Is contraception immoral...

[CatholicLady]

Everything is grey.

 

Having more than one wife - Sin.  But Joseph Smith had more than one wife.  So why is that a sin for me but not for him?

 

Pre-marital sex - Sin.  But then this girl has been abducted by this psychopath when she was 6 and now she's 26 with 2 kids from this psychopath while she was under his captivity... sin or not?

 

We go by the principle of - Teach them correct principles then allow them to govern themselves.

 

Well, the objective ACT is still a sin. But the particular person's culpability may be lessened, or even completely taken away, depending on the circumstances. But culpability is something only God can judge. All we can judge is the objective act itself. Like you said, premarital sex - sin. Adultery - sin. Those are acts that are objectively wrong, in and of themselves.

[estradling75]

So the words we need to use in describing the LDS stance on abortion is to say that the "exceptions" are really instances of lesser or no culpability on the part of the expectant mother for the action if she chooses to take it?

 

Would expressing it that way get through without raising the Hackles of Catholics?

[CatholicLady]

So the words we need to use in describing the LDS stance on abortion is to say that the "exceptions" are really instances of lesser or no culpability on the part of the expectant mother for the action if she chooses to take it?

 

Would expressing it that way get through without raising the Hackles of Catholic

 

I don't know what you believe, so I can't tell you what the correct way would be to express it. But if by "exceptions" you were referring to the person's culpability, then you would be in line with Catholic teaching, yes. :)

I don't know what you mean about "raising the Hackles of Catholics."

[Claire]

So the words we need to use in describing the LDS stance on abortion is to say that the "exceptions" are really instances of lesser or no culpability on the part of the expectant mother for the action if she chooses to take it?

 

Would expressing it that way get through without raising the Hackles of Catholics?

 

That would actually be a fairly Catholic way of understanding it. A sin is a sin any way you look at it, but factors can mitigate or even altogether eliminate culpability on the part of the person committing the sin. Obviously we don't consider rape, incest, genetic defects, and so forth things that would eliminate culpability in the case of abortion, but the general concept stands.

 

I'll be happy to find something else to hackle you about if it'd make you feel better :)

[CatholicLady]

Obviously we don't consider rape, incest, genetic defects, and so forth things that would eliminate culpability in the case of abortion, but the general concept stands.

 

 

I just want to add to this. :)

In and of themselves, I agree that those things would not be things that we would consider to "automatically" lessen someone's culpability. But things like fear, mental instability, being forced, etc... which may happen as a *result* of being raped, for exmple, would be things that may lessen culpability. Though at the end of the day, only God can judge culpability.

[Claire]

I just want to add to this. :)

In and of themselves, I agree that those things would not be things that we would consider to "automatically" lessen someone's culpability. But things like fear, mental instability, being forced, etc... which may happen as a *result* of being raped, for exmple, would be things that may lessen culpability. Though at the end of the day, only God can judge culpability.

 

I was actually careful to use the words "eliminate culpability" vice "lessen culpability." Any number of things can lessen culpability. If two women were to procure abortions, one of which was pregnant due to rape and the other due to simply making bad choices, obviously the woman who was raped would be less culpable. All those factors you mentioned would further reduce it, and if severe enough could potentially eliminate it.

 

As CatholicLady mentioned, ultimately final judgement is left to God and God alone.

[Guest]

A sin is a sin any way you look at it, but factors can mitigate or even altogether eliminate culpability on the part of the person committing the sin. 

 

This is where LDS and Catholic differ.  And it all stems from our alignment with the Will of God as being the Truth/Right.  Sin, therefore, is that which is not aligned with the Will of God (as we promise to align with that will through the Covenants).  Therefore, an act does not denote sin.  The intent (the will) of the act is what denotes sin.

 

In the end all, LDS and Catholic end up with mostly the same determination of whether something is aligned with God's Will or not.  It's the perspective behind it that can cause some to have a different idea of whether to call something sin.

 

Here's a very easy LDS example:

The LDS Covenant of Baptism includes the promise of abstaining from coffee.

 

Revelation has been made that drinking coffee can prohibit one from being aligned with the Will of God.  But, the why? of this has not been revealed.  We can extrapolate/logically explain that coffee has addictive properties that diminish one's ability to exercise free will.  But this is just an extrapolation.

 

So then, an LDS person drinks coffee.  LDS people can determine that this is a sin.  Why?  The only answer is because - one is going against one's Baptismal Covenant.

 

So then, a Catholic drinks coffee.  LDS people can't determine that this is a sin.  Why?  Because a Catholic has not made that Covenant.

