Is contraception immoral...


CatholicLady
 Share

Recommended Posts

No one can be a believing LDS and deny God's literal speaking to man. Our faith is based on God literally appearing to Joseph Smith. And we have many many instances examples of God's voice "booming" down in both the book of Mormon and latter-day experiences. It would be pretty silly to accept these as literal and deny the same in the OT.

 

Folk, listen carefully. I never said I deny God literally speaking to man. As a Catholic, I *cannot* believe that, because I know He has spoken to Saints, etc.

 

I just don't believe He literally ordered anyone to kill their children or to marry multiple women. But I definitely don't deny that God has appeared before people and spoken to them... or sent angels to do the job. :)

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk, listen carefully. I never said I deny God literally speaking to man. As a Catholic, I *cannot* believe that, because I know He has spoken to Saints, etc.

 

I just don't believe He literally ordered anyone to kill their children or to marry multiple women. But I definitely don't deny that God has appeared before people and spoken to them... or sent angels to do the job. :)

 

Yet the record is right in front of you of God commanding Abraham to do so.   And other including Jesus Christ  acknowledged what Abraham did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the record is right in front of you of God commanding Abraham to do so.   And other including Jesus Christ  acknowledged what Abraham did

 

It is right in front of me in the old testament, where even you said that belief concerning its literal/allegorical form can vary, and that the church has no official position. Is God telling Abraham to kill his son some sort of exception?     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and yet over the years I've been surprised by how many things like this people disagree on, so I don't presume to speak for everyone.

 

No one is speaking for everyone. Anyone can believe any old thing they want. The LDS church teaches specific things, however. Sometimes there is ambiguity in those teachings. Sometimes there is not. In the case of God speaking to man, there is not. Let whomever believe whatever whomever wishes. That's their business. But LDS teaching is, without question, that God literally speaks to man, literally spoke to Moses, literally spoke to Abraham, etc., and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk, listen carefully. I never said I deny God literally speaking to man. As a Catholic, I *cannot* believe that, because I know He has spoken to Saints, etc.

 

I just don't believe He literally ordered anyone to kill their children or to marry multiple women. But I definitely don't deny that God has appeared before people and spoken to them... or sent angels to do the job. :)

 

Okay...well...picking and choosing beliefs from the Bible, in my opinion, is problematic, as I've said. But that, of course, is your right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The official stance is...  "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly"

 

 

I actually have a question on that one. Do you guys think the Joseph Smith translation is "translated correctly," or is it still susceptible to error? Or is there simply no definitive answer on that one.

 

As a side note, I do think God overtly told Abraham not to kill Isaac. At the risk of opening a can of worms, that is actually one minor objection I have to the LDS position on abortion. In my experience with the bible, and my very little experience with the BoM, it has seemed to me that when God allowed for killing and holy wars, he didn't really employ the still small voice. He was always seemed to be very obvious about those sorts of commands (angels and burning bushes and so forth), and in most (though not all) instances manifested his will in a very public way. Allowing for individuals to make that call via private revelation seems a bit... unprecedented.

 

Any thoughts on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...well...picking and choosing beliefs from the Bible, in my opinion, is problematic, as I've said. But that, of course, is your right.

 

Lol, I am confused. Are you or are you not, as a Mormon, able to take the OT either literally or allegorically? I am getting contradictory answers.

 

Jane Doe was on here earlier specifically talking about a couple things she believes were literal, and others that she believed were allegorical, and no one seemed to have a problem with that. But when I say I think the part about God's voice telling Abraham to kill his son is allegorical, I am told it's problematic to choose which parts I think are allegorical vs literal.      

Edited by CatholicLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I actually have a question on that one. Do you guys think the Joseph Smith translation is "translated correctly," or is it still susceptible to error? Or is there simply no definitive answer on that one.

 

As a side note, I do think God overtly told Abraham not to kill Isaac. At the risk of opening a can of worms, that is actually one minor objection I have to the LDS position on abortion. In my experience with the bible, and my very little experience with the BoM, it has seemed to me that when God allowed for killing and holy wars, he didn't really employ the still small voice. He was always seemed to be very obvious about those sorts of commands (angels and burning bushes and so forth), and in most (though not all) instances manifested his will in a very public way. Allowing for individuals to make that call via private revelation seems a bit... unprecedented.

