fatima

No, I was not hinting at anything. Just trying to figure out why God would have used another woman, as it were, to give birth to His Son. If Jesus is not God Incarnate, as Trinitarian Christianity holds, then Jesus must've been half-and-half, I guess. A demi-god as in mythology. I apologize if that comes across as insulting, I don't mean to be. I'm just trying to put it in terms that I can understand.

Can you link me to a specific page? That (I assume) front page has lots of info, and I can't get through everything looking for the answer to one question.

I'm new to this forum, so perhaps this has been addressed ad nauseum, forgive me. If God was once a man, can we assume He was married? Marriage is one of the things required for exultation? If He was married during His time on earth, what of His wife, and what does your theology say about God "relationship" (sorry, don't know what to call it) with Mary, who became the mother of His Son? TIA

Then it seems to follow that the LDS does not think that God is the author of Life, that He made a mistake in allowing for the defected babe, or the burden on the mother, and He is therefore okay with the destruction of what He created. In the sacred act in which God the Father may open or close the womb, He may err and then allows for mere humans to correct His mistake. If LDS believe that God is the Author of Life, that the marital union is sacred, and that the unborn baby is a living human being, then to allow for exceptions is contrary to your stated beliefs.

Then why does the LDS church say that abortion is sometimes okay? Earlier in the thread it was said that if the mother's life is in danger then abortion is okay. Which brings us back to square one. Why is that mother's life more valuable than the unborn baby? The position of the Catholic Church says that you do everything in your power to save both, or that if the demise of the child is an unintended consequence of treatment, it is not the same as going in to kill the baby. If the unborn baby is a baby, why is it ever, ever, ever okay to kill a baby?

Well, I'm really responding to MarginofError with that question. I'm trying to determine, based on some things he/she has said, on what basis the LDS oppose abortion in the first place. MoE said it is not , but about the sacredness of sexuality. If it is not about life, why is abortion ever wrong? If you can divide the holiness of sex from the gift of life that comes from that sacred union, what makes the individual baby ever worthy of protection? Aborted or not, that baby cannot undo the sin that the . Abortion itself is not an inherent evil, but the abuse of sexuality is the evil. So, why condemn abortion at all?

Of course an ovum is not the same as an unborn baby. Do you consider them the same? Do you think an unborn baby is of no greater or lesser value than a horse, a possum, or a fish? As for the sacred purpose of sex, the LDS position sounds very much like the Catholic position, but I'm still left wondering at what point the LDS consider the unborn baby separate and distinct human being?

As a Catholic, I am quite uninformed about LDS doctrine on the subject, excepting what has been presented here. If the LDS church assumes that the person's "spirit", or soul, enters sometime between conception and birth, why not err on the side of "conception"? Where does the LDS church say that abortion is only "like unto" murder? Where does the LDS church, and more importantly, why does the LDS church, not consider it murder? I had a sonogram today, and at 9 1/2 weeks, the baby's heart was beating, and I saw his little arm wiggling. If the LDS opposition to abortion has nothing to do with protecting innocent life, then what is it's opposition based on? Why any opposition at all if the baby is not innocent human life?

While I didn't quote the Catechism, I very clearly stated in my posts that "intentional killing" is the sin. I'm disappointed that you are all finding it so hard to understand the difference.

It seems I'm going to have to repeat myself to everyone, and I'm sure I should've taken the time to quote the Catechism, perhaps this could have been avoided. If you got a chance to read Anatess' quotes, you will see that performing procedures that result in the death of the baby is entirely different than going in with the intention of killing the baby. Do you accept that there is a moral distinction?

I was not in a position last night to quote the Catechism, but Anatess is correct. The intention must never be (and I'm pretty sure I made that clear) to kill the innocent.

The topic at hand is the life of an innocent, unborn baby being intentionally killed. We're not talking about a criminal. If an unborn baby dies as a result of treatment to the mother, that is not the same as the willful act of murder.