 

So this is a clear example of an act not being a sin... but the intent of it is.  Make sense?

Edited January 17, 2015 by anatess

[CatholicLady]

This is where LDS and Catholic differ.  And it all stems from our alignment with the Will of God as being the Truth/Right.  Sin, therefore, is that which is not aligned with the Will of God (as we promise to align with that will through the Covenants).  Therefore, an act does not denote sin.  The intent (the will) of the act is what denotes sin.

 

In the end all, LDS and Catholic end up with mostly the same determination of whether something is aligned with God's Will or not.  It's the perspective behind it that can cause some to have a different idea of whether to call something sin.

 

Here's a very easy LDS example:

The LDS Covenant of Baptism includes the promise of abstaining from coffee.

 

Revelation has been made that drinking coffee can prohibit one from being aligned with the Will of God.  But, the why? of this has not been revealed.  We can extrapolate/logically explain that coffee has addictive properties that diminish one's ability to exercise free will.  But this is just an extrapolation.

 

So then, an LDS person drinks coffee.  LDS people can determine that this is a sin.  Why?  The only answer is because - one is going against one's Baptismal Covenant.

 

So then, a Catholic drinks coffee.  LDS people can't determine that this is a sin.  Why?  Because a Catholic has not made that Covenant.

 

So this is a clear example of an act not being a sin... but the intent of it is.  Make sense?

 

Sounds like what you're saying here is that the sin would actually be the breaking of a promise... not necessarily just the consumption of coffee, in and of itself. Is this what you're saying?

[Guest]

Sounds like what you're saying here is that the sin would actually be the breaking of a promise... not necessarily just the consumption of coffee, in and of itself. Is this what you're saying?

 

It goes beyond that.  Because, God has a reason why he revealed that we are to avoid coffee.  And so it wouldn't just be a righteous thing to do within the LDS Church but to mankind as a whole... promise or no promise... in the same way that murder is not a righteous thing to do for mankind as a whole.  But a Catholic is ignorant of the commandment because they have no faith in the Priesthood Authority giving the revelation and no secular reason can be given (as in the case of murder where one doesn't have to be believe in God to see the secular reasoning) that compels one to examine one's conscience.  So they can't really align their Will with God in this manner unless they study the revelation for themselves outside of canon law.

[estradling75]

I don't know what you believe, so I can't tell you what the correct way would be to express it. But if by "exceptions" you were referring to the person's culpability, then you would be in line with Catholic teaching, yes. :)

I don't know what you mean about "raising the Hackles of Catholics."

 

The "Hackles" seem to be that because the LDS Church doesn't throw down a universal ban on abortion no exception...  That some how we are as bad pro-aborton crowd.  Since this a about learning the differences between the two groups.  I am trying to figure out what triggers that reaction so that I can share our position without triggering the other baggage that my prior attempts have.  After all I don't have the prior Catholic education (like Anatess and some others here have) I can not go into a long detailed parsing of our different doctrines. 

[CatholicLady]

It goes beyond that.  Because, God has a reason why he revealed that we are to avoid coffee.  And so it wouldn't just be a righteous thing to do within the LDS Church but to mankind as a whole... promise or no promise... in the same way that murder is not a righteous thing to do for mankind as a whole.  But a Catholic is ignorant of the commandment because they have no faith in the Priesthood Authority giving the revelation and no secular reason can be given (as in the case of murder where one doesn't have to be believe in God to see the secular reasoning) that compels one to examine one's conscience.  So they can't really align their Will with God in this manner unless they study the revelation for themselves outside of canon law.

 

Ok. This thinking actually still sounds like it's pretty in line with Catholic thinking. Here it sounds like you're saying that, yes, the act of crinking coffee is objectively sinful, but if a particular person does not *know* that it is sinful (a Catholic for example) their culpability will be eliminated.

 

If this is the case, this is actually exactly how Catholics think too lol. Ignorance can definitely either lessen or eliminate culpability.

Edited January 18, 2015 by CatholicLady

[Guest]

Sounds about right.

 

Incidentally, my OB/GYN is a very good man who happens to be Catholic (formerly Mormon; he converted when he married his Catholic wife) and I was thankful for his perspective when discussing contraception options.

[CatholicLady]

The "Hackles" seem to be that because the LDS Church doesn't throw down a universal ban on abortion no exception...  That some how we are as bad pro-aborton crowd.  Since this a about learning the differences between the two groups.  I am trying to figure out what triggers that reaction so that I can share our position without triggering the other baggage that my prior attempts have.  After all I don't have the prior Catholic education (like Anatess and some others here have) I can not go into a long detailed parsing of our different doctrines. 

