DiscussMormonism.com

https://youtu.be/H95Ta75rkTA

I have strong doubts that the letters supposedly read from real young single mothers in the church are genuine. For such a complex and painful situation, the letters are almost childishly simple.

The church wants to reiterate that spirit children are inserted into fetuses, and it doesn’t care about the technicalities of fetal development. One wonders what happens to the spirit children who are aborted.

The church also wants to reiterate that abortion is fine in cases of rape, incest, serious risk to the mother, and when the fetus cannot survive long after birth. The implication is that children with severe but survivable birth defects must be born. I wonder how many general authorities have been full time caretakers of mentally disabled adult children with no money for assistance.

Lastly, those who get an abortion are portrayed as making a rash, hasty, irrational decision. I suppose it’s a small step forward from the days when women were characterized as getting recreational abortions for the fun of it. But still disappointing to see the full impact of these situations on families minimized.

Is it a surprise that a General Conference talk on abortion was given by a man?

On another forum, the posters were angered by the talk. I was surprised by their vehemence when writing about it. It must have been very Mormonific.

This is another great example of why there are now more men in the church than women. With talks like this, expect the gender gap in the church to keep growing.

In Anderson’s tone-deaf talk, there was no mention of the man’s responsibility for the unplanned pregnancy. The man’s responsibility/infidelity/abuse is ignored and all the emphasis was on how the woman should take responsibility for fixing the situation.

So very misogynistic and deeply problematic. The church is no longer a safe or friendly place for women.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:42 pm

The church is no longer a safe or friendly place for women.

This is one of the most outrageous comments I’ve ever read on this forum… “… no longer …”?

pistolero wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 06, 2025 8:00 pm

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:42 pm

The church is no longer a safe or friendly place for women.

This is one of the most outrageous comments I’ve ever read on this forum… “… no longer …”?

LOL!

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 06, 2025 8:14 pm

pistolero wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 06, 2025 8:00 pm

This is one of the most outrageous comments I’ve ever read on this forum… “… no longer …”?

LOL!

We shouldn’t really expect a lot from a religion founded by a philanderer to justify his dalliances.

We shouldn’t really expect a lot from a religion founded by a philanderer to justify his dalliances.

Such a great Rhetorical encapsulation of the endearing "Restoration."

That last ask of raising your husband's love child that he had while you were married might be too much for even long-suffering Mormon women. Set a good example for the other wives in the ward if they heard similar news from their husbands and revelators. Sublimate for the Lord!

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 06, 2025 6:34 am

https://youtu.be/H95Ta75rkTA

I have strong doubts that the letters supposedly read from real young single mothers in the church are genuine. For such a complex and painful situation, the letters are almost childishly simple.

The church wants to reiterate that spirit children are inserted into fetuses

At what point? The moment the sperm penetrates the egg? When the fetus has brain wave activity? or later, the moment the newborn first takes a breath and thus can be recorded in the LDS church's records?

, and it doesn’t care about the technicalities of fetal development. One wonders what happens to the spirit children who are aborted.

Or miscarried for that matter?

The church also wants to reiterate that abortion is fine in cases of rape

Why's that? Does that include consensual, statutory rape? Is it because it is an unwanted pregnancy and that puts the child at a distinct disadvantage in life? Is that because the child of rape would be a reminder of that traumatic experience for the mother? I.e., the mother's emotional state is a determinant? Hasn't the church started down a slippery slope here? What about consensual one-night stand and the father won't be in the child's life? Is that unwanted child disadvantaged like the child of a rape? And should it be a health care professional assessing the emotional state of and thus impact on the mother?

, incest

The law of different states and nations define incest differently--first cousins in some states would be incestuous, but not in others, for example. How many degrees of consanguinity is the LDS church talking here?

, serious risk to the mother

Is that just physical risk or does that include mental risk too? How does the LDS church quantify this risk? All pregnancies pose a risk of possible death to the mother, so who makes the decision about when it might be a serious risk?

, and when the fetus cannot survive long after birth

But if it can get on church records even if takes a single breath, it's okay to deny the fetus that opportunity?

. The implication is that children with severe but survivable birth defects must be born. I wonder how many general authorities have been full time caretakers of mentally disabled adult children with no money for assistance.

Lastly, those who get an abortion are portrayed as making a rash, hasty, irrational decision. I suppose it’s a small step forward from the days when women were characterized as getting recreational abortions for the fun of it. But still disappointing to see the full impact of these situations on families minimized.

Yes. But it all depends on the spin. A tithe-paying couple's teen daughter gets pregnant and has an abortion. Spun right, it was 'rape' (statutory). Or, the fetus posed a serious risk to the teen girl. Another teen girl gets pregnant, but it is not spun, or spun poorly, and she's a 'baby murderer' that needs to be shamed and excoriated.