Jump to content

Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not saying that science shouldn't inform the ethical discussion. Of course it is important to understand the science in order to apply our ethical or religious values. What I'm saying is that everyone in the debate mostly already understands and agrees upon the scientific description of how human life begins. If someone is in error on that point, it is worth bringing the scientific facts to their awareness. But the scientific description of life, on its own, doesn't provide us with sanctity-of-life value judgements. It only describes a natural phenomenon to which we can apply our ethical/religious value judgments. 

 

Yes. Certainly almost everyone agrees how life begins. I don't know what there would be to disagree about.

To me the question is, "just what is it that has begun?" Irving's argument is that it is wholly a human being from fertilization because it contains within itself all that is necessary to define it as such, not just a mass of cells with the potential to become a human being. IMO, if that is an acceptable argument we could have good reason to reexamine those value judgments. It could affect our views on abortion, disposal of zygotes, and other current beliefs and practices.

From our religious point of view, we have added questions raised by the process of the soul entering the body. To my knowledge, that has never been adequately answered. Science cannot answer this. The previous explanation - "quickening" - seems not to be useful because as we have learned more about what happens during development, we know movement exists long before the mother feels it. 

Interesting and difficult topic. 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Absolutely. Again, my objection is that Pogi is attempting to use science as an end run around the moral questions by switching definitions midstream (from a scientific description of human being to a moral description of personhood and rights). 

Is this a joke?  You don't object to the scientific term "human being" being applied to the zygote?  Do I need to refresh your memory that you basically called the author of that paper a liar and that there is no way that another biologist would use that term for the zygote.  Do I need to refresh your memory that you said it is a "human" but not a "being", in discussing scientific nomenclature surrounding the zygote.  

Is anyone else thoroughly confused and feels like they are being gamed with and trolled at this point.  I don't think you are being upfront as to what your position has been throughout this thread scientifically distinguishing "human life" from "human being".

You just flipped.

I want to hear you say it:  "A zygote is a human being." 

What a waste of freaking time!  Why couldn't you just acknowledge this before???

Edited by pogi
Link to post
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I neither like it or dislike. I will say that the church’s position is not aligned with yours. If a zygote / blastocyst / embryo is a person like a human embryo than it would never be okay to terminate a pregnancy for rape. It would never be okay to discard an embryo. The church’s position seems to be that the creation of life is sacred and messing around with it Willy nilly is a grave sin (see fornication etc). The church’s position is not consistent with the personhood of a human embryo. 

Don't get me wrong. I like the Church's position on this. That does not prevent me from exploring other thoughts. There is nothing to say my or the Church's position would not change given more information. Frankly, while this discussion has raised some very interesting questions, I'm not seeing that we have many answers. We can't even agree on what that thing we are talking about actually is. We all get lectured about "following the science" when we have differing opinions on things. In this case, if we are to accept Irving's arguments, the science is very clear what that thing is....a unique and whole human being from fertilization. What we do with that knowledge remains to be seen.

How would you answer this?

Quote

If we retrogress back to conception, at what point does whatever existed then become something different than what exists at birth?

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post

For the record:

On 10/8/2020 at 2:27 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Each individual cell in my body is new life. Even human life. 

Notice the equation of human life to a skin cell. 

The following is a strange question he thinks I should ask biologists if he things the zygote is a human being:

On 10/8/2020 at 3:42 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or when an embryo becomes a human being?

When I tried to use the scientific term "human being' as a foundation to build on:

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And my point is that you are misusing the biological foundation. 

Note that he can't say "being":

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A zygote is a human at the very earliest stage of development. (Happy?)

And here is the smoking gun:

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think the science is defined by a single catholic anti abortion biologist. I’m not sure that it makes sense to call a single cell a “being” ...That doesn’t sound very science-y to me and I will note We are  If you can point to the scientific consensus here I’ll be happy to take a look. 

The second smoking gun:

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well in my brief read of the first few paragraphs and scan of the rest, I must have missed the reference to the scientifically accepted fact that a zygote is a human “being”. Could you please provide it?

