Calling all LDS bloggers!!! - Briant and I don't really understand our duty as "disciples" in relation to government and the role that it should play in our lives. We were reading the other day in Doctrine and Covenants Section 134 and came across verse 2, which reads: "No government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed...as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience." In response to this verse, Elder John A. Widstoe of the Quorum of the 12 said, "No law should be passed that takes away from a man the right to choice. Free agency is fundamental as a law of human conduct. Men have the right to obey or disobey the law as they please, and take the consequences" (We didn't take this out of context...it actually says this in the Doctrine and Covenant manual, o ye republicans of little faith).
On the other hand, D&C Section 98 emphasis our responsibility to choose "honest and wise men (verse 10)" as our leaders. President Ezra T. Benson went even further and gave 4 guidelines by which the Saints can measure the "worthiness of an issue or political leader."
1. Is the proposal, policy, or the idea...right as measured by the gospel of Jesus Christ?
2. Is it right as measured by the Lord's standard of constitutional government?
3. Is it right as measured by the council of the living oracles of God?
4. What will be the effect upon the morale and character of the people if that policy is adopted?
Wouldn't policies that promote the gospel of Jesus Christ also compromise an individual's free agency? For example, the church supported prohibition back in the 1920s, although these laws infringed on a person's right to choose. How can these discrepancies be reconciled?
We welcome all visitors to the blog to comment and share their insights from their NON-PARTISAN brain lobe,....if such such a lobe exists in the authors of all-encompassingly.
5 comments:
I think I have that lobe despite all its exposure to Fox News. I agree completely with you, Katie. Anything that takes away agency is evil. In fact, I have argued several times with Jill that "pro choice" is the way to go. However, she has rebounded with all net: the issue is not whether or not agency is taken away. Rather, its a question of if a LIFE is taken away. Seems to me that the question of the complete legalization of abortion is on par with the legalization of murder in general.
Legal punishment is permitted under a moral law, says President Benson, and acts as a deterrent to crime. Government has the obligation to protect life, liberty and property and nothing else. Even if abortion were legal, women STILL have the right to choose. They just don't have the ability to choose the consequences. You kill, you do time.
Also, maybe I'm stretching it here, but look up "Light of Christ" in the Bible dictionary. It says that it is related to one's conscience. We have, according to the scripture you quoted, the right to freely exercise our conscience, but it seems awkward to me to think that one's conscience (underwritten by the spirit of christ) can tell someone that abortion is ok or that gay marriage is a right.
Equal protection under the law. THAT'S what disciples should advocate.
Amendment to post: I said that "even if abortion were legal, women would still have the right to choose". the "legal" should read "illegal".
non-political lobe? i don't think i have one.
laws themselves do not take away choice, as elder widtsoe points out. a nation will have laws. we can choose to obey them or not. when murder was outlawed (was it EVER legal?) nobody wailed, "but that will take away my right to choose!"
our country will never outlaw abortion outright. in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother or fetus, abortion will always be an option. in other cases, where the child is simply not wanted, adoption is an excellent CHOICE.
elder dallin oaks gave, what i feel, is the definitive talk on abortion. i was fortunate enough to be in attendance at the marriot center back in february 1999.
----------------------------------
Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 13Choice, or AgencyFew concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal. For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agency—the right to choose—is a fundamental condition of mortal life. Without this precious gift of God, the purpose of mortal life could not be realized. To secure our agency in mortality we fought a mighty contest the book of Revelation calls a “war in heaven.” This premortal contest ended with the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven and being denied the opportunity of having a body in mortal life (see Rev. 12:7-9).
But our war to secure agency was won. The test in this postwar mortal estate is not to secure choice but to use it—to choose good instead of evil so that we can achieve our eternal goals. In mortality, choice is a method, not a goal.
Of course, mortals must still resolve many questions concerning what restrictions or consequences should be placed upon choices. But those questions come under the heading of freedom, not agency. Many do not understand that important fact. We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.
Because choice is a method, choices can be exercised either way on any matter, and our choices can serve any goal. Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of trying to justify any choice that is made. “Choice” can even become a slogan to justify one particular choice. For example, today one who says “I am pro-choice” is clearly understood as opposing any legal restrictions upon a woman’s choice to abort a fetus.
More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and the unfortunate Supreme Court decisions on the so-called “right to abortion.” I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogan or sound bite “pro-choice” has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it.
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. We are accountable for our choices, and only righteous choices will move us toward our eternal goals.
In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.
In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape—the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand—is involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences. 1 Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called “the weightier matters of the law.”
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Not long ago I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.
----------------------------------
i recommend the whole talk, which i've emailed you. for everyone else, it can be found at LDS.org in the ensign archives.
OK, the off-topic stuff first. I ran across Briant's profile on the St. Petersburg Mission site and saw the blog link. I guess we didn't do too much on the ol' mission together, but we saw each other around at BYU in Russian classes and at the good ol' Olympics.
Anyhoo . . . I think the Widstoe comment answers the question: "Men have the right to obey or disobey the law as they please, and take the consequences." Laws don't decrease agency because people can always choose to disobey the law (it's just that in some places, like Soviet Russia or North Korea, disobeying laws results in death or death-like senteneces). God's laws don't decrease our agency . . . following them actually opens up more choices to us. The same holds for following man's just laws.
Back to off-topic stuff: Good to see y'all're alive and doing well. All the best!
Travis,
Abortion is alway dangerous for the fetus. I don't think they survive all too often.
Post a Comment