Leaderboard

Do you honestly believe that men are biologically incapable of even beginning to imagine what it would be like for a woman to be raped and give birth/abort the baby? Seriously? Bummer about Jesus being a man, I guess.

From time to time I get these questions...are Mormons/Adventists/Catholics Christians? Like LDS, I start with the reality that not even everyone in our church is a real Christian. Fruits matter. Dead faith is worse than none...it's delusion. Then there are beliefs. My church has 16 fundamental ones. Call this a creed, if you wish. The Articles of Faith are 13, and are scripture for LDS. If we cross-referenced the Statement of Fundamental Truths (AoG) and the Articles of Faith, we'd find two realities. Each doctrinal point has some shared truth. Yet, there is not complete, or even mostly-complete agreement on any one. So, which is wrong, and is the error disqualifying (of the title Christian)? The question is more difficult because both groups believe they are led by the Holy Spirit. Yet...no agreement on doctrine. It's enough to say that this reality is uncomfortable. We do well to know what we believe and why we believe it, and then to engage one another with the love we have--love we believe originates with God.

I very much agree with this. I am very pro-life; I don't really like the Church's exceptions but I think that is where the individual has the option to choose without any type of Church discipline. So while I'm uber pro-life; I do draw a very distinct line for the legality of abortion. One of the very difficult issues in the pro. vs. pro. debate is when exactly does life begin. I don't know when exactly, but I figure it is pretty close to conception; however I know this is pretty hard to prove and a lot of people may not accept this. However, I believe we can definitely say at what point life can survive without being in the mother. Modern technology has increased the number of months that a baby can be premature and survive. I think most rational people (on both pro. sides) can say, yes being able to survive outside the mother definitively constitutes life. I see no reason why for legality purposes only that abortion be made illegal after that point minus a couple of weeks for fudge room. As technology increases and the months born prior to normal birth increase, then the week at which abortion becomes illegal decreases too. It's not perfect, but it's about the best I can figure given all the sides and issues.

I'd be interested to see you engage the hypothetical about the mentally ill knife-attacker, then. If I know he's mentally ill (and, therefore, morally guiltless), does that mean I have to let him kill or mutilate me (or at least, that I may not use lethal force in my own self-defense)? I'm intrigued by your implicit suggestion that where a mother's life is in imminent danger, the child is initiating some sort of force against which the mother has a right to defend herself through lethal means (i.e., abortion). Because that would create a logical contradiction that I have trouble resolving. You appear to say that a woman can voluntarily become pregnant, and abort the child because the child creates a risk of grave physical harm. But if a woman involuntarily becomes pregnant, she must not abort the child even if the child creates a risk of grave psychological harm. The only way I can reconcile this is by assuming that psychological harm is somehow less damaging or less "real" than physical harm is; and that's not an assumption I'm willing to make. What, exactly, do you mean by "surmount[ing] that hurdle"? Would you speak with such assurance if the "hurdle" was a physical maiming, rather than a psychological injury? And again, this logic seems to lead to the conclusion that a person must submit to any and all threatened physical or psychological harm, regardless of the consequences; so long as the instigator of the harm is "guiltless". If you don't follow that logic to its ultimate conclusion, then where do you depart from it? Where's the line? That the person suffering the harm is a woman? That the threatened harm is psychological rather than physical? That the perpetrator of the harm is an innocent, incompetent infant rather than an innocent, incompetent adult? Something else?

Eowyn will be on the news when her house explodes.

Here's a source for good articles to read about the issue. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/01/more-thoughts-on-the-oregon-stand-off.html

Mainstream media in the US is (or should be) dead. It's the dinosaur media. It's time has come and gone. About the only mainstream media outlet I go to these days is BBC. It's a source of how I learn about what's happening in America. (If I could get the WSJ for free I'd go with them too, but they're too spendy for me.) These days I grab stuff from places that admit their biases. And I grab a mix - both left and right, both secular and religious, both pro- and anti- whatever is being reported. That way, I can read what a leftie says about something and adjust two notches for the wind, and what a rightwinger says and adjust two notches the other way, and come closer to the truth. (I say this as a borderline-libertarian rightwinger.) And of course, Stratfor, with it's "we make money only when we're right" model is a great source for relevance, even if it's totally bereft of the right or wrong aspect. Yeah, if you still go to Fox or CNN, network TV or newspapers that have been around for 100 years, you need to do a little soul searching about how you stay up to date on current events. At this point, wiki-friggin-pedia is a better source than any of that jargle, because you'll usually see sources from all over.

