A Little Bit Pregnant?

[rodheadlee]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sounds like the words of a megalomaniac psychopath.

It sounds like a p.o. God. Who got crucified the first time He showed up. 

 

[Rain]

On 12/24/2022 at 6:18 AM, Buckeye said:

The church does not define abortion at all, much less define it to mean ending a pregnancy “at any stage of development.”  While the church has no official position on when life begins, there are reasonable data points to support someone (like me) who believes a termination can be justified before the spirit enters the body. 

Data point one -stem cell research. All 5 LDS senators supported the stem cell research bill in 2001 despite opposition from most republicans and many religious groups. They did so on the belief that the spirit doesn’t enter the body at conception

Data point two - the church deems moral the use of contraception, including IUDs which terminate a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting. Lots of members use IUDs including my wife who may be sitting next to you in the celestial room of the temple. 

Data point three - LDS doctrine does not teach that terminating a pregnancy ends a mortal probation. So doctrinally, there is a huge difference between ending a pregnancy - even at 40 weeks - and killing a day-old child. 
 

Data point four - Brigham young and other early leaders taught the spirit enters the body when the mother feels it enter. So obviously no at conception. 

 

I've known women who said they felt it at conception.  I have 3 kids and never felt their spirits enter, nor did I ever feel their spirits during pregnancy. I did, however, feel all of their spirits years before I was ever pregnant.  

On 12/24/2022 at 6:18 AM, Buckeye said:

I personally support abortion choices up to the point when a spirit enters the body, which is best determined by the mother.  I don’t take the issue lightly at all, but find the best course is to strongly enable contraception choices (make all options free for all men and women), enable abortion decisions as early as possible in a pregnancy (plan b is much better for all parties than a d/c), and when in doubt - and there is a lot of grey area scientifically and doctrinally - give the decision to the woman who knows the situation best and is most entitled to revelation. 

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

It sounds like a p.o. God. Who got crucified the first time He showed up. 

 

Wait, wasn’t that the plan? Didn’t he have to be tortured and killed in the most excruciating way possible in order for his Dad to forgive us?

[rodheadlee]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wait, wasn’t that the plan? Didn’t he have to be tortured and killed in the most excruciating way possible in order for his Dad to forgive us?

Yes. Merry Christmas. You have to repent and believe to be forgiven.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes. Merry Christmas. You have to repent and believe to be forgiven.

 

Right. Seems kind of childish to be upset about the crucifixion when it’s required for everyone’s salvation per Christian belief.  

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I've known women who said they felt it at conception.  I have 3 kids and never felt their spirits enter, nor did I ever feel their spirits during pregnancy. I did, however, feel all of their spirits years before I was ever pregnant. 

Same with my wife. She knew all her kids before they were born.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wait, wasn’t that the plan? Didn’t he have to be tortured and killed in the most excruciating way possible in order for his Dad to forgive us?

He suffered in the garden for our sins. He died on the cross so He could be resurrected and bring about the resurrection and atonement for all.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

He suffered in the garden for our sins. He died on the cross so He could be resurrected and bring about the resurrection and atonement for all.

He suffered on the cross for our sins as well.

"And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 p.m., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred."

Elder McConkie

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

He suffered on the cross for our sins as well.

"And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 p.m., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred."

Elder McConkie

That could be, and it was a beautiful talk, but I look at what he said there as more of a personal opinion than actual fact. I was always taught he suffered for our sins in the garden; why would He have to do that same suffering again on the cross? He of course did suffer some physical suffering and death on the cross, which was certainly a part of the atonement. 
I wonder if there any scriptures or other sources that support Elder McKonkie's statement?

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith

"We get into the habit of thinking, I suppose, that his great suffering was when he was nailed to the cross by his hands and his feet and was left there to suffer until he died. As excruciating as that pain was, that was not the greatest suffering he had to undergo, for in some way which I cannot understand, but which I accept on faith, and which you must accept on faith, he carried on his back the burden of the sins of the whole world . . . was our Savior and Redeemer of a fallen world, and so great was his suffering before he ever went to the cross we are informed, that blood oozed from the pores of his body, and he prayed to his Father that the cup might pass if it were possible, but not being possible he was willing to drink." CR1947Oct:147-48

Elder Marion G. Romney:  "Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of him as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the garden."

