly quite a bit that you don't understand, but I recognize how important that naive posturing is to your rhetoric.

Edited August 23, 2016 by maklelan

[UtahTexan]

7 minutes ago, maklelan said:

It is not a human life equivalent to that of a born human. All of our laws and all of our cultural mores and standards and assumptions recognize an important difference qualitative between a born human and an unborn one.

No, there's clearly quite a bit that you don't understand, but I recognize how important that naive posturing is to your rhetoric.

Actually, just because I disagree with you does not mean I am naive.  It has a heartbeat.  it has DNA.....what does it lack, in your opinion?  The ability to live on its own?  The ability to recognize surroundings?  The ability to think on its own?  Fine.  If that is your position, let's go down to the hospitals and kill all those who fall in those categories taking up space in hospital beds and nursing homes.

 

[maklelan]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Actually, just because I disagree with you does not mean I am naive. 

No, it's the naive argumentation and misinformation that means you are naive. 

Quote

It has a heartbeat.  it has DNA.....what does it lack, in your opinion? 

Numerous other things that make a human being a human being, unless you think all entities with DNA and heartbeats count as fully fledged and credentialed human beings.

Quote

The ability to live on its own?  The ability to recognize surroundings?  The ability to think on its own?  Fine.  If that is your position, let's go down to the hospitals and kill all those who fall in those categories taking up space in hospital beds and nursing homes.

What a grotesque and ignorant false analogy. You're suggesting that pro-choice positions hold that all non-humans unilaterally deserve death, rather than that they prioritize the life and agency of the mother over that of a fetus while it is a part of her body. No one has the physical relationship to anyone in any hospital or nursing home on the planet that a woman has to an unborn fetus. It is precisely that physical relationship that demands priority be given to the life and agency of one over and against the other. The fact that you have to entirely ignore the absolute centrality of that physical relationship to the question in order to attempt to drum up analogues you think will serve your rhetoric only further betrays how laughably far off the mark you are.