Hunh. That's a real shame. The 5th estate's job is to investigate and provide transparency. If the media doesn't report the truth, how can people make intelligent decisions? In Germany, the media took about 3 days to report on this. This caused a full-on flip out. The mayor also suggested women needed to keep all men at arms length to protect themselves, which caused a huge amount of anger. It was victim blaming and unhelpful. Kudos to the New York Times, by the way, who actually did report this story.

We can (to coin a phrase) pick nits about when a "potential rapist" crosses the line into "attempted rapist" and from there into "rapist", and where, on that spectrum, lethal defensive force is appropriate. But I'm not sure it's necessary. I think we agree, practically speaking, that at some point, a woman may use lethal force to defend herself against rape. The question, I think, is what the underlying theoretical basis for that lethal force should be. Let me draw another hypothetical: Let's say that, in the line of duty, a US soldier is captured by a hypothetical MIddle Eastern warlord--let's call him, say, "Uday Hussein". The soldier is put in a kangaroo court and convicted. Uday Hussein comes in and says: American soldier, here's the deal. I maintain, as you know, a series of rape rooms. Your sentence is to spend nine months in one of my rape rooms. During that time I may violate you as often as I wish, perhaps multiple times per day, at any time. But for that, your existence will be quite comfortable--you will be well-fed, housed adequately, and provided with the very best of medical and psychological care. And furthermore, my sexual assaults on you will not leave any scratching or bruising on your person; there will be no physical harm. But you will be subject to these violations. And further, American soldier--you are actually free to walk away from this rape room at any time and catch the first flight back to Washington, DC. But if you do, I will kill a five-year-old Kurdish girl. Now, it's certainly very noble of the American soldier to choose to suffer through those nine months to save the child's life. But I ask you--if the American soldier decides that he is not emotionally or psychologically up to this trial, and he chooses to go straight to the airport and go home--should an American court martial then convict him for the child's murder? Are you going to tell that soldier "sorry, but your mental health wasn't worth the life of that five-year-old"? It's easy, as a male, to come to an impregnated rape victim and drawl "Aw, shucks, li'l lady, it can't be that bad!!!" But I'm here to tell you that there are impregnated rape victims out there who say that their experience in gestating the child is that bad. The pregnancy, in such cases, is not simply fallout from a past violation or a threat of future psychological harm. It is "immediate" psychological harm--every waking moment is a new violation. Instead of retreating into "that's just crazy talk", why don't you show me why your argument logically cannot be extended that far? If psychological damage is not grounds for lethal self-defense, and rape constitutes primarily psychological damage, then on what grounds can you say that a woman should be able to use lethal force against an attacker? I really wish you'd read my exchange with Carborendum, instead of just suggesting that I haven't addressed the point. Among other things, with a five-year-old the mother can separate herself from the child through a mechanism that will not result in the death of the child.

I don't see why this has to be considered an attack on the internet. Just a reminder that this particular institution has a particular environment (and they clearly get tired of being asked about wifi). I don't have a mobile device, so I can sympathize with the idea of just talking to people. I don't think it has to be considered that they are too cheap to get wifi either - that may be the case, but they also might really be trying to create/protect a certain environment at the establishment.

If you really want to get into the definition of "initiating force" read The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Rothbard%20(Murray)%20-%20The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty.pdf

Eowyn, When people may claims that you should listen to them more then Jesus... You need to give them a big Whatever and walk away. Continue to prayerfully and carefully study you options and then do what the spirit directs and let the whiners whine...

Yes, for the eighty-fifth time. And that's … good? If life is so valueless, why not just kill everyone? The law may recognize that a child in utero has no rights his mother does not grant him, if that child is alive, he has rights no court of legislator can legitimately deny. As long as he is not a threat to hurt her physically, she has no legitimate right to kill him, her mental "health" notwithstanding. End of discussion, then: no one has the right to kill another person without an imminent threat of harm. The key, then, is whether the mother's right to live in mental comfort outweighs the child's right to life. If the child is truly alive, it does not, not any more than she would have the right to kill him five years later because he "drives [her] up the wall". Lehi

But as to her, that's not physical force. As to her that's merely a threat to impose psychological trauma, which you've suggested is non-permanent in nature and thereby cannot justify lethal self-defense tactics. Psychological harm, Lehi. Psychological harm.