Edited December 25, 2022 by JAHS

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

He suffered in the garden for our sins. He died on the cross so He could be resurrected and bring about the resurrection and atonement for all.

“The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-12-the-atonement?lang=eng
 

Or is that not a good source either?

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-12-the-atonement?lang=eng
 

Or is that not a good source either?

Either? It seems to support what I said. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Either? It seems to support what I said. 

The atonement is what saves us. The crucifixion was part of the atonement:

 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right. Seems kind of childish to be upset about the crucifixion when it’s required for everyone’s salvation per Christian belief.  

 

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The atonement is what saves us. The crucifixion was part of the atonement:

 

Right, it was. But the actual suffering for our sins happened in the Garden. Not sure I am understanding what your point is.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right, it was. But the actual suffering for our sins happened in the Garden. Not sure I am understanding what your point is.

Well I’m not sure I understand why you replied to my post at all then, since it’s 100 percent inline with current church taught doctrine:

 

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right. Seems kind of childish to be upset about the crucifixion when it’s required for everyone’s salvation per Christian belief.  

 

[provoman]

On 12/23/2022 at 6:46 AM, Duncan said:

This Greg Matsen is someone who supported that Manifesto, "radical orthodoxy" But his true colours show through. He had this petition or as he called it a "awareness docment" about the liberal perils of going to BYU.  He isn't anyone I would be rallying behind at all if I want to keep my membership in the church.

I do not understand how people can provide an audience for people like Matsen, whether it is a conservative Matsen or Liberal Matsen. Both would be irrationally.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

That could be, and it was a beautiful talk, but I look at what he said there as more of a personal opinion than actual fact. I was always taught he suffered for our sins in the garden; why would He have to do that same suffering again on the cross? He of course did suffer some physical suffering and death on the cross, which was certainly a part of the atonement. 
I wonder if there any scriptures or other sources that support Elder McKonkie's statement?

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith

"We get into the habit of thinking, I suppose, that his great suffering was when he was nailed to the cross by his hands and his feet and was left there to suffer until he died. As excruciating as that pain was, that was not the greatest suffering he had to undergo, for in some way which I cannot understand, but which I accept on faith, and which you must accept on faith, he carried on his back the burden of the sins of the whole world . . . was our Savior and Redeemer of a fallen world, and so great was his suffering before he ever went to the cross we are informed, that blood oozed from the pores of his body, and he prayed to his Father that the cup might pass if it were possible, but not being possible he was willing to drink." CR1947Oct:147-48

Elder Marion G. Romney:  "Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of him as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the garden."

There are quite a few other sources in the sctiptures and out.  I once had a list of then from CES because I was also taught that about Gethsemane and then someone asked me a question that made me question that ("if that's the case what does 'with his stripes we are healed' mean?).  So I went on a long search and finally ended up asking my SP who was in CES and he took it to someone else who eventually sent me the list.  Since then I've seen where it is all through the scriptures, but I always missed it.

Unfortunately, I don't have that list anymore, but if you remind me in a couple of weeks I'll try to find some.  I know one quote was from Marion Romney.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Either? It seems to support what I said. 

“The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane 

and

by giving His life on the cross.”

In other words:

“The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane

and

 “The Savior atoned for our sins by giving His life on the cross.”

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

“The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane 

and

by giving His life on the cross.”

In other words:

“The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane

and

 “The Savior atoned for our sins by giving His life on the cross.”

Agree with all this.