The position of the Catholic Church makes far more sense. There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. If anyone opposes abortion in general because they believe that the unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being, and believing in the sanctity of all human life, then saying abortion is ever morally permissible is a contradiction to a stated belief. A baby is a baby, period. No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder. Wrong is not right "sometimes".

Why is the life/health of the mother more important than the unborn baby? To go in with the direct intention of killing the baby is abhorrent. If a mother and child were in a car accident, would you expect that the medical help would concentrate only on the mother? Of course not! We expect that they would do all within their power to save both. Why is this different for a babe in the womb? My husband's first wife was diagnosed with stage 4 leukemia when she was 2 months pregnant. I know that the toughest situations are out there, but intentionally killing one to "save" the other is no moral high ground. Would you advocate killing the mother to save the unborn baby, or rather do you do your best for both and let God decide who lives and dies?

Not sure if this is the right sub forum or not. Does Mormon theology teach that women can reach that exalted status that God the Father has? If so, what does that mean for the Blessed Virgin, who would then be the wife of the Father and mother of the Son? Is she a "goddess"?

Hippolytus A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 8 [A.D. 200-210]). Clement of Alexandria And the address in the Timœus calls the creator, Father, speaking thus: ‘Ye gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your works.’ So that when he says, ‘Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,’ I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father (The Stromata 5:14 [A.D. 202]).

Well, excepting that the good nuns had devoted their lives to prayer and your grandmother's donation was a voluntary act of charity. The sincerity of the prayers of those who require payment before they will pray for you is in serious question. So the act of buying the prayers is what is at issue, not that one person is praying for another.

Well, the Marian doctrines, and the Eucharistic doctrines are well explained from a theological perspective, as well as Biblically. If you're still searching I would be happy to provide you with Biblical foundations for the Marian doctrines. It sorta sounds like you believe in the Real Presence, is that correct? Because if you do, think about it...would you walk away from a Church that has the authority to consecrate that bread and wine for something else? I mean, that power comes only and directly from Almighty God, which I would think would put every other issue to rest. Lastly, to the Crusades and various corruptions. Those are not "the Church's" fault, they are a result of the free will of individuals within the Church. Infallibility does not mean the pope cannot sin, and sin grievously! I think the LDS church has many, many things right. The holiness of the marriage sacrament, their openess to life within their marriages, and that there must be an authority to interpret Scriptures. But, please make sure that you know what you are leaving, as well as what you are going to. God's Will be done!

I cannot be the judge of who will be saved and who will not. What I can tell you (although I do not have time to look up the passages) is that as far as my Catholic faith teaches, all those who seek Truth will be saved. Naturally, God knows our innermost thoughts, desires, etc. We cannot fool him, so if we do not know Truth because we choose to not know Truth then we are culpable for our ignorance. If our view on Truth is skewed because we have been wrongly taught, or if we've been abused (again, in the case of Catholicism, those who have been abused by a priest) by clergy, parents or other "teacher" of that Truth, our responsibility would be diminished. As for infant Baptism, I can only trust in God's Mercy. I do believe, as the Catholic Church teaches, that there is "baptism of desire", so that these precious ones do, indeed, see the face of God. We cannot overlook the theological Truth that every man, woman and child needs the Savior and His Sacrifice to enter Heaven. That begs the question, "what do they need to be saved from?" Another topic, I suppose.

To my personal faith, no doubt shaped by my fervent love of my Catholic faith, to be "saved" is to be spared the just punishment due to us from the sins we commit. We must freely choose to co-operate with the grace of Almighty God, though. At any time we may reject Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

what you have researched about the history and doctrines of the Catholic faith in which you were raised? Are there doctrines that trouble you?

Hi all, I am a Catholic mama of a pretty large family. A lovely Mormon gal has become a friend, and we have great discussions about our respective faiths. She and I both find frustration with those who perpetuate misunderstanding, and those who outright lie about our doctrines. I'm hear to learn about her faith. God's Will be done in all things, Fatima