Not again the absence of "being".  He calls it a human life, just like the skin cell mentioned above.

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I will state emphatically for the record that there is no doubt a zygote is a human life scientifically speaking. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
18 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

@SeekingUnderstanding

I pointed out to Pogi that you made the following statement

And then I followed up with this statement (Pogi's response follows):

So I guess I will ask you. Would you agree that a zygote is a "human being" if that term is understood strictly in a scientific context, as merely a scientific description, with no ethical/religious values attached to it?

Absolutely. Again, my objection is that Pogi is attempting to use science as an end run around the moral questions by switching definitions midstream (from a scientific description of human being to a moral description of personhood and rights). 

Bingo

And here I think is a good example:

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

If we accept the philosophy (which America has adopted) that human beings have natural inalienable rights, then understanding what a human being is does get us somewhere. 

Here you begin with a philosophical value-judgment about "human beings" held generally by America, and then you assert that it would be good to know what science calls a "human being"--as if what science is referring to and what philosophy are referring to are necessarily the same thing, when it comes to the abortion debate. But it often isn't the same thing. And I can't think of any good semantic argument why it should have to be. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not seeing that we have many answers.

If we don’t have answers, maybe we shouldn’t be in the business of legislating our particular version of morality. 

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We can't even agree on what that thing we are talking about actually is. We all get lectured about "following the science" when we have differing opinions on things.

Pogi seems to be the only one arguing this so you’ll have to take it up with him. I’ve given up. Thanks. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Bingo

See my post above.  He is playing you, or me, or both of us...

 

15 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Here you begin with a philosophical value-judgment about "human beings" held generally by America, and then you assert that it would be good to know what science calls a "human being"--as if what science is referring to and what philosophy are referring to are necessarily the same thing, when it comes to the abortion debate. But it often isn't the same thing. And I can't think of any good semantic argument why it should have to be. 

The philosophy of natural rights was referring to a biological entity (human beings), not a philosophical one.  

Link to post
46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is this a joke?  You don't object to the scientific term "human being" being applied to the zygote?  Do I need to refresh your memory that you basically called the author of that paper a liar and that there is no way that another biologist would use that term for the zygote.  Do I need to refresh your memory that you said it is a "human" but not a "being", in discussing scientific nomenclature surrounding the zygote.  

Is anyone else thoroughly confused and feels like they are being gamed with and trolled at this point.  I don't think you are being upfront as to what your position has been throughout this thread scientifically distinguishing "human life" from "human being".

You just flipped.

I want to hear you say it:  "A zygote is a human being." 

What a waste of freaking time!  Why couldn't you just acknowledge this before???

I will point out to correct the record that from the beginning I have said it depends on how you define human being.
 

see here: 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73222-catholic-bishop-abortion-is-the-preeminent-evil-in-our-culture/?do=findComment&comment=1209996146

 

You and your catholic biologist are using the term in a moral sense. And science really has nothing to say about that. Again you can keep going with the word games, but I will not participate with you. 

Link to post
51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How would you answer this?

I missed this. In one my first posts in this thread, I stated something like the following:

There is no difference between a fetus one minute pre-birth and an infant post birth. At the same time, there is no way a zygote is a person like an infant is. Given your hesitation on condemning IVF it appears you are softening here (at least seeking further knowledge). 

It’s Sorites paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

I have also stated that any abortion post the “plan b” stage is a tragedy of competing rights. It is difficult to say when an embryo becomes a person. For abortion, with rare exceptions (severe fetal abnormalities that are unsurvivable) I don’t think any post viability abortions should be allowed. I think between there should be increasing more restrictions (from conception to viability). I also think we should be addressing things like poverty and access to good birth control that cause abortion in the first place. Ymmv. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will point out to correct the record that from the beginning I have said it depends on how you define human being.
 

see here: 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73222-catholic-bishop-abortion-is-the-preeminent-evil-in-our-culture/?do=findComment&comment=1209996146

 

You and your catholic biologist are using the term in a moral sense. And science really has nothing to say about that. Again you can keep going with the word games, but I will not participate with you. 