You do love picking nits, do you not? The mental condition of his mother is no justification for killing the child. Lehi

Check YouTube, Stefan Molyneau's "The Truth About" series. He has a ton of documentation. Here's one: youtube.com/watch?v=k9s5H-RNjxY And here's another: youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI Lehi

Not only physical force, but fraud and other compulsion. Someone's holding a gun in his hand while "asking" you to sign over the deed to your house would still be force. In the case we are discussing it is almost always physical force, but let's say that the rapist were threatening to kill the woman's child or her father if she doesn't give in? It's still force. Again with an unlikely (read nearly non-existent) possibility. The ultimate aim of the attacker is the issue. If it is rape, then he will do her harm that cannot be remedied, and his life is forfeit. If it is a mere kiss, while unwanted and unwelcome will not hurt her permanently. No lethal force is permissible. However, this is not from his mind. The whole question is about how the victim assesses the threat. Lehi

In fact, more men, by far, get raped in any given period than women do. Often, it is by a woman (or women), but usually by another man (or men). That's what prison (and sometimes the military) is all about. Lehi

It's not that hard to imagine, actually. Men can get raped just as women can. A man just needs to imagine being the psychological horror of being raped again and again, every minute of every day for nine months, with about ten hours of intense physical pain at the end of it.

My first summation, as near as I can tell, turned out to be accurate; and Lehi seems to resolve the conundrum by suggesting that psychological harm is not comparable to physical harm--or that psychological harm is not an "initiation of force" justifying the use of lethal force in self-defense. My second summation, of course, turned out to be inaccurate and borne of a misunderstanding. It happens. Which clarification I appreciate; but the bottom line seems to be that both babies threaten continued trauma to the mother. It's just that one threatens physical trauma whereas the other threatens psychological trauma. I would be interested in digging into this definition of "initiating force" more. We (seem to) have established that culpability is irrelevant, and that the resultant psychological trauma to the victim is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that physical force seems imminent. On what basis, then, do we say that a woman is justified in shooting a man who tries to rape her, but is not justified in shooting a man who merely attempts to grab her hand or steal a kiss?

Yes. Yes. Lehi

The same applies when the income is higher, since the higher income will increase the tax rate on the new, combined income. (Since we're talking about An Investigator's part-time, ~$16,00/year job, the assumption is concrete, so I have no apology for that.) Increases in taxes accounts for a huge part of the reduction in purchasing power with that second income. But it is not the only reduction. My mother didn't have a second car until I was a teenager. A second car is not a necessity. If your family has one, it's s choice, not a requirement. Perhaps. But that car will need gas, insurance, maintenance, washing, tires, and a host of other things that must be accounted to the new income. As I said, I don't care too much (although I pity her children) if a woman decides to take an outside job. It's her decision. I'd hope that she'd consult with her husband, and that they would exercise prayerful reflection on the costs, economic, spiritual, and mental, But before they can do this, they must understand that there are costs. A new paycheck doesn't come for free. Lehi

I see two problems here: first, you're assuming the second income is pretty low, and that SAHMs don't need cars. (Or that working takes something more than a $500-1200 car.) In my case, my ex wife's income was $60k, and having only one car wasn't an option, since there are still things to be done during the day. We did, however, go through a few $500-1000 cars, mostly because she had a knack for picking the absolute worst solution to minor issues. (Leave the car idling when it overheated, thinking the fan would cool it off turned a bad radiator hose into a ruined engine, for example.)

Not to keep beating the same drum, but again, I don't see the problem. Let's assume there is a "charity gene". If you have it, you tend to be more charitable. Let us also assume that those who exercised great charity in their premortal state(s) are born with this gene as a result of their premortal actions. (The mechanism for that is unimportant.) What is the problem? Those who have developed their charity are blessed with -- charity. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Those not so blessed may be people who never developed the trait of charity to a high degree. But they can still do so now, in this life. They are not prohibited. Perhaps their path is more difficult to developing that trait, but so what? We believe that we endure the consequences of our choices, for good or for ill. In our hypothetical situation, those with the "charity gene" are not being given an unfair leg up. They are being given exactly what they worked for in that premortal age. What could be more just?