 

I don't think anyone here has hackled the LDS regarding abortion, and I definitely don't think you guys are "bad" lol. If I gave that impression, I apologize.

I'm still a little unclear on where you guys stand on the issue. Is it an act that is objectively immoral in and of itself, and the only thing that changes is an individual's culpability? Or is it an act that really is objectively "ok" sometimes?

If the answer is the former, we are in complete agreement. B)

[Vort]

I'm still a little unclear on where you guys stand on the issue. Is it an act that is objectively immoral in and of itself, and the only thing that changes is an individual's culpability? Or is it an act that really is objectively "ok" sometimes?

 

Almost no act "is objectively immoral in and of itself". This is precisely the attitude that I characterize as "Catholic". (Again, not disdainfully so, but as a matter of my own observation.)

 

In fact, I will bet that there is no act that you can bring up that "is objectively immoral in and of itself" which isn't immoral by definition of the word. For example, if "murder" means "wrongful and intentional killing of a human being", then I can say that murder is always sinful -- but only because I have defined murder to be always sinful. So I'm not really illuminating any new knowledge in proclaiming murder sinful.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Vort a smidge. 

 

I think there are some things that are just bad, no matter how you define them.  "Killing", to use an extreme example, is one of them.  Killing is never good--but sometimes, it's just plain necessary.  It's still not good, but it's at least justifiable to the point where culpability doesn't attach to the perpetrator of the act.

 

I think abortion is similar.  I don't know that I equate it to killing in all circumstances and I'm agnostic as to whether life begins at conception or at some point thereafter; but at the very least abortion reduces to humans taking upon themselves prerogatives that should belong to God.  Under the best of circumstances, abortion is still a tragedy. 

[Vort]

I think there are some things that are just bad, no matter how you define them.  "Killing", to use an extreme example, is one of them.  Killing is never good--but sometimes, it's just plain necessary.

 

God kills. I personally define every act of God as "good", so such killing is good by definition.

 

Obeying God is always good. Nephi killed Laban under commandment from God. Ergo, good.

[Jane_Doe]

I don't think anyone here has hackled the LDS regarding abortion, and I definitely don't think you guys are "bad" lol. If I gave that impression, I apologize. 
 

 

CatholicLady, you have been 100% kind, insightful, and a good conversationalist.

 

Unfortunately, I (like estradling75) have met some Catholics whom are not so kind and immediately start slandering me as "You hell-bound aborotion-supporting Mormon!"  (Not literally, I'm exaggerating make a point).  Usually I don't have the time to delve into a deep interfaith discussion with these people like we've done here.  

 

I think what estradling75 is asking is "Do you have any recommendations to effectively communicate with people whom are like this?" (In some way that doesn't take an hour).

 

I'm still a little unclear on where you guys stand on the issue. Is it an act that is objectively immoral in and of itself, and the only thing that changes is an individual's culpability? Or is it an act that really is objectively "ok" sometimes?

If the answer is the former, we are in complete agreement.  B)

 

Effectively, in a agreement (though a Mormon would use totally different phrase to reach the same spot).

 

 

Edited January 18, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[CatholicLady]

Almost no act "is objectively immoral in and of itself". This is precisely the attitude that I characterize as "Catholic". (Again, not disdainfully so, but as a matter of my own observation.)

 

In fact, I will bet that there is no act that you can bring up that "is objectively immoral in and of itself" which isn't immoral by definition of the word. For example, if "murder" means "wrongful and intentional killing of a human being", then I can say that murder is always sinful -- but only because I have defined murder to be always sinful. So I'm not really illuminating any new knowledge in proclaiming murder sinful.

 

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, Vort.

 

I understand what you are saying, but perhaps I'm missing something because in my head I'm just having a hard time making sense of this. You said no act is objectively immoral in and of itself (unless it's part of a word's definition). So would it be correct of me to say that genocide, fornication, adultery, are also not objectively immoral acts in and of themselves? This seems a little strange to me, but like I said, perhaps I'm missing something. 

Edited January 18, 2015 by CatholicLady

[Jane_Doe]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, Vort.

 

I understand what you are saying, but perhaps I'm missing something because in my head I'm just having a hard time making sense of this. You said no act is objectively immoral in and of itself (unless it's part of a word's definition). So would it be correct of me to say that genocide, fornication, adultery, are also not objectively immoral acts in and of themselves? This seems a little strange to me, but like I said, perhaps I'm missing something. 

