Leaderboard

The trouble with using the church’s (lack of) willingness to do proxy temple work for someone as an indicia for whether that person was truly “alive”, is that the church [except in very limited circumstances] doesn’t let you do proxy temple work for Holocaust victims or people who lived before 1500 AD. But of course, such people were very much alive. I see where you’re going, but let me explore this a bit just for the sake of discussion: Church members kill people all the time without having to go through the formal (ie, ecclesiastical) repentance process. How many Church members today served in Afghanistan, or Iraq? And if we say “well, those wars were morally justified”—okay, then; but how many Church members were disciplined for serving in the Wehrmacht? And, if part of being fully reconciled to God is understanding and recoiling from the full magnitude of my sins, and if such repentance is much easier in this life than the next—then why would God shield me in mortality from the sure knowledge that a particular abortion I participated in did, in fact, end a human life? Wouldn’t my knowing that be highly advantageous to—perhaps even necessary for—my timely repentance?

There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown. Two are: 1. If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion. 2. If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated. The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify. I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.

The question should not be about when it become life (because it already is alive)... but rather when it becomes Human with all the Human Rights that come with it. If it is not human... then it is simply another clump of living cells in the mothers body and her bodily autonomy prevails. But if it is human with all the Human Rights that come with it.. then we have a conflict of two individuals rights. This is a conflict that we have repeatably dealt with in our legal system. Generally speaking our legal system does not allow killing or harming another through the right of bodily autonomy, but it does allow it for defense. Some of the greatest historical tragedy we have come from finding a reason to view someone else as less then human. We have had it done based on superficial physical or cultural differences. Slavery, holocaust and treatment of women are just the really big ones that come to mind. In all those case the differences were largely unchangeable. Yet we realized we were wrong and we fought to change it. (And we continue to fight) In the case of the unborn their differences will go away... all they need is time... Yet I am suppose to consider them not human or sub human for the lack of at most nine months? Sorry that does not work for me. I see that as putting me with historical company that I do not want to keep (Slavers, Nazis etc.) For the church side of it... if we knew through revelation when a spirit takes on the body we would have a clear line in which to draw. But we do not have that... and we could not prove it to others even if we did.... So we need others reasons... and I just outlined mine. The current legality is not a good reason... all the other tragedy's were legal at the time until we said no more. Choice can be a good reason if it is not in reality an attempt to undo poor or regrettable prior choices (that is a consequence and murdering someone to avoid a bad choice is not acceptable) ... But rather a response to other imposing their will... In that case a choice could fall under defensive action depending on ongoing trauma from the event.

I'm going to go ahead and throw a few things into the arena. Some of them might surprise you if you're aware of my political preferences. Maybe not. But here goes anyway. I don't understand why we are looking to the scriptures for insight into when "life" begins. Biologically speaking, a fertilized ovum is a living organism. I don't see any room for debate on that, and it has nothing to do with a spirit entering the body. We could even argue that it was alive before fertilization. So the whole discussion about when "life" begins doesn't have a lot of interest to me. In order to justify the line of inquiry, you are pretty much force to claim some kind of difference between "alive" and "life." Which brings up a lot of interesting academic discussions--somewhere along the line you have to make an arbitrary decision of what constitutes "life." Does that require permanent residence of a spirit? sentience? free thought? moral agency? Regardless of which arbitrary point you choose is going to come with myriad moral implications on how you treat other humans, animals, plants, etc. And to my knowledge, there's nothing in scripture that really guides where to draw that line. More to the point, the demarcation between "alive" and "life" is wholly uninteresting to me (outside of speculative curiosity). In my life, I've only encountered a very few reasons to warrant pursuing the topic at all. First is people who have lost children to miscarriages and stillbirth. My heart goes out to these people. They are seeking comfort following a tragedy. These I encourage to believe whatever brings them comfort. The only other major reason I've encountered for pursuing justification for their stance on abortion. Some wish to claim life as early as possible to justify bans against abortion. To these, I say "get lost" (but in a kind way). I don't have a favorable stance towards codifying religious dogma into civil law. To those that wish to use a later start to life to say that abortion is ok, I say "shut up" (but in a kind way). Why should it be any more acceptable to extinguish something living simply because it hasn't yet started "life." (It isn't, by the way) I'd be interested in knowing if there are any other ways in which it would be impactful to know when a spirit enters a body. I can't really come up with any, although I'm sure there are some.

A sin in ignorance is much easier to repent for than the opposite; consider King Lamoni & his father, especially compared to Cain. Having the sure knowledge that you murdered a child of God would not be advantageous if you knew it while doing it. Not going to claim to know the Lord's specific reasons, but it is evident from the scriptures that He does it, sometimes even when the individuals in question would never again dwindle in unbelief. Other times He intentionally speaks in ways that many will not understand, and also not be responsible (parables, sure, but also Isaiah comes to mind). Anyway, just some thoughts.