 

Any thoughts on that?

 

 

Read the account of God commanding Nephi to Kill Laban...  Precedent  Set

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the account of God commanding Nephi to Kill Laban...  Precedent  Set

 

Maybe I'm not reading that passage correctly, but it seems to me like a conversation is taking place between Nephi and the Holy Spirit. Unless I misunderstood, isn't the LDS understanding of such revelations more along the lines of "a burning in the bosom", a feeling of peace, or some other sort of intuition? It seems like the conversation being depicted in 1 Nephi is a lot more blatant.

 

 

Still susceptible to error.

 

 

That does kind of beg the question of "how is that possible?" If the translation was carried out under divine inspiration, I don't really see how it can admit to error. Hypothetically I suppose Joseph Smith could only have restored the "important" parts, but even then while some truths may be lacking, you would still think that what is there would be infallible. 

Edited by Claire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verse 10  gives you the location of the conversation between Nephi and the Spirit of the Lord

 

 10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

 

Its not a verbal conversation heard with the ears...  Its one heard with the Heart and mind.

 

As for it being blatant. trust me a witness of the spirit of God can be incredibly blatant without ever having an audible word or visible sign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm not reading that passage correctly, but it seems to me like a conversation is taking place between Nephi and the Holy Spirit. Unless I misunderstood, isn't the LDS understanding of such revelations more along the lines of "a burning in the bosom", a feeling of peace, or some other sort of intuition? It seems like the conversation being depicted in 1 Nephi is a lot more blatant.

 

God seems to have different modes of communication for different events that seem to be based on the importance of the particular event and the faith of the participant. In the average day to day affairs of individuals the primary mode of communication is through feelings of peace and comfort. The importance of Nephi getting the plates had to do with preserving Gods word for all of Lehi's posterity for the rest of history, particularly for the next 1000 years. God's voice can be heard from Heaven as it was at the baptism of Christ or He can personally appear or send angels or come in dreams and visions. Mormonism isn't limited to just feelings inside for communication.

 

 

That does kind of beg the question of "how is that possible?" If the translation was carried out under divine inspiration, I don't really see how it can admit to error. Hypothetically I suppose Joseph Smith could only have restored the "important" parts, but even then while some truths may be lacking, you would still think that what is there would be infallible.

 

The trouble with claiming anything is infallible is that there can be multiple interpretations of the same infallible passage, so even if the intended message and text to convey it is correct one's own interpretation of said passage is still subject to error. The over-all message of the JST is no doubt correct and does clarify points of confusion in other translations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does kind of beg the question of "how is that possible?" If the translation was carried out under divine inspiration, I don't really see how it can admit to error. Hypothetically I suppose Joseph Smith could only have restored the "important" parts, but even then while some truths may be lacking, you would still think that what is there would be infallible. 

A guy makes a record. This is the first opportunity for error. Much later another guy, Mormon, abridges all of the records, assuming that this was the first time copies were ever made we have our second opportunity for error, more likely Mormon wasn't even working with all originals so there is more chance for error.

When Joseph translated, he himself could accidentally insert errors into what was being perfectly revealed to him, his scribe could accidentally insert error. We know for a fact errors were made when the manuscript was being prepared to be printed. The original manuscript had no punctuation at all. I'm sure some of the punctuation that was added in has errors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A guy makes a record. This is the first opportunity for error. Much later another guy, Mormon, abridges all of the records, assuming that this was the first time copies were ever made we have our second opportunity for error, more likely Mormon wasn't even working with all originals so there is more chance for error.

When Joseph translated, he himself could accidentally insert errors into what was being perfectly revealed to him, his scribe could accidentally insert error. We know for a fact errors were made when the manuscript was being prepared to be printed. The original manuscript had no punctuation at all. I'm sure some of the punctuation that was added in has errors.