[JAHS]

41 minutes ago, Rain said:

There are quite a few other sources in the sctiptures and out.  I once had a list of then from CES because I was also taught that about Gethsemane and then someone asked me a question that made me question that ("if that's the case what does 'with his stripes we are healed' mean?).  So I went on a long search and finally ended up asking my SP who was in CES and he took it to someone else who eventually sent me the list.  Since then I've seen where it is all through the scriptures, but I always missed it.

Unfortunately, I don't have that list anymore, but if you remind me in a couple of weeks I'll try to find some.  I know one quote was from Marion Romney.

In some searching I have also done it seems to depend on who is addressing the subject, voicing their opinion which does not really compare well with other opinions. I guess there's really nothing really wrong with the concept, except it seems redundant for Him to suffer Gethsemane twice.

[Rain]

39 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In some searching I have also done it seems to depend on who is addressing the subject, voicing their opinion which does not really compare well with other opinions. I guess there's really nothing really wrong with the concept, except it seems redundant for Him to suffer Gethsemane twice.

Yes, that has made me wonder as well. 

At some point I found a definition of recur that meant continue.  That would makes sense.  Don't know if McConkie and Romney meant that or not though. 

Or maybe we want to treat atonement of sins and body/resurrection as 2 separate things, but maybe they can't be disconnected - maybe the sin part can't be completed without the death/resurrection part?  

I don't know.  That part of it I haven't run across a good official answer for yet.

[InCognitus]

A rabbi, a priest, and a minister are discussing when life begins.

The priest says: “In our religion, life begins at conception.”

The Minister says: “We disagree. We believe that life begins when the fetus is viable away from the mother’s womb.”

The rabbi responds: “You are both wrong. In our religion life begins when the kids graduate college and the dog dies.”

[Buckeye]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I've known women who said they felt it at conception.  I have 3 kids and never felt their spirits enter, nor did I ever feel their spirits during pregnancy. I did, however, feel all of their spirits years before I was ever pregnant.  

 

I do too. I also know women who feel the spirit didn’t enter until much later. I believe them all. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I do too. I also know women who feel the spirit didn’t enter until much later. I believe them all. 

I told my husband my children must not have spirits after reading the Brigham Young quote. 😁

[Ragerunner]

On 12/23/2022 at 12:01 PM, JAHS said:

Greg Mattson is not really the subject of this post but it is what the BYU professor said to a group of BYU students, which could cause confusion regarding what the Church teaches about this subject.

Do you know what the church teaches on this subject? To many forget the following and to many new laws strip members of the church of their religious freedoms to follow church teachings on this subject.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Ragerunner

[CV75]

On 12/24/2022 at 10:58 PM, BlueDreams said:

You could technically get a little less metaphysical and go with ideas like capacity for consciousness and still have a problem with hitting gray zones around dying if it helps . We do know more about what it looks like to have a life fully end and to be fully alive but it's that fuzzy gray space that we struggle with and range in opinions as to what to do with it as well. 

But know and having a means to certain die v certainly live doesn't fix this. It would assume that death/ending life is inherently bad. It's not. It's an inherent part of nature and ecosystem balance. If avoiding the metaphysical, the question to me isn't "should we avoid death," but is certain forms of death helping to maintain a healthy balance in the overall system? And what systems are included in this? 

 

 

With luv,

BD

I guess we can call this thread “A Little Bit Alive (or Dead)” then.

For me. deciding “when the spirit enters the body” and “when the organism has the capacity for consciousness” still rely on assumptions such as a brain being required for consciousness and gametes and zygotes lacking brains (or any alternative means of consciousness) – still a matter of philosophy and semantics and a good-faith best-guess, however rationalized. Yes, people/voters have to agree on any driving set of assumptions, at least outnumber those who don’t. If anyone knows how to create and preserve mortal life better than ending it or pinpoint when it begins with more accuracy than when it ends, that would be a great point to bring out in the debate.

This is why I think the genius if the Handbook is that it accommodates all perspectives, recognizing that mortal death and proactively ending mortal life are a part of nature (including the divine nature as demonstrated with Nephi/Laban and the subsequent justification for war) and offering a decision-making method that builds the Zion “system.”