These women need support for their mental problem, and make no mistake, I agree, it is, and should be a violation and problem, but hardly to that degree. But with help, they can surmount that hurdle. A dead baby ain't gonna get better. Lehi

If that is abstractly, absolutely true, then a woman is not justified in using deadly force to defend herself from rape; so long as it appears her rapist has no intent to actually kill her. Because while rape is physically invasive, the harm of the deed is primarily emotional/psychological in nature. And moreover, sometimes self-defense involves the need to take a life that is, by all objective measures, innocent. A person in the midst of a psychosis who comes at me is a knife is not, in my view, morally culpable--he doesn't know what he's doing--but I'm still well within my moral and legal rights to shoot him. I would hope rape victims would find it within themselves to do that; but it seems like for a certain proportion of such cases the human mind just isn't wired that way. For such women, every moment is a new violation. I've seen what the results can be--"catastrophic" doesn't begin to describe it. I've known one or two cases where I felt--and this is a horrible thing to say--but I really felt those women would have been better off dead.

"Fetching home [money]" is not the same thing as improving your family economy. As I said, every Job has its costs. Just because someone has a net take home pay does not mean it is profitable, and it does not mean that it is a good use of time. If anyone wants to work for the pleasure of the job and the company or any other reason, that's not part of this discussion. These may be good, valid reasons, but they are not economic reasons. They are or could be enough to tip the scales and it's up to the people involved to decide that. But they are not economic reasons. In my experience, the majority of men who encourage their wives to work outside the home do not count the economics highly enough. Nor do they weigh the costs (both economic and otherwise) of having a tired, dual-allegiance wife, and children who are being raised by strangers. But it is their decision. My only purpose is to make people aware of those costs. Let's take just the tax cost. If a second income of $12,000 changes a tax bill from $6,300 to $9,000, the entire $2,700 comes off of the second income. That's because the additional income is why the higher tax burden exists. But that's not all: the second car has its own taxes. The sales tax on new clothes, on meals at Jimbo's: they're all coming out of that second income. A second income can easily eat itself half up just in new and additional taxes. Finally, totally outside the monetary costs, If you work 20 hrs/wk, you might be away from home more than 30. That's 1,500/hrs year. The question is, after all the wholly economic costs are subtracted from that additional income, and, for convenience we assume you are working for $20,000, are you worth more than $1.50/hr. I'd guess you are. And what do you get for that $2,000? What does the spouse get? I know I'd have a tired, grouchy, wearied wife, and it jess ain't worth it. Lehi

I've not read this string, but, most people probably think it's okay to have just a little bit more than what they do.

I'm going to push on this a bit. Babies are being butchered inside the clinic, from the pro-life perspective. Young teenage girls are being told it's right for their future, right for their family's reputation, right for freeing their boyfriend from responsibility...then, when guilt settles in, they're told it's THEIR choice. Never mind, that it was done for everyone else. In the mean time, the young bio-dads are told they have not say in the matter, no responsibility (other than, perhaps, to help pay the blood money), and we wonder why they act so irresponsibly. Sometimes I wonder if we know more righteous indignation, rather than less. We're taught to judge nothing, be angry at nothing, not to get our danders up. Yes, cool and soft-spoken comes across as dignified, sophisticated, respectable and well-bred. However, this is an issue where some good, old-fashioned Jeremiah-like shouting might be in order. Rather than being an issue of control, it might be one of being able to sense the heart of God.

If the pro-life side is right--if the unborn is a human life--then is this not an issue like slavery? Part of what led to the Civil War was some pretty passionate "yelling" by the Abolitionists. I can't criticize those who protest/counsel at abortion clinics. We do not know how many minds we're changed--how many babies were saved. If I'm not mistaken "Jane Roe" was one of them that became pro-life because of demonstrators. Yep...she did convert on this issue: http://www.endroe.org/roebio.aspx

My suggestion would be to speak with your Bishop and also speak with him about seeing the Church Physcologist. That might be good for him. If cost is a concern you might also speak with your Bishop about the church helping you pay for the session thru Fast offerings.

