Abortion, Agency, and two lies Latter-day Saints are believing.
Satan is the father of lies, and therefore it should come as no shock that he takes truths and spreads lies about them. When it comes to agency, there are two lies Satan is telling members of the church, and unfortunately, many are believing his lies: First, he wants us to believe that laws prohibiting sin are immoral and destroy the agency of others. Second, he wants us to believe that when the prophet speaks out on a topic we can use agency and personal revelation as a justification when we disobey. I will address both of these lies.
Lie #1: Laws prohibiting sin are immoral and destroy the agency of others.
We see this lie in full force within the abortion debate. Multiple prophets have made it crystal clear that the Church is unequivocally against elective abortion, and that it is a sin of the gravest nature. Not only is abortion a sin, but those who advocate it also stand under condemnation. At least according to the Prophet President Russell M. Nelson:
Russell M. Nelson, April 1985, Reverence for Life
Despite these statements, many members will still support abortion. To justify their disobedience to God, and His prophets they parrot a line that "I don't agree with abortion, but I don't want to infringe on someone agency." But this is a fallacy! Satan wants us to believe that any law legislating morality is evil, immoral, and destroys agency. He wants us to legalize everything from drugs to abortion. Saying that if we don't legalize everything we are infringing on the agency of others. The problem with this lie is two-fold:
- Satan's end goal has nothing to do with morality or agency. That is just a facade. His goal is to get us to sin. He does this by legalizing and normalizing sin.
- It discredits the commandments. God, the sovereign of the Universe, has decreed universal laws that punish people for immoral behavior. Satan's teachings that civic laws are immortal must also be applied to mean the commandments are immoral.
If Satan had his way, he would do away with all civic laws and commandments. Legalizing drugs, immorality, abortion, alcohol and more. But if we followed God, our Civic laws would reflect the commandments. The more righteous a people the closer their civic laws will reflect eternal laws. This is why the church spends time and money promoting legislation that would criminalize sins. The problem for many members is that the notion of legislating morality is against their political views, sadly they often choose their politics over their prophet. (For more on this topic see Five Major Mistakes That Latter-day Saints Make With Politics.)
Jeffrey R. Holland, April 2003, A Prayer for the Children
Lie #2. We are justified in disobeying because of our agency.
The next lie Satan tells members of the church is that they are justified in using their agency to disobey the prophets. I can't tell you how many times I've had a member say something like "I know the prophets say that we don't support abortion, but I prayed about it and I got the confirmation that it is ok to support it."
The problem with this train of thought is using agency that way is the start of personal apostasy. Agency is so that we can choose to follow God. So that we can choose to be baptized, we have agency so that we can choose to enter into covenants in the temple of our own free will and choice. And then willingly choose to obey those covenants. But when we choose to not to obey we are choosing to disobey, we are choosing something other than our covenants, and we are dangerously on the road to apostasy.
"No child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to “the will of the Lord, … the mind of the Lord, … the word of the Lord, … and the power of God unto salvation.” In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word. In any case, as Elder Neal Maxwell once said to me in a hallway conversation, “There didn’t seem to be any problem with conformity the day the Red Sea opened.”
So are we to blindly follow?
Am I suggesting that we blindly follow the prophet? Heavens, no. I am suggesting that choose to keep our covenants to follow the prophet with our eyes open. This concept is often called faith obedience. We have the right to personal revelation to gain a witness that the prophet is a prophet. But we covenant to follow in the interim. Satan is the one tries to discourage you from following the prophet.
"One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His goal is to have us believe that we should be following our own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by persuading us that “blindly” following the prophets and obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He teaches that it is not intelligent to do something just because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.
Elder R. Conrad Schultz, April 2002, Faith Obedience.
Our unquestioning obedience to the Lord’s commandments is not blind obedience. President Boyd K. Packer in the April conference of 1983 taught us about this: “Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. … We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see” (“Agency and Control,” Ensign, May 1983, 66).
