The Folk Prophet

Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something? I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape. I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration.

Yes, and why do you trust that piece of information as eternal and unchanging where you seem to reject so many other ideas as only interpretations or awaiting further light and knowledge?

Right. Still...not exactly apples to apples. I believe I said exactly that. I'm sympathetic to this. I'm only questioning whether it justifies killing an innocent child. I've said it before but I'll repeat. If you could, and of course you can't, but if you could take that baby and put it in your arms, would you still be okay with the theoretical killing? I feel like that gets lost in these conversations. It's either a baby or it isn't. If it is, then it IS...the same as the babe in arms. If that can be acknowledged then...let me rephrase actually...that must be acknowledged alongside the acknowledgement that an unborn baby is a baby. And if that isn't acknowledged then go ahead and cut out the tumor. If it's a baby...it's a baby. And when and if one can justify killing a born baby that's in one's arms, then one can justify an abortion. They are no different if they are both babies. I am not claiming that there are no legitimate reasons to kill a baby. I am claiming that it must be considered in that light, not as if it is something else entirely. The entire argument of abortion (including rape) is that it is or is not a baby. That's it. Period. There are no other legitimate arguments for or against it. It either is a baby, in which case killing it must come with the same severity of moral understanding as taking a living child and cutting its throat, or it is not. It cannot be treated differently. Now debate can be had over when it becomes a baby. And that's a different matter. You've suggested yourself that, perhaps, the spirit doesn't arrive upon conception. I don't buy that thinking, per se...but it's an argument. But if one, generally, takes the view that a conceived child counts as a baby, I just cannot see treating it any differently. I agree. But I'll submit two questions for your consideration. 1. Is all "rape" is equal? (Applicable to the reality of legalizing abortion in cases of rape.) 2. Even in the worst form you speak of (jumped in an alley by a Freddy Krueger type or the like...), why is murdering the innocent child the only option? And why is that child's life always to be viewed as of less value than the woman's? Why don't we put the woman into a coma or something for 9 months if she can't handle it? Oh....I remember...she has those things we call human rights. Inalienable, if I recall. But the baby...none. No rights. Right? Why? Why doesn't the baby have the same rights in this rape scenario discussion? This is not what I meant to suggest, or what I believe. Do you believe this idea of "just giving her an ibuprofen" even remotely approaches what I'm saying? It strikes me as uselessly flippant, and doesn't even begin to approximate the point I'm trying to convey. I think you actually know that...so I'll put it to a communication faux pas on your part. I'm sure I've had several myself, as is my way. Say, for the sake of getting closer to the idea, the guy with the gun gave you the option of letting the rape continue or shooting your own toddler in the head (pretend there's enough bad-guys to control the situation and they gave you a gun with one bullet or something... (yes, creating reasonable representative situations is practically impossible..but....)) Would you shoot your toddler in the head to stop the rape?

Well, let me push back on this: Surely you wouldn't argue that if we have an enemy who is out to enslave and possibly rape women and children that we are justified in slaughtering all their newborn children? What if doing so stopped the war? Justified then? (I know that is, indeed, sometimes the way of war...a la the end of WWII in Japan...but....) Depends. Do you know he's innocent? And is he actually threatening your life with said lunge? Or just causing some trauma? (edit: the point being...you kind of know with a baby...not a threat to life, generally, but definitely innocent and definitely will cause some level of trauma) Granted, in such a case you couldn't possibly know. And there is certainly an argument to be made for lethal action here. There's also an argument to be made for non-lethal. Which side do you fall on? I'm hoping I'd go with non-lethal. I'm pretty sure I would if it was just me. With my family in the house...maybe not. (That being said, I'm a pretty big non-lethal kind of person, and I think I'd take every measure, even then, to avoid a lethal response. Perhaps to my regret.) Not all physical threat is equal. I assume you agree? Sure. Kill the rapist. Definitely. It really feels like your mixing threats here. And I know it's complicated. Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent. You're talking about justified killing of an attacker and then comparing it to killing a third party for an offense committed by the attack. So....I'm so upset by someone that I'm going to stop in and murder one of their children tomorrow. Granted...the pregnancy directly effects the attacked in ways the attacker's child doesn't...but what if it did? What if the attacker was...I dunno...forcing you into slavery to nanny their child at gunpoint. Can you justifiably kill their kid then?

@Just_A_Guy another thought: When I said the following: I am meaning to imply less a broad policy so much as a criteria by which to judge each case individually. When considering each abortion this is the question that I think needs to be answered.

Well that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Keep in mind -- suggesting. You know -- for consideration. Not demandingly yelling, "there's no other legitimate thought on the matter". I've said this before but I'll say it again. If you take the baby out of the womb and consider it an actual child and then have someone demanding to slit that child's throat for any reason is a hard pill to swallow as an argument. It's not really that complicated to my mind. There are terrible, horrible things people have to go through. So much so that I can hardly even comprehend having to deal with them. But to me those things don't seem to justify killing an innocent baby. And that's what they are to me. Babies. I find it terribly sad that we, as a society, have been so callously blinded to the reality of that fact because it's all behind closed doors, so to speak. Interesting. Well...I'd say as a general rule, taking the life of someone when not engaged in the defense of those things God has commanded us to defend unto bloodshed, unless explicitly directed otherwise by God. Reasonable? I can see an argument being made for, accordingly, a legal standard of rape/incest exceptions because that does seem to be (as discussed) the church's policy, and we can assume, therefore, God's. Another part of me, however, recalls no command from God that we defend emotional trauma unto bloodshed, by killing an associated innocent. Yes...I know...very callous. But...trust me...my empathy is there, particularly in the case of rape (incest is a bit of a different matter, actually...if it's consensual). My empathy is just stronger on behalf of the baby. Didn't we have a similar discussion regarding Laban and Nephi? I seem to recall you justified that under Jewish law of the time or something. But I'm not sure that even matters one whit. God's will matters. God told Nephi to do it. If God commands killing a baby then.....