I tend to get in funks sometimes and Just_A_Girl tries to talk me out of them, but--and maybe it's just my personality--while it helps to know generally that she loves me and wants the best for me and is willing to put the time into trying to talk me up; the words themselves don't actually help a whole lot and I know that that's deeply frustrating for her. (Does that make any sense at all?) If your husband is like me, the best thing you can do is let him know you love him but not really engage him verbally or join his pity party. At the same time, find little ways to serve and show your love for him. Note that this advice only works for a certain type of personality--it's diametrically opposed in some ways to what LP (whom I respect tremendously) is saying and I can see it backfiring in spectacular fashion for a different personality type. So definitely follow the Spirit on this one

Yeah I was thinking of going that route, especially since I'm not exactly a thin person. Fortunately, my son is about to graduate from the University of MD as a structural engineer, and was able to examine a design I'd seen in another thread on the website I linked to, and was able to assure me that the design would hold my weight. Apparently, PVC pipe is absurdly strong in compression. That stilt design could be used as a jackstand for a car. Thanks! Maybe once it's done it'll push you over the line My mentor in this project is the guy who won the amateur cosplay category at Baltimore Comic Con last year with his Space Marine suit. My goal is to improve upon his design.

One thing that I think a lot of us need to keep in mind in the quest for that magic "enough" number is that no child ever said at a parent's funeral "I wish daddy had spent more time at work instead of with us." Even charity doesn't have to be money; a few minutes of your time and labor can do a lot more. When I picked up the $500 car on New Year's Eve, the seller wasn't too sure about how accurate the gas gauge was. I found out the hard way about 1AM that it's empty about a 16th of an inch above the empty line, while on an access road with no shoulder and no turnoffs close. A young couple stopped, he helped me push it to the top of the hill and I was able to coast until I found a side street, while she followed. They then gave me a ride about a mile to a gas station where I was able to get a can and a couple gallons of gas, then took me back to the car. 20 minutes out of their New Year's night saved me walking around in the cold looking for the station, then having to lug the full can all the way back to the car. I don't know how well off they were financially, but that few minutes of their effort meant more to me than if someone had handed me a couple hundred bucks on the side of the road.

There was a comment by a General Authority that stated that we don't need to call multiple temples to put a name on a prayer roll. I'd have to find it. Calling just one temple is sufficient for the purpose intended.

Why do you suppose Muslims would take anything we might do to the corpses of Islamic militants as a sign from God, or as anything other than a filthy desecration at the hands of the decadent West and yet more proof that we must be destroyed at all costs?