I will point out to correct the corrected record that you said in relation to the zygote being a human "being"", you said, "that doesn't sound very science-y to me".

I will also point out that you refused to accept the possibility that you or I could find a reference from a scientific journal to demonstrate that there is scientific consensus that the zygote is a "human being'.  Seems a REALLY strange thing to doubt if you accepted as much.  You question that there was scientific "consensus" on the issue.  Why? 

I will also point out that I answered your question that "human being" is a scientific term.  I provided a reference.  You doubted the reference.  You also doubted the references of the reference, that they would confirm that a zygote is a human being in a biological sense.  I also answered that "person" is a philosophical term.

I will point out that you continued to refuse to accept the scientific term human being as being applied to the zygote, despite my incessant clarity that I am strictly speaking in the scientific sense of the term.   

Quit playing us. 

If you are trying to convince me that you accepted that term in reference to the zygote this whole time, then you have some explaining to do.  Do you not see how misleading your statements have been?  Are you just toying with me or what?  You knew I wasn't talking in the philosophical sense.  You knew that.  I made it clear.  So why were you playing me?

Edited by pogi
Link to post
6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

To clarify, do LDS believe that murder is unforgivable?

 I don’t think this has been answered:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/08/thou-shalt-not-kill?lang=eng

 

Quote

Further, murderers place themselves in a position where it is impossible to ask forgiveness of the one sinned against or to make restitution—at least in this life. So grievous is the act that the Prophet Joseph Smith said murderers “cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing.”

Unforgivable means they need to pay for their own redemption if they repent, whatever that amounts to and after that the Atonement can apply. 
 

The Unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and means they can’t access the Atonement (most likely imo because they won’t repent).

Edited by Calm
Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I will point out to correct the corrected record that you said in relation to the zygote being a human "being"", you said, "that doesn't sound very science-y to me".

dude chill the heck out. I stand by my assessment that if you search the scientific literature you will find very sparse references if any of zygotes as human beings (I am willing to be corrected). In the very limited sense of Ryan’s definition can the term be accepted. That’s not how you are or were using the term. It’s not how your catholic biologist was using the term. You are attempting to weaponize the science to score a moral point as I stated over and over and over. That is my objection to how you are using the term. I have stated that over and over. 
 

You are welcome to the last word. 
 

Peace. 

 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s not how you are or were using the term.

Bull crap.  This is easily refuted.  I was crystal clear.  I clarified it like a million times in this thread that "I am strictly speaking the the scientific sense of the term."  You KNOW that.  Yet you continue to play me. What a waste!

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

dude chill the heck out. 

No.  You are wasting my freaking time and playing me.  I have a right to be angry.  

Link to post
16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s not how your catholic biologist was using the term.

This is also bull crap.  She also clarified that she was strictly using the term in the biological and scientific sense. 

Quote

Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Quote

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are attempting to weaponize the science to score a moral point as I stated over and over and over. 

I was using science as a means to inform an ethical discussion.  

And you were attempting to refute the science so you could morally equate a zygote to a skin cell (human life).

Edited by pogi
Link to post
31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR. I don’t recall you saying that but it’s possible I misread you. 

Now I know for a fact that you are just trolling me.  But I will play along once more.

On 10/7/2020 at 3:14 PM, pogi said:

It is not just religionists that are against abortion. The secularist argument is not about the spirit, but about the nomenclature of life. 

 

 

On 10/8/2020 at 9:39 AM, pogi said:

I understand that there are moral implications which need to be hashed out.  But before we can address those, we need a scientific consensus as to when biological human life begins.  And we have one.  An overwhelming one!  This (I'm not talking about abortion in case anyone is confused) is a biological question, not a moral one. 

 

On 10/8/2020 at 10:31 AM, pogi said:

I am not talking about human rights or morals or anything like that at this point.  I am strictly talking about when human life begins.  It is astonishing to me how politics warps peoples brains on this issue. It is just like with Covid.  They can't get themselves to simply acknowledge what science has overwhelming consensus on.  Strip the politics from it. Strip the moral implications from it.  What does science say?