I think I agree with the unspoken message here. If we do truly go green, we'll be living without electricity. With some conditionals, I largely agree. But my larger point was that Biden had two conflicting goals. The only way that those TWO goals can converge is through nuclear. Life before electricity solves the "green" half of the equation but not his other stated goal. His other promise was to "create energy jobs."

That's a pretty bold statement when nowhere in the scriptures does it say when the spirit enters the body.

If it doesn't get too personal, I will offer another data point. The Church officially feels very differently about stillbirth (and miscarriage) than they do about those born alive. My first child was stillborn at 39 weeks gestation (essentially full term). The Church officially says that they will not keep a record of him nor would they perform proxy ordinances (sealing to parents would be the important one) if needed. The Church is officially neutral on his status as a person and as a member of my family. Allow me to emphasize the neutral stance, in that they are not saying one way or another, but punting on the question until the next life. Contrast that with a child born premature at 24 weeks (speaking hypothetically only because I have not personally experienced this, I'm sure someone somewhere has personal experience with this scenario), who struggles for hours or days or weeks, and then passes away. By virtue of having "lived" outside of the womb for any length of time (however brief), that child is considered by the Church to be unambiguously a member of the family and eligible for proxy sealing to parents when needed. I don't know the answer to the OP's question. At conception seems too early, to me. As I understand it, the Church is a bit ambiguous about the space between conception and birth, and doesn't truly recognize a child as fully and unambiguously alive until birth (perhaps in keeping with the example given in the OP). This seems more an admission of a lack of revelation rather than a firm stance one way or the other, preferring to let God decide those things and tell us later (probably next life).

I've heard the description cited above by Laronius and Person0. I'd like to add the following. 1. John the baptist leapt in the womb when he had several months remaining before his birth. 2. We tend to have this belief that the veil is a very thin wall that completely obscures one side from the other. I believe it is more like a fog that gradually obscures the vision the further we go. And it only becomes complete some short time after birth. It may be longer than we might think. 3. The Brother of Jared had faith so strong that he could not be kept from seeing within the veil. Based on #2 & 3 above, what can be said of the Savior?

I have considered this passage as well. What would we gain from knowing the answer? Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance. I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.

I was looking into who voted for and against the recent House "Respect for marriage" act which repeals the Defense of Marriage act and codifies same-sex and interracial marriage into law. * I looked at the religious affiliation of members of the house, and was surprised to find that house members across the entire nation identify as something, except for one localized black mass in a certain part of Cali. Nobody identifies as atheist, the black mass is 12 house members who just respond "unaffiliated" when they're asked. Sort of goes against the mainstream conventional wisdom that religion, especially Christianity, is an outdated trend that is fading fast. * BTW, there are 6 LDS House members, and 5 of them voted for the bill. N - Andy Biggs - AZ Y - Mike Simpson - ID Y - Blake Moore - UT Y - Chris Stewart - UT Y - John Curtis - UT Y - Burgess Owens - UT

I would be surprised if a sentient spirit that needed an experince in mortality missed out on that experience because of a decision to abort the body intended to house that spirit. I think its far more likely either that the spirits of those who are aborted did not need much in the way of a mortal experience, or that an alternative body is found. The works of God cannot be thwarted and His purposes will roll forth without significant impediment by the actions of His children.

1. Why not? We codify religious dogmas condemning murder, rape, fraud, and theft. Even if one comes back and say “well, it’s not really they those are morally wrong; it’s that they’re socially destabilizing”, it’s hard to argue that social destabilization is objectively bad unless you are starting with some presumptions to the effect that life (beyond my own) is good, pain (beyond my own) is bad, harmony (even if it inconveniences me personally) is desirable, etc. Those presumptions are nearly impossible to sever from one’s religious/philosophical outlook. 2. I think you hint at it above: if my wife and I, as Latter-day Saints, are struggling with a physically/emotionally/financially difficult pregnancy and we are wondering if we ought to let it run its course; it can be a game changer to know whether an abortion means that a sentient spirit basically misses out on nearly all of its mortal experience and goes straight to the afterlife.

I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads to schools feeling that its a good idea to have special external doors as a form of protection. That is a response to and result of, certain beliefs about what's on the other side of those doors. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that many mothers feel in certain parts of certain cities where, when they send their children off to school, they wander if they will come home again. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads some organisations to have active shooter training drills. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity where people feel they need to carry a gun in order to protect and defend themselves. For many, that is a response driven by fear and insecurity.These kind of events and activities are far less likely to happen in societies where people feel secure.