We might call this 'faith obedience.'"
wonderful, now i know just what to answer when anyone says we are blindly following the Prophet, i can tell them that i choose to follow the Prophet of my agency, because i know for myself the spiritual truth of what our Prophet teaches us, is Gods word to us.
Thanks Jeremy. I have seen too many people believing lie number two. They quote Nephi killing Laban and then go against things that prophets have clearly stated is sin and call it fine because of it. Anyways. Thanks for the great article.
A few years ago I was listening to a radio program - Joe Paggs. Near the end of the broadcast, or at least what I was able to listen of it, he made the statement (can't quote it exactly, but basically it was this):
If you insist that you personally don't believe in abortion or same sex marriage, but you have no problem with other people following these trends, you are not a Christian.
That really struck me. I cannot interfere in the agency of others, but that doesn't give me license to say that I think its okay -- as long as its them and not me.
It states the church is "unequivocally against elective abortion."
However, there are circumstances where abortion has been advised or supported by church leaders. If it was absolutely against the law under any circumstances, what what become of mothers who have cancer and can't get treatment while they're expecting? What if a 13 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant? What if a pregnancy puts the life of the mother in grave danger? There needs to be an option for these women, even though the circumstances are very rare.
Elective abortion is evil and should never be sanctioned. But some circumstances are dire. (I'm speaking of personal experiences, so keep that in mind before condemning.)
literally the sentence you quote has the qualifying word ELECTIVE as defined "a surgical or medical treatment chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary."
So no, elective abortions are NEVER needed.
It wasn't my intent to condemn anyone.
I realize that there are times when an abortion might be necessary to save the life of the mother. I also know that as medical science has advanced, many, if not most of those circumstances can now be avoided. It is now even possible to perform successful surgery on a baby still inside of the womb.
Again, I'm not trying to be critical of you or situations that you may have had to endure personally, or with loved ones.
I am also reminded of a tendency of too many (not you, I'm sure, but myself included too often as well) , when ever the Brethren speak out on an issue, to immediately search for the exceptions to the rules being declared over the pulpit.
I'm not saying that we are perfect or will be any time soon -- we all make mistakes; commit sin, if you will. But we have already initiated our own defeat when the Prophet speaks and we quickly start searching for ways that we might personally be exempt. Yes, sometimes there are circumstances, but I think we should first try to be obedient as best we can and if for some reason an exception needs to be made then so be it; provided we first did all we could to follow the prophet.
@Kelli, It is the elective abortions that the Church Opposes; not those done for rape, incest, or the welfare of the mother. We do not seek the removal of abortion, as a means of punishment, but as a means to preserve innocent lives. That is my understanding, Women should not be taught that there is no harm in abortion
@Kelli, the church never advises abortion. There are instances where it is not an automatic church court, and in those instances sincere prayer is still required because of the seriousness of what you are about to do.
The seeking for abortion loopholes within the church is a dangerous place to be.
I prefer to think of agency as defined in the dictionary and scriptures, it is a stewardship or responsibility not freedom to choose. Orson Pratt in the 1850s change the meaning to mean freedom of choice and then added the word free in front of it to become free agency,. before then the meaning was stewardship.
There are many terms that have different meanings within the gospel setting than outside of it. Agency has consistently been used to mean the freedom to choose by church leaders for over a hundred years and doesn't contradict any doctrine within the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now I know hot to handle their questions about us. Thank you.
Elective would include an adult female who is raped and wants to terminate the pregnancy without having to go into details with a practitioner or law enforcement, which should be her right. That's my viewpoint as a Latter-day Saint who believes that casual abortion is immoral. It's difficult to legislate this issue into elective vs mandatory because privacy should matter in medical care. I think having a conservative cap on when abortion is available during gestation is extremely important and I think making contraception and sex education more accessible is important. Agency and the Gospel can both be supported without making a procedure illegal. If certain women take advantage of a system and use it as birth control, that's ultimately left to God's judgement and understanding of that woman's knowledge and circumstances. My job is to help promote the understanding we receive within the gospel so fewer people feel compelled to make that choice.