I'm surprised at this fallacy coming from you. You know full well that the command "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not murder". I'm not sure why we'd want to go down that not-particularly-useful semantic debate, but since you took us there... clearly there are justified killings. There are no justified murders. Yes...what constitutes murder has to be subject to God's view of it rather than man's. But...well...there it is. The point, I was trying to make, with which I'd hope you'd agree, is that we shouldn't justify murder for anything. It's wrong. Period. We do justify killing sometimes. And we should. But not murder. So the question, when it comes to abortion, is pretty clear. Is it a murder? If it is, there is no justification.

Was it not?

I have a theory on how to deal with all abortion cases. It goes something like this: Thou shalt not kill.

This moment is the only cool thing in Moulin Rouge. If Obiwan only had a bit more vibrato in his singing it would be even cooler.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKLAHOMA! Finished watching it. Here's my commentary, for what it's worth. Dang, the show has NO bad music. Every song it good. The music is written really well. Additionally, the plot actually makes sense and resolves itself and all that. Yes, it's a simple plot. Bad guy is jealous and does bad things. Gets defeated. Not a ton more to it than that, but it works. Where does it fall down? 2 ways. Well, sort of 1. But 2. I say sort of 1 because it's all about the dancing. But... the first way is that there's too many dance breaks in the songs. In Kansas City the dance break works (Who would have thought a tap dance number in a "western" could work so well?). In Many a New Day the dancing just goes on a bit too long. By The Farmer and the Cowman it's like...enough already! This is a minor complaint. Just, ideally, the dance interludes in Many a New Day and Farmer would be shortened. Second...the danged stinking boring and useless dream ballet!! Seriously. Terrible. Take it out. Entirely! Remove that entire thing from the show and what do you have? The exact same story, nothing weakened, but without the *snore.... I'm so bored...* ending of the first Act. Just kill it entirely. Why it wasn't cut is beyond me. Honestly they probably should have ended it with a version of the song Oklahoma and then reprised it in the second Act. But who am I to second guess Rodgers and Hammerstein? Now, granted, I'm not a big fan of ballet. But in this case...what's the point? The message of the ballet is this... Jud's a scary guy that Laurey is scared of and she really loves Curly. Really? We didn't already know that? But overall this is a great show and very entertaining. Would that it were the worst of Rodgers and Hammerstein. As it is, I'm thinking top 3.

I can state from experience that without a doubt the very happiest moments of my life have all been directly related to my relationship with the Spirit and its revelatory blessings that pertain directly to the gospel of Jesus Christ on this earth. These blessings are given, and have been given, only in relationship to my obedience to the principles and truths of the gospel. You seem to think standard good-feeling moments of happiness are equivalent to the indescribable joy that the gospel brings. That implies you must lack experience. Which makes your view on the matter suspect. You're trying to argue that one thing you, apparently, have never tasted tastes no better than anything else. This isn't true. When one partakes of the Tree of Life it is truly the most sweet, above all else one has ever tasted. May I recommend a review of Lehi's dream?

Okay. Same question.

Dude, you gotta lay off the peyote.

So you make the claim that you think that charity is the key to exaltation -- but where did you get that idea from? And why is whatever source you're taking that from any more reliable than the sources you reject. You seem to be picking and choosing which things you'll accept as correct and true and which things you'll question based on nothing but your feelings about whatever subject. If we all did that.....welcome to the Great Apostasy 2.0.

Did you actually read all the other materials I posted? It's actually pretty plain from many sources that ordinances must be done by us for the dead or they are lost. This is such a basic church teaching I'm surprised that you're not very familiar with it.

Well, you seem to have this -- we can't really know anything that's said or taught -- approach to the gospel. Seems an odd way to approach the gospel to me. But to each their own.

Perhaps you've heard that the majority of the work for the dead will be done in the millennium. https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Quotes/Millennium/Work for the Dead.html

I know you're asking @Vort but I'll comment -- The Savior is our judge and who qualifies for what is His purview. Ours is to do His work as best we can.

You know I realized I was just pasting a bunch of quotes from the same page. Just read the page yourself! https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/31-redemption-of-the-dead?lang=eng

“Elijah! what would you do if you were here? Would you confine your work to the living alone? No: I would refer you to the Scriptures, where the subject is manifest: that is, without us, they could not be made perfect, nor we without them; the fathers without the children, nor the children without the fathers. “I wish you to understand this subject, for it is important; and if you will receive it, this is the spirit of Elijah, that we redeem our dead, and connect ourselves with our fathers which are in heaven, and seal up our dead to come forth in the first resurrection; and here we want the power of Elijah to seal those who dwell on earth to those who dwell in heaven. This is the power of Elijah and the keys of the kingdom of Jehovah” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:252).

“And so we have two great churches, one in heaven, the other upon the earth. They are moving along parallel lines, and the temple of God, it appears to me, is the connecting link that connects the heavens with the earth, because it is through the temple that we will be able to reach our dead, and not otherwise. To pray for the dead may not be of any real assistance to them. To actually help them we must do a work for them” (Rudger Clawson, in Conference Report, Apr. 1933, 77–78).

D&C 128:8-9 8 Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the power of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; for out of the books shall your dead be judged, according to their own works, whether they themselves have attended to the ordinances in their own propria persona, or by the means of their own agents, according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world, according to the records which they have kept concerning their dead. 9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it? Edit: Read all of Section 128.

What, you don't take my word as enough authority on the matter? I'll see what I can find...

Yes. That is why work for the dead is so important.