I see. I find it just a little amusing how we discuss the afterlife as though we know for certain what will happen there. I think the most important thing to realize is that, if we do not live according to the knowledge we have while we are here, we probably won't need to worry about what happens in the Terrestrial and Celestial worlds.

Indeed the Father and Son rule, and they also minister. For we know our Savior "ministered" to the people in the Spirit World. In the context I was providing, minister is an appropriate word here.

Most of the world's population would starve to death. As was famously observed in an academic paper in the late 1970s, modern agriculture is the science of turning petroleum into food. A pre-electric civilization would be incapable of sustaining 8 billion people in the world. Petroleum can be replaced, but only with a similar fuel or with electricity and better battery technology. This is the promise of nuclear power: virtually unlimited electricity. Frankly, I don't see any other possible way for us to move forward without losing most of the world's population. Petroleum is simply not sustainable, even if you disbelieve the global warming ideas. Contrary to popular media portrayals, we will not be able to build enough windmills to generate the power we need. Besides, so-called green technology really isn't green at all. Nuclear power is far safer, far cleaner, and a far more abundant energy source than literally anything else available to us.

One bit of context here: the law does *not* require states to permit new gay marriages to be solemnized within their borders. Rather, it repeals DOMA and requires states to recognize gay marriages solemnized in jurisdictions where the marriages were legal at the time of solemnization (the latter of which, I’m inclined to think was already required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution).

Yes it is a bold statement. However, I don't assume I am 100% correct, it is just how I read it.

I based my comment on scriptures, not policies created by committees in church leadership.

Very true. Most wards have a bunch of people who genuinely want to help you. You don’t need to be someone’s home teacher in order to just be their friend.

Perhaps the voice was pre-recorded, perhaps someone else delivered the message by delegation (including by divine investiture of authority), as angels often do.

My opinion is that mentioned by @person0that what he heard was the Holy Ghost in his role as messenger, kind of a "thus saith the Lord" kind of pronouncement that prophets make as an agent of the Lord. Though we do know people have near-death experiences where it appears that their spirits temporarily leave their body. So I guess it's possible Jesus was able to do the same here.

This idea that you present is one of the reasons I'm having trouble with defining what it is supposed to look like. I've read McConkie's (revised) statement on it. And I get that in spirit. But there is something about Nephi's description that is begging for definition that I'm not quite able to articulate... or even, perhaps, to grasp.

Nephi’s writings about “great and abominable church” need to be qualified by the historical data point that in 6th century BCE Jerusalem, anything that might be called a “church” (if it even existed at all—most Judaism scholars believe the synagogue was a post-Exilic innovation) didn’t look or operate remotely like anything that might be called a “church” today. “Church” may have been the nearest 1830 English analogue to translate whatever it was Nephi wrote; but there’s an excellent chance that he might (nearly) as well have written of a “great and abominable C-corporation” or a “great and abominable nation-state” or a “great and abominable NGO”.

I was struggling whether to put this in the Roe v Wade thread or this thread. I decided to put it here because, I'm not as concerned about the Roe v. Wade decision or its overturning as I am about the ideology that is now making itself known to us. And it is much worse than we thought. This particular post is NOT intended to center on abortion. It is about this ideology. Hence, it has to do with TGAAC that I believe is shoving its religious beliefs in our faces all in the name of tolerance and refusing any Christian from "shoving our religion in their faces." The following link is a tweet from a Harvard Law Professor. https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1540655708630302720 She says that because of the overturn, the people have every right to harass the justices at every turn. She then goes on to repeat the tired line that LGBTQ and contraception are at risk again. I'm surprised she didn't mention interracial marriage. If a Harvard Law Professor cannot tell the difference between banning abortion vs relinquishing federal authority of it to the states, then the entire legal system is going to be at risk. LET ME REPEAT: This particular post is NOT intended to center on abortion. It is about this ideology that is so blind that it takes "relinquishing authority" as being "authoritarian." Am I going off the rocker calling this a sign of TGAAC? Maybe. But here's a litmus test. If it is TGAAC, then it will manifest as being opposed to the Church of the Lamb. Bad: Abortion, LGBTQ+, NAMBLA, "Freedom From Religion", Destruction of the Constitution, Mob rule, Libertine. Good: Marriage, Family, God, the Constitution, Rule of Law, The Bill of Rights. The movement isn't 100% there yet. But from when I was a child to this day, the battle lines have been getting clearer, brighter, and broader. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, then I'm being prophetic. If they are altered, then the earth has earned a reprieve from Armageddon for a season.