 

On 10/8/2020 at 11:05 AM, pogi said:

Clearly, that is not the case.  Several here cannot get themselves to acknowledge that a human beings' life begins at fertilization.  We have to start with that foundation because that biological fact may have potential moral and philosophical implications and deserves a place in the debate. 

 

On 10/8/2020 at 1:16 PM, pogi said:

There are certainly moral questions surrounding "life". But the statement that human life begins at the zygote is not a moral statement - it is a scientific one.  Let philosophy and religion do with that fact what it will.  But we have to start with that biological foundation - then build our morals from it.    

 

On 10/8/2020 at 2:26 PM, pogi said:

I guess they will have to speak for themselves on this.  But I made it 100% crystal clear that I have been speaking about biological human life from a scientific point of view (at least one of them doesn't even believe in spirits), and they are the ones who made it a point to respond and disagree with me.  

 

On 10/8/2020 at 2:43 PM, pogi said:

But not a human being.  A zygote is 1 human being.  A blastocyst is 1 human being.  An adult human with trillions of human cells is 1 human being.   

 

23 hours ago, pogi said:

That would scratch their head at the nonsensical second question.  I have already posted one link from biologists at Princeton indicating that a zygote is a "human being" in primary stages of development.  Humans have many stages of development.  If we need to be fully developed to be considered a human being, then new born babies are not human beings either.  I will see if there were more specific questions in the larger poll of biologists.   

 

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I am strictly talking about biologyYou are making this about philosophy, morality, etc. 

It is certainly a person.  I define "person" as an individual human being.  I think you will find that about all dictionaries agree.  Whether or not it is a person that deserves legal protection is not a question of biology.  That is a discussion for later.  My point is simply to establish a scientifically accepted biological foundation and terminology to build from - so we are not all talking past each other.  We can discuss the other stuff later. 

 

7 hours ago, pogi said:

This is categorically false.  They are the same type.  Same kind.   Aged adults and newborn infants are not "the same" either.  They are in different stages of development.  They are still of the same type and kind, however - aka human beings.

 

7 hours ago, pogi said:

We can't talk about philosophy and morality without a biological foundation and common language.  Or we will be talking past each other.   We have to start from the basic facts and build from there.  We can't talk about abortion until we know what we are dealing with.

I am not talking about life in general.  I am talking about the individual life of a human being. 

 

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I am yet to hear seeking understanding (and several others) admit that a zygote is a human being.  He seems very resistant to that idea.  He says it is not the same kind or type.  It is something else.  As if to dehumanize it somehow.  Does being different make us less then human, somehow?  A child is different form an adult, less developed...therefore, not human?  Again, the point (as I have pointed out a million times) is to have a basic understanding of what exactly it is we are dealing with.

 

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Here is a detailed explanation of what a human being is.  These are snippets from a larger paper written by a biologist at Princeton:

This establishes a zygote as a "human being" an "individual".

"Person" is not scientific word.  We have to turn to the dictionary for that.  I can't find a definition that doesn't state "A human being" or "individual human being".

 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

If we can establish the fact that a zygote is an individual human being, it can have an impact on how philosophers think about and address natural or inalienable human rights.  Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind.   Definitions matter.  Proper biological understanding can affect philosophical thought.  We need to establish the facts first.  Why are you pushing back against it so hard?  Clearly there is semantical differences that need to be ironed out before we can have a productive discussion.  Most disagreements are on semantics.  That is why I am starting from the foundation. 

 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not retracting anything.  You are just as capable as I am to research the bibliography.  I have already provided the reference where she claims that these are not her opinions and that it is all referenced.  If you don't believe her, then prove her wrong.  I have no reason to doubt that she is telling the truth.  

I'm not swithching anything.  I don't know what you are talking about.  I have always been using scientific vernacular.  Homo sapien would be the most scientific term I guess for human being.  They are equivalent terms in science.  