I wish the church would take a stronger stand against abortion. I believe they are not promoting pro-life. Is it because they don’t want to create controversy? I don’t know why. I just know that we are in the middle of the greatest genocide in the history of the world. Generations have been eliminated by elective abortions in the past 50 years. It is unimaginable. I plead that the Prophet will receive revelation, on this subject, perhaps by educating our young people to choose their political affiliations more wisely. I say this things because of my own experience with my adult children who were educated with very liberal universities. They are LDS with very radical views that compromise the values of our Constitution. Our young people are being brainwashed to hate our country and our forefathers and are supporting radical evil organizations that promote violence and hate. Our prophet needs to address these young milenials. I plead to the President and Prophet of The Church of Jesus Chirst of Later Day Saints.
President Oaks and Nelson have repeatedly denounced abortion, people just think they are the exception to prophetic counsel.
How do we handle extreme views on abortion, specifically if we are given choices to vote on criminalizing ALL abortions? And do we have a right to legally impose our views on those not of our faith? I understand and cannot support elective abortions, but our choices are often not framed in terms of "elective", but have an all or nothing quality that often includes banning contraception as well. How do we pick our way through this morass?
From my point of view, I must take into consideration the laws given by Moses in the form of the Ten Commandments. In these proclamations, the Lord had no reservations about forbidding murder, adultery, theft, telling lies, etc. He wasn't worried about those who "weren't of His faith". These laws are universal. The Savior, during his ministry requoted these laws and even added to them: "Thou shalt not kill nor do anything like unto it." (Some of the brethren have equated this with abortion).
We have come to accept that abortion might be necessary for one reason or another and therefore completely outlawing it would infringe upon agency. There have been times when the Lord has justified various actions - directing the slaying of Laban probably being the most famous. But I do not notice as much attention of living morally clean lives as much as we seem to promote the distribution of condoms. I see more commercials advertising legal help to escape a drunk driving conviction than I do efforts to curb substance abuse --- in other words, we seem more devoted to finding ways to mitigate consequences than we do to promote better choices to begin with.
@Renee Kerr, making laws doesn't stop people from choosing to do those things. And laws can be written to be very specific. If laws affected peoples agency then we wouldn't see people committing crimes and breaking those laws. I'd say that maybe it can "influence" agency but it definitely doesn't take it away. The only way to fully take someone's agency away is to kill them/severely injured them to the point of being a vegetable.
I have a couple of thoughts. God allowed us to come to this life to get experience and choose to return to Him or not should we be given that path in our mortal existence. He allows us the opportunity to sin, in fact salvation necessitates (it does not justify) sin and a redemption therein. That being said, God gave us commandments and allows us to break those commandments for our growth and not to infringe upon our agency, however we will always have to face the consequence of our sin. I do not think that laws regarding abortion would necessarily limit others' agency. I do think that it would limit experience and potential for growth. I do not think that it would be correct to hold nonbeliever's to our gospel standard of living, no matter how badly we want them to do so. This is where I have a problem with this post. We as a covenant people are held to these standards, we are supposed to follow the commandments and be a "light on a hill" but nowhere in the scriptures do I know of does it say that we should hold those not of our faith to our own standards and beliefs. We should of course want to share the gospel and desire everyone to believe and worship as we do and strive to create Zion, I do not believe that Zion can necessarily be legislated into existence. I do agree that a God worshipping people's laws should reflect eternal laws, and we should strive for that, but as far as abortion goes, the Church very clearly states that they do not support any one political platform on the issue, and that each case should be individually and prayerfully considered. This means there is no "one size fits all" solution when it comes to abortion.