 

I'm going to use the example of killing a kid.

 

99.9999999999999999999% of the time this is a very sinful thing to do.  Why?  Because a man decided to slay a child of God against God's commands.  Effectively, 99.9999999999999999999999% rounds up to 100%.

 

However, there are those freak 1-in-a-billion times when God has the Egyptian first-borns killed.  

 

So how would you like to slice the cake?  Effectively 100%, or technically-not-100% (like Vort does).

Edited January 18, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, Vort.

 

I understand what you are saying, but perhaps I'm missing something because in my head I'm just having a hard time making sense of this. You said no act is objectively immoral in and of itself (unless it's part of a word's definition). So would it be correct of me to say that genocide, fornication, adultery, are also not objectively immoral acts in and of themselves? This seems a little strange to me, but like I said, perhaps I'm missing something. 

 

Genocide: Killing every member of a family or race, including innocents (which by definition is wrongful)

Fornication: Wrongful intercourse

Adultery: Sex that defiles the marital covenant

 

All of these are defined as sinful. The first is a special instance of killing human beings, which is not in itself intrinsically sinful. The second and third are special instances of sex between humans, which is not intrinsically sinful. You may argue the first is not strictly defined as sin, and perhaps you would be right. But I could bring up instances of God requiring Israel to completely exterminate another people, which we would call genocide. But no believing Christian could term such a thing sinful.

[The Folk Prophet]

God command the destruction of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15: the killing of every man woman and child (not to mention the sheep, oxen, camels, etc.). If God cannot do bad, then clearly there is some level of subjectivity even to Genocide.

Edited January 18, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[CatholicLady]

 

 

CatholicLady, you have been 100% kind, insightful, and a good conversationalist.

 

Unfortunately, I (like estradling75) have met some Catholics whom are not so kind and immediately start slandering me as "You hell-bound aborotion-supporting Mormon!"  (Not literally, I'm exaggerating make a point).  Usually I don't have the time to delve into a deep interfaith discussion with these people like we've done here.  

 

 

I'm sorry about that. They should not act like that. Disagreement is fine, but looking down their noses on those who disagree, is not.

[CatholicLady]

I'm going to use the example of killing a kid.

 

99.9999999999999999999% of the time this is a very sinful thing to do.  Why?  Because a man decided to slay a child of God against God's commands.  Effectively, 99.9999999999999999999999% rounds up to 100%.

 

However, there are those freak 1-in-a-billion times when God has the Egyptian first-borns killed.  

 

So how would you like to slice the cake?  Effectively 100%, or technically-not-100% (like Vort does).

Thanks for the explanation, Jane. Honestly, all the references to the old testament when God supposedly "killed" people or ordered people to be killed, isn't really connecting the dots for me very well because I believe the old testament was mostly allegory and parable.

It helps me understand where you guys are getting your rationale, but I can't really agree with it lol.

[sxfritz]

So then, an LDS person drinks coffee.  LDS people can determine that this is a sin.  Why?  The only answer is because - one is going against one's Baptismal Covenant.

 

So then, a Catholic drinks coffee.  LDS people can't determine that this is a sin.  Why?  Because a Catholic has not made that Covenant.

 

So this is a clear example of an act not being a sin... but the intent of it is.  Make sense?

Funny, I created an entire scene in my book covering just that. The Catholic girl drinks coffee and the LDS boy thinks to chide her only to have the principle expressed above to straighten it out. 

 

You are accountable to the level of understanding you have. That doesn't mean you are excused from obeying the will of God, only that the burden of "sin" is not so great as one who willingly disobeys. The consequence is you unknowingly denied yourself the benefit and blessings of obedience.

[CatholicLady]

Genocide: Killing every member of a family or race, including innocents (which by definition is wrongful)

Fornication: Wrongful intercourse

Adultery: Sex that defiles the marital covenant

 

All of these are defined as sinful. The first is a special instance of killing human beings, which is not in itself intrinsically sinful. The second and third are special instances of sex between humans, which is not intrinsically sinful. You may argue the first is not strictly defined as sin, and perhaps you would be right. But I could bring up instances of God requiring Israel to completely exterminate another people, which we would call genocide. But no believing Christian could term such a thing sinful.

 

I thought fornication was just defined as premarital sex? With abortion, it is also killing an innocent.

I dunno... I appreciate the time you've taken to explain things to me. It does seem like this is becoming sort of a word game and semantics. Thank you though, I guess I just don't agree, but that's why you and I are different faiths, and that's totally ok. :)