 

 This is a great explanation for some of the potential errors in the book of mormon, but I believe the question was regarding Joseph's translation of the bible :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed that. Hehe, For some reason I read the Joseph Smith Translation and thought Claire was talking about the Book of Mormon, not... The JST.  :embarrassed: 

I forget that Claire is a bit more knowledgeable about us mormons than most non-mormons. I had in mind that you were non-lds and took your phrasing more generic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I am confused. Are you or are you not, as a Mormon, able to take the OT either literally or allegorically? I am getting contradictory answers.

 

Jane Doe was on here earlier specifically talking about a couple things she believes were literal, and others that she believed were allegorical, and no one seemed to have a problem with that. But when I say I think the part about God's voice telling Abraham to kill his son is allegorical, I am told it's problematic to choose which parts I think are allegorical vs literal.      

 

Not sure how this is confusing. You and others have stated that Catholics have "required" and "optional" beliefs. Although it doesn't quite work that way in LDS think, there are specific tenants of the LDS faith that one must believe in order to be considered a "believing" Latter-day Saint. The revelations from heaven and the literal truth of that in the examples of that in the Bible are pretty straight forward. LDS believe God appeared, spoke, etc., in the OT the way it says He did. But did a donkey literally speak? Less important.

 

My point is quite clear, however. Even for LDS people, I think it is highly problematic to pick and choose what we are going to accept and what we are not from God's canonized word. If I decide that I'm going to view anything in the OT as non-literal based on my personal tastes and convictions concerning the matter at hand, then I am thereby free to dismiss something like Polygamy as a valid principle -- and make no mistake, some LDS people do just that -- and yet the LDS church's history is so heavily steeped in polygamy that to deny this is, as I said, problematic. Moreover, the Book of Mormon teaches that God commanded Nephi to slay a drunken man in the street. If one, skittish about the idea of murder, thereby chooses to reject that, then it puts the veracity of the Book of Mormon being the word of God into jeopardy, upon which idea the faith and testimony of LDS religiosity rests.

 

It's not complicated. Not everyone believes everything. I'm sure that's true even of so-called "required" Catholic beliefs for Catholics. But the teachings of a church are the teachings of the church, whether members believe them or not. Clearly the LDS dogma approach is less rigid than Catholic. But do not get the idea from some of the comments that we all just willy-nilly think whatever we want and the word given by prophets can take a flying leap per personal agenda without any repercussions in the eternal scheme of things. God will hold non-believers accountable when it comes to the truths He has revealed to the children of men that we reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everybody who responded to my questions. You were all quite helpful.

 

 

My point is quite clear, however. Even for LDS people, I think it is highly problematic to pick and choose what we are going to accept and what we are not from God's canonized word. If I decide that I'm going to view anything in the OT as non-literal based on my personal tastes and convictions concerning the matter at hand, then I am thereby free to dismiss something like Polygamy as a valid principle -- and make no mistake, some LDS people do just that -- and yet the LDS church's history is so heavily steeped in polygamy that to deny this is, as I said, problematic. Moreover, the Book of Mormon teaches that God commanded Nephi to slay a drunken man in the street. If one, skittish about the idea of murder, thereby chooses to reject that, then it puts the veracity of the Book of Mormon being the word of God into jeopardy, upon which idea the faith and testimony of LDS religiosity rests.

 

 

It should be noted though that there are some things in scripture that you simply cannot take to be 100% literal. The Gospel accounts of Christ's life in several places list contradictory and irreconcilable differences in their timelines, as do other books which cover similar stories (i.e. Kings and Chronicles in the OT).

 

That being said, I do for the most part agree. I am personally of the opinion that the truths revealed even in texts that aren't always strictly historical remain true. In my mind, at least, any alteration to the way events actually played out was likely done in the service of a greater truth, and therefor still needs to be recognized. It does, however, provide a bit more interpretive freedom in determining what truth the text meant to convey. Admittedly that freedom can be, and often times has been, abused. That being said, I don't think either LDS or Catholics have an accepted exegesis for every scripture passage, so opinions are to some degree permitted to vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how this is confusing. You and others have stated that Catholics have "required" and "optional" beliefs. Although it doesn't quite work that way in LDS think, there are specific tenants of the LDS faith that one must believe in order to be considered a "believing" Latter-day Saint. The revelations from heaven and the literal truth of that in the examples of that in the Bible are pretty straight forward. LDS believe God appeared, spoke, etc., in the OT the way it says He did. But did a donkey literally speak? Less important.