Plato says that if we want to change a government or a society, we first must change the hearts of the people individually, and those individuals will become thus become rulers and society will change as people change. This is an observable phenomena in the Book of Mormon. If we want to rid the country of the plague of abortion and other sins, it isn't going to be through legislation. It is going to be through sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ to all and allowing those around us the chance to hear the full restored gospel. The only way we can build a society with laws compatible with eternal principles is through personal conversion and personal experiences with Christ. For these reasons, I do believe this article (not necessarily in what it teaches but in what it emphasizes) misses the mark.
@Drew, what about the rights of the child? A child is still killed ,who has that right
I BELIEVE we should all pray about any revelation that is given to us by a prophet of God. then i believe we shall feel that peace that comes from the Holy Spirit reassuring us that what the prophet of God has said comes from God....i also liked the part where you said ..i dont believe blindly...i believe because i can see....
I would just like to point out
1. vaccines are made from feotuses
2. if a woman has been raped or in an abusive relationship and feels suicidal the best thing to do is support her. If you are willing to adopt her child great, if not, support her through her trials and help her find some sense of control of her life
3. Many women who are terrified of pregnancy at first, fall pregnant soon after an abortion and become the best of mothers. Support them. Love them.Mourn with them. Encourage them.
I read your articles and there are times when I may not whole heartedly agree with the tone of an article, yet you do well at maintaining Gospel Doctrine and using quotes from scriptures and the General Authorities to support your premises.
In this particular article, the concept of "Blind Faith vs Intelligent Obedience" (my words not precisely yours) is well voiced. You have confirmed who you are, in spite of any "innuendos" or "aspersions cast". I for one, appreciate your reminders, even when they "prick" the conscience.
Take Care and Keep Smiling - Just another Brother.
Amen! I love how President Kimball put it. He contrasted Heavenly Father with some of today's sovereign rulers. Men like the king of North Korea. These leaders run their countries with harshness. The people who live under the reign of these monarchs live in fear. They obey their rulers because if they don't their rulers will treat them with unspeakable cruelty. Heavenly Father is sovereign over all. The twelfth President of the Church said this: When men obey commands of a creator, it is not blind obedience. How different is the cowering of a subject to his totalitarian monarch and the dignified, willing obedience one gives to his God. The dictator is ambitious, selfish, and has ulterior motives. God's every command is righteous, every directive purposeful, and all for the good of the governed. The first may be blind obedience but the latter is certainly faith obedience.
I find it interesting that counseling with your Bishop and Stake president regarding abortion and it's alternatives is not mentioned. There are instances where abortion may be the only option, however, that is determined by the mother and her Bishop and Stake president after counseling, prayer and fasting.
Yes, this article addresses the 99% of abortions that are elective IE, always wrong.
I agree with you on both points, but you put it across as it is easy for everybody to avoid these ways of thinking. Evangelicals often speak in the harshest and unfeeling, thoughtless tones as if they can interpret scripture perfectly. You also, being black and white as you seem to be, speak in a way that can let anger loose. It is a style that hurts people trying to do their best. It is a hypocritical way in that you are having the same hard times obeying your tough commandments. Most repentant people want to be treated in a tough but mild and understanding way. Mercy doesn't create grey commandments but it takes into consideration our weaknesses. Being a good Christian does not mean always being perfect or even strong. I hope you don't have joy in condemning those who really commit your pet peeves however large they may be. That is a great danger.
Outside of our cchurch, and a very few others, I have yet to see anyone promote sexual abstention as a form of birth control...
From my earliest days, we always parroted the directive --- Abortion is wrong except in the case of rape/incest or the life of the mother is threatened.
As I have grown older, I prefer to just declare that Abortion is Wrong. Should a legitimate exception come into play, then okay, otherwise, its always wrong.
Even in the case of rape, we are still sentencing the child to death because of the sinful act of someone else. And medical science has now made it possible to do so much to save mother and baby that these options should be first employed.
I confess that I am not perfect, but I honestly strive to obey the prophet -- even when I do not fully understand why. That will come, in the meantime, I wish to be on the right side of the fence and moving swiftly towards the inner circle of eternal life and joy.