Leaderboard

I had a heart attack last Sunday after church. The ambulance went to the wrong house...so was delayed getting to my house. My husband saved my life as he allowed the Lord to work through him. I can tell you for sure that there is a connection with the spirit world. Could it be a trick of the mind? Maybe... but, unless it has happened to you then you could never truly understand it. i truly believe it.

when you enjoy something it is hard to condemn it.

One can find excuse for anything they want to do or do not want to do. There are some that argue that a glass of wine is actually good for one's health. But then in actual studies it is shown that the presents of alcohol does not contribute to the benefits that wine provides and that 100% of the benefits of wine comes from other ingredients - zero benefit from the alcohol. I have a covenant with G-d to substain from drinking alcohol - I have also taken it upon myself to abstain from softdrinks that contain caffene. What I find most interesting is that even though I do not argue with others to abstain from caffene softdrinks (my wife often drinks caffene softdrinks) beyond that softdrinks can contribute to negativetly to health (particularly overweight) - many that wish to justify their obvious addiction - will criticize me for my discipline to abstain. I believe their criticism is driven somewhat by a feeling of gilt? Especially if they are overweight and know that softdrinks do not help at all and the reason caffene is added to softdrinks is because of it addictive nature - that increases sales. The Traveler

I'm surprised to see people here downplaying this finding. Almost like you're defending drinking and don't want to believe it's bad. Many things are unhealthy, as user Godless points out. Perhaps you'll at least agree it's wise to be informed and to minimize risky behaviors.

Is there any amount that does any good? We've already seen that alcohol is a poison, a toxin. And, in studies I've referred to, the same conclusion: the slightest amount begins a process of affecting the nervous system such that judgement is impaired. And, in any case, the liver must oxidize the alcohol because it will continue to affect the brain (and others systems, too) until it is neutralized. There is no benefit in drinking alcohol that outweighs the damage it does to the human body. 'Sides, it tastes like horse pi$$. Lehi

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. I do know though that such experiences, when they are true, are meant for that individual alone and are NOT to be talked about lightly, if at all.

I think it's partially just common usage. At the time, "hot drinks" only comprised of coffee and tea, and they are the only two "hot drinks" that people drink habitually (addictively).

I'm being threatened with having to give a talk in August and in contemplating this, I've been trying to get my head prepared for the inevitable. However, I'm having an issue with the term "punishment." In October 1980 talk, Elder Packer stated that "We may foolishly bring unhappiness and trouble, even suffering upon ourselves. These are not always to be regarded as penalties imposed by a displeased Creator. They are part of the lessons of life, part of the test." Also, in 2 Nephi 2:26 where it states that " ...save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day... ." I've been trying to hone in on punishments and penalties and from what I've been able to read in the scriptures, I believe it's safe to say that while in morality, there is no punishment, that is not going to happen until the time of judgement after the resurrection. So if punishment isn't technically in play while on earth, then we're not yet subject to penalties. Besides, the Atonement has answered the law which includes, for the repentant, escape from suffering punishment and penalties. So if all this being the case, what do we call the consequences of sin in mortality, suffering? Aversion therapy? Or am I totally off the mark?

If you could own a business of any kind what would it be? If you already own a business, what kind is it? For me, I own a rag quilt business. It's called Pam's Raggedy Creations. (Shameless plug there) But I am very curious about others.

some are some are not. the line is hard to find.

The first part takes on a little bit of irony. An individual is stating they are defending "truth" while ignoring what some would consider "truthful" statistics -- cause and effect. It doesn't appear truth is being defended in your posts. Second, which post said a person was "bad" that you felt to come to Godless or anyones aide? The points, before you posted, were specific to "alcohol" being "poison," -- which it is -- nothing regarding individuals who choose to drink it (their prerogative), yet you feel to come to their