 

My point is quite clear, however. Even for LDS people, I think it is highly problematic to pick and choose what we are going to accept and what we are not from God's canonized word. If I decide that I'm going to view anything in the OT as non-literal based on my personal tastes and convictions concerning the matter at hand, then I am thereby free to dismiss something like Polygamy as a valid principle -- and make no mistake, some LDS people do just that -- and yet the LDS church's history is so heavily steeped in polygamy that to deny this is, as I said, problematic. Moreover, the Book of Mormon teaches that God commanded Nephi to slay a drunken man in the street. If one, skittish about the idea of murder, thereby chooses to reject that, then it puts the veracity of the Book of Mormon being the word of God into jeopardy, upon which idea the faith and testimony of LDS religiosity rests.

 

It's not complicated. Not everyone believes everything. I'm sure that's true even of so-called "required" Catholic beliefs for Catholics. But the teachings of a church are the teachings of the church, whether members believe them or not. Clearly the LDS dogma approach is less rigid than Catholic. But do not get the idea from some of the comments that we all just willy-nilly think whatever we want and the word given by prophets can take a flying leap per personal agenda without any repercussions in the eternal scheme of things. God will hold non-believers accountable when it comes to the truths He has revealed to the children of men that we reject.

 

Gotcha. So it is acceptable for an LDS to take *some* things of the OT as allegorical... but the part about God telling Abraham to kill his son, is not one of them. That part in particular (as well as some others) is to be taken completely literally, and if a Mormon does not take it completely literally he is going against church teaching. Am I understanding you correctly? 

 

Also, I want to make this clear because it feels like you are getting the wrong idea. Yes, as Catholics we are free to interpret the OT as allegorical or literal. But we MUST believe the underlying message. That's the important part.

 

Example: we are not required to believe that God created the Earth, the universe, and all of creation as we know it in 7 days. But we are required to believe that God is the ultimate supreme being and everything in existence is put here by Him (whether directly or through evolution). Likewise, I do believe Abraham was a real person and that he was put through some sort of test of faith to do God's will. But I don't believe God's voice beamed from the skies and told him to kill his son. I don't believe that is exactly and literally how things played out.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha. So it is acceptable for an LDS to take *some* things of the OT as allegorical... but the part about God telling Abraham to kill his son, is not one of them. That part in particular (as well as some others) is to be taken completely literally, and if a Mormon does not take it completely literally he is going against church teaching. Am I understanding you correctly? 

 

The only things one "HAS" to do to be a mormon in good standing is to keep the commandments and be able to answer the baptismal/temple recommend interview questions honestly and appropriately.

 

Nowhere in these questions is someone asked if they believe that that Abraham was commanded by God to kill his son, however one is asked if they believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, if they believe the current prophet is a true prophet of God and so forth.

 

By extension it is fairly safe to assume that someone who believes Joseph Smith is/was a prophet will therefore accept the OT accounts of former prophets receiving revelation from God. The only part of the OT that I have ever personally heard of being considered uninspired is the Song of Solomon, and I've never confirmed that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, I do believe Abraham was a real person and that he was put through some sort of test of faith to do God's will. But I don't believe God's voice beamed from the skies and told him to kill his son. I don't believe that is exactly and literally how things played out.    

 

That seems a reasonable position to take based on the biblical account. In genesis 22 where Abraham is tested we read:

 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

 

Whether God spoke to Abraham with a voice booming from the sky or by vision in the night or by feelings in his heart isn't spelled out. What is said is that God communicated with Abraham in such a manner that Abraham understood what he was being asked to do and it could be put in words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha. So it is acceptable for an LDS to take *some* things of the OT as allegorical... but the part about God telling Abraham to kill his son, is not one of them. That part in particular (as well as some others) is to be taken completely literally, and if a Mormon does not take it completely literally he is going against church teaching. Am I understanding you correctly? 