I don't mean to toss a wrench in the machinery, but I have some notions that might lead to a different level of understanding. As background, let me say that I've been dirt poor, lost a business, and struggled with finances for years. I've also had periods of comfort and relative prosperity. In the process, I learned some things. I wrote a book about preparing to live in the united order. When it comes to money, it's a stewardship. Our attitude about money largely determines whether we have enough or not. Our attitude ultimately leads us to make decisions about sacrifice, giving, taking risk, availing ourselves of opportunities, etc. Some people call it your "vision" for your life. Scriptures condemn "idlers." D&C 42:42 says "Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer." There are idle poor people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. They take their bread and garments from those who labor for their own support. Likewise, there are idle rich, who make their living exploiting the laborer, obtaining their bread and garments from those who work while they manipulate markets and use their money to influence lawmakers. If you're not an idler and, if you work with a vision of what you want to achieve, God will bring to pass spiritual creation in your life. In other words, when we work with our "heart, might, mind, and strength," the goals we have in our minds will come to fruition in time. "Heart"--our desires--is the most important factor because it influences all the others. In the French version of the D&C, the word for "might" is pouvoir, which means "to be able." It's opportunity. Desire leads us to opportunity. Then "mind" is our ability to visualize what we desiire. Finally, "strength" is the actual labor we exert. If we follow this pattern, we will be successful in achieving whatever desires we have. When it comes to money, we need to realize that "...the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare..." (D&C 104:17). The perception that we live in a finite world and universe is a telestial illusion. From that illusion springs greed, envy, and all sorts of other evils. When it came to money, Jesus had what he needed, when he needed it. He had the ability to perfectly envision what resources he needed and create them in perfection. I believe he wants us to become like him in that regard, just like all of his other attributes. Consider when Peter ran afoul of the tribute collectors in Capernaum, as recorded in Matthew 17. They were collecting a tax that was used to maintain the temple. The collectors asked Peter if Jesus paid the tribute. He answered that Jesus did. Then Jesus called him on it. Should the Lord, to whom the temple was built to honor, pay a tribute to his own house? Peter realized the quandary he had put his Master in. To rectify the situation, Jesus sent him fishing. He told Peter to look in the mouth of the first fish he'd catch and there would be money. The money would be a sufficient amount to pay the tribute. As for the collectors, they'd have no quarrel with Jesus and Peter would know that the money had been provided by miraculous means. I ponder that passage frequently. It shows that Jesus had the ability to respond to a need, envision a solution, and manifest it with sufficient power as to make it almost instantaneous. That's what a Creator does. That's one of the things we're supposed to learn. Now, Jesus didn't live in luxury on earth. He suffered fatigue and at times, privation. Nevertheless, he had what he needed. He could take a few loaves and fish and feed thousands. That's the example for us. We can take the little that we have and multiply it with heart, might, mind, and strength. It can become enough to take care of others' needs as well. God provides when we need it. Mary and Joseph received gold, frankincense, and myrrh before having to take their child to Egypt. Peter, James, and John caught a boatload of fish to finance their first missions in Jesus' service. When Jesus needed a colt to ride into Jerusalem and a place for the Passover, they were provided in the moment he needed them. When his mother and sisters needed a place to lay his crucified body, Joseph of Arimethea provided one. Since I've come to understand these things, money doesn't stress me nearly as much. It has been easier to provide for my family. I understand the importance of goals and having a clear vision of what I desire. Somehow, when I work with that kind of intention, the Lord opens up the way. Sometimes it takes longer than I hope, but it just seems to happen eventually. How much is the Lord willing to give us? I think it depends on our faith and how strong our desires and vision are. When we realize that the power is in us, by virtue of our relation to our Heavenly Parents, to create what we need, just like they do, suddenly wealth and riches become a means, not an end. He that hath eternal life is rich (D&C 11:7).

I've often been "informed" by creed-believers that I'm "not a Christian" because I don't follow the creeds (particularly Nicene).

Something I want to bring back, if I can ever squeeze it out of the monthly budget: I remember back before things got tight (read - we found recurring uses for all our discretionary income), one thing I loved to do, was be able to fund my wife's random charitable card swipes at random checkout counters. Her favorites were soldiers and cops in line behind her at Chipotle or wherever. It's amazing how quickly she was always able to create an ad-hoc conspiracy with the cashier, with just a few gestures and meaningful looks, and pay for the next guy along while still remaining anonymous. I guess it makes a cashier's day to be able to say something like "No charge today - someone else took care of your bill", and then do a stone wall impersonation as the person tries to find out who paid.

Baptist Minister talks about the Book of Mormon over 10,000 views now. 25,000

This is a hit!! I have over 500 views on this video so far. A Baptist Minister Talks about the Bible and the Book of Mormon https://youtu.be/p8X8a7DtwUI I have posted this on several popular youtube videos which are critical of the church. It has eight likes and one dislike.

Because there are tons of stuff the church leaves us to our own discretion on... The problem isn't the church... The problem is the members who think they know better then the church on what the church should focus on. There are tons of members who think their particular "hobby horse" is more important then any one else's and they are quite put out that, God had not revealed to the leaders of the Church what they can see so clearly.. So in their rush to point out the "mote" in everyone else eye they ignore the "beam" in their own. If there is something in your life that you feel you need to change... then do so... But stop trying to pull everyone else along with you.

When you are at tithing settlement they do not ask you if you pay 10% of your annual income to tithing... they ask if you are a full tithe payer.... Now you have to ask yourself why?? Ill tell you why, because its between the lord and yourself. Just because you do it one way does not mean others do it that way or even should. So you should stop being so self righteous and pretentious.

I am more likely to think the Spirit would wonder (in many cases with exceptions, as things tend to go) why someone with reasonable knowledge of health matters and their personal tolerances would be wasting prayer time on caffeine and pop questions.