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

...I noted that a "human being" is scientifically equivalent to "homo sapien".  I provided a reference too.  (that is not a catholic anti abortion biologist)

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you are playing the same semantical games in the opposite direction.  If it is not a "human being" then you are not killing/murdering  innocent human beings.   The fact is that science gets to decide the semantical nomenclature, not you.  Homo sapien = human being.  

If Ryan is reading, now perhaps you can see why I am making the effort.   Because it seems to matter to both sides philosophically. 

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Huh?  That isn't my position.  It is a matter of nomenclature for them.  Not morality.   You simply refuse to accept their nomenclature, - because it may have moral implications that you have a hard time swallowing.  

Just goes to show that some people can actually be scientifically honest about nomenclature and still come to different moral conclusions.  

 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I swear you don't read a word I write.  I have already stated (I think several times) that "person" is not a scientific term.  "Human being", or homo sapien, is the term under consideration that you refuse to accept.  I provided dictionary references which all describe the person as a "human being", an "individual" - all of which ARE used in science to describe the zygote.  

  They are trying to detract from the real sciences by making up definitions for unscientific terms and applying them to biological processes that science doesn't acknowledge.   For some reason the undefined "person" is more worthy or rights than the "human being".  Who is really playing semantical games here???  

A person is some obscure thing that science can't define, but for some inexplicable reason it gets rights that the human being doesn't.   If the person is not the human being, then what is it?  It is not a stage of development.  It is not a part of anatome or physiology.  What exactly is the person?  The soul?  The spirit?  what? 

I'll tell you what the "person" is.  In terms of abortion, the term and definition (if there is one) is a made-up term used to pacify the conscience when killing another human being. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

dude chill the heck out. I stand by my assessment that if you search the scientific literature you will find very sparse references if any of zygotes as human beings (I am willing to be corrected). In the very limited sense of Ryan’s definition can the term be accepted. That’s not how you are or were using the term. It’s not how your catholic biologist was using the term. You are attempting to weaponize the science to score a moral point as I stated over and over and over. That is my objection to how you are using the term. I have stated that over and over. 

You are welcome to the last word. 

Peace. 

The DNA, chromosomes and genes are non-living molecules and so are not living human beings.

The coded information therein directs the formation of living cells through the interaction of living and non-living processes and things. Due to their interdependent action (a living human sustains the machinery and machinery sustains the human), this non-living machinery is no less sacred than the projected living outcome of its operation (a human being). I use “sacred” in the sense that our laws accommodate the merger of the scientific with the moral.

As a projection, there is more to the moral assessment of preventing or ending this human being’s conception and gestation than the preservation or destruction of the couple’s chromosomes, whether separately in the form of germ cells or in their combination as a zygote.

The potential impact of the human life that is formed on all other things on earth (noting that the non-living and the living are inextricably entwined) must be considered, with implications far beyond the immediate interaction between the conception and the mother. This certainly broadens the scope of rights and responsibility for making these choices and codifying them for the larger group, even if limiting the conversation to living human beings possessing the capacity to discuss it.

Link to post
On 10/8/2020 at 7:41 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I have a number of friends who have adopted children of other races. Some of them have received criticism that by adopting they were compromising and betraying the children’s racial identity. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. 

Those critics are morons.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 10/8/2020 at 9:27 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure I understand. If there were 600,000 instead of 16,000 murders in one year in the US, would that be considered rampant or uncommon, even if the numbers decreased slightly each year? Or if there were 100,000 war casualties world-wide every day, could it be said that war is rampant?

Considering over 200,000 people have died this year in the US of a specific cause and some people think it is not worth worrying about much I think the capacity for human self-delusion is one of the greatest powers on Earth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 10/9/2020 at 11:34 AM, cherryTreez said:

How many children are awaiting adoption in the United States? Of the 400,000 children in foster care, more than 100,000 of them are waiting to be adopted. 

 

The same site said 61,000 kids were adopted from foster care in 2018. 