 

Also, I want to make this clear because it feels like you are getting the wrong idea. Yes, as Catholics we are free to interpret the OT as allegorical or literal. But we MUST believe the underlying message. That's the important part.

 

Example: we are not required to believe that God created the Earth, the universe, and all of creation as we know it in 7 days. But we are required to believe that God is the ultimate supreme being and everything in existence is put here by Him (whether directly or through evolution). Likewise, I do believe Abraham was a real person and that he was put through some sort of test of faith to do God's will. But I don't believe God's voice beamed from the skies and told him to kill his son. I don't believe that is exactly and literally how things played out.    

 

 

There are few things that an LDS member is *required* to take literally to still be considered "believing".  Example: Christ literally rose from the dead, as will we.  Belief that Jonah literally sit in a whale tummy for three days: totally not required.

 

Getting outside of the "required" realm, there are some things that most LDS folks consider literal and some things most consider figurative.  God telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac would fall in the first category.  Personally I've never heard some one suggest it was just figurative and trying to figure out how that would even work... Oh well, not a primary concern. 

 

I'll respond more later (got to run)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abraham's commanded sacrifice of Isaac is an important part of LDS theology. We speak of an "Abrahamic test" as something we must do to gain exaltation, where we demonstrate to God (and to ourselves) beyond any possible doubt that we will put him, God, before anything else in our lives, even our most beloved people.

 

There are in fact Latter-day Saints who want to believe that God didn't really command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Like you, they simply cannot believe that a loving Father would give such a commandment, even if he didn't actually allow Abraham to follow through. But whether or not God actually commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, as the Bible teaches He did, it is well-established in LDS beliefs that we must be willing to sacrifice all we hold dear in obedience to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only things one "HAS" to do to be a mormon in good standing is to keep the commandments and be able to answer the baptismal/temple recommend interview questions honestly and appropriately.

 

Nowhere in these questions is someone asked if they believe that that Abraham was commanded by God to kill his son, however one is asked if they believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, if they believe the current prophet is a true prophet of God and so forth.

 

By extension it is fairly safe to assume that someone who believes Joseph Smith is/was a prophet will therefore accept the OT accounts of former prophets receiving revelation from God. The only part of the OT that I have ever personally heard of being considered uninspired is the Song of Solomon, and I've never confirmed that either.

 

That's what I understood the first time, but then I got a couple other conflicting responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is right in front of me in the old testament, where even you said that belief concerning its literal/allegorical form can vary, and that the church has no official position. Is God telling Abraham to kill his son some sort of exception?     

 

 

If you believe it to be the word of God...  Then one should be open to the message it is trying to teach.  If one has a preset notion of what God is then one can have difficultly when God tries to teach us about his true nature.  It can get so bad that we end up worshiping not the true and living God but a God of our own creation.

 

Ask yourself why God would preserve a record of him giving that command? (Even if not in the literal sense) What does it tell us about him?.  Why are we so certain that the Master of Life and Death would not give such a command?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abraham's commanded sacrifice of Isaac is an important part of LDS theology. We speak of an "Abrahamic test" as something we must do to gain exaltation, where we demonstrate to God (and to ourselves) beyond any possible doubt that we will put him, God, before anything else in our lives, even our most beloved people.

 

There are in fact Latter-day Saints who want to believe that God didn't really command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Like you, they simply cannot believe that a loving Father would give such a commandment, even if he didn't actually allow Abraham to follow through. But whether or not God actually commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, as the Bible teaches He did, it is well-established in LDS beliefs that we must be willing to sacrifice all we hold dear in obedience to God.

 

Thanks for all the explanations, guys! It sounds perfectly close to Catholic teaching on the OT (open to interpretation of either allegory or literal), except we don't put any sort of specific special emphasis on the Abraham sacrificing Issac part... not more so than the rest of the OT anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share