Many are in foster care but their parents have not had their parental rights terminated (normal maximum for this period is 18 months and is usually 12 months). Some kids will go home to their parents. Some will have parental rights terminated and be eligible for adoption. It is very rare for a kid to be in foster care for the long term with parental rights intact. These kids are in purgatory. In my anecdotal experience many of them are "unadoptable". They can technically be adopted but they are so disabled or mentally impaired or emotionally unstable (or some combination of them) that their chance of adoption is essentially zero.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Again, this from an authority quoted by Irving clarifies some ambiguity. Emphasis in the original.

The child after birth is no different than the child before birth other than it is breathing on its own. If we retrogress back to conception, at what point does whatever existed then become different than what exists at birth?

I would say at the point the spirit goes in.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/8/2020 at 11:22 PM, longview said:

You sound really one sided.  I have seen numerous accounts all across the spectrum.  Amy Coney Barrett's adoption of older Haitian children is but one example at a high level.

Some people adopt babies of another ethnicity. I never said no one will. I am saying that healthy white newborns are snapped up immediately because they are. There is a reason there is an international adoption trade. It is not that the US foster system is empty. It is because supply (in a very specific area) does not meet the demand.

P.S. And thanks for the attempt at a political jab.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 10/9/2020 at 4:28 PM, Calm said:

 I don’t think this has been answered:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/08/thou-shalt-not-kill?lang=eng

 

Unforgivable means they need to pay for their own redemption if they repent, whatever that amounts to and after that the Atonement can apply. 
 

The Unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and means they can’t access the Atonement (most likely imo because they won’t repent).

Thanks for responding to my question about murder.

I'm thinking of the bolded sentence like purgatory in Catholicism. Purgatory is a state of existence (some think of it as an actual place) where one's remaining venial sins are purged or cleansed. The soul is saved, but must be purified before entering heaven.

Would that be similar to the LDS view of a murderer who repented? He has access to heaven, but must be further cleansed before entering?

Link to post
53 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks for responding to my question about murder.

I'm thinking of the bolded sentence like purgatory in Catholicism. Purgatory is a state of existence (some think of it as an actual place) where one's remaining venial sins are purged or cleansed. The soul is saved, but must be purified before entering heaven.

Would that be similar to the LDS view of a murderer who repented? He has access to heaven, but must be further cleansed before entering?

Don't want to stick my nose in here too much- but I might be the only former Catholic LDS person here to comment-  let me just say that for me, when I first joined up, "spirit prison" seemed pretty identical to purgatory, except I think purgatory is more rigidly defined in Catholicism than spirit prison is for us-  the whole thing is fairly vague, which frankly I like.  For me,  alleging to have more information on these marginal areas of salvation than I think anyone knows for sure just makes me suspicious of the source.

And repentance for murder is certainly one of the biggies- in MY opinion- it's a place where I put up my arms and just say "I don't know"- which is of course a very hard thing for me to do!!     I mean even in the court system we have murder vs manslaughter, degrees of nuances etc, and I think that abortion is about the same.  I consider it killing a human being from the first meeting of sperm and egg until birth.  But I also think there are a lot of confused people out there.   I think it is a horrid curse on our nation but "everyone else is doing it".  Just glad I don't have to judge anyone!!

Regarding spirit prison in general, of course we typically do not pray for people in spirit prison, and of course we have no "treasury of merit" nor do we have any concept of "interceding" by others.  I say we "don't pray for them" but on the other hand I have personally prayed that person x finds the gospel on the other side.

So no intercession and we are all on our own!  We got ourselves into the jam and we have to get ourselves out!   But of course it is "after grace" and after all we can do in that state.

 I see spirit prison as a place of repentance and "counseling" where one learns the gospel and by means we do not understand, and I think of it more as a place to "see the light" and figure out how stupid we were, and seek forgiveness.   I think once we do that, we are on our way.

One of the ways the Word of Wisdom is taught to children is that if, for example, one is a smoker, or a drinker it is VERY hard to repent of addictions on the other side because we can no longer go "cold turkey" without a body.  Our concept of repentance of course is that one stops committing the sin if one is to "repent" of it- and so after death, how does one stop smoking?  

It's pretty hard for me to accept that kind of stuff as "doctrine", and I think most mature LDS would not get too hung up on ideas like that.

But that is simply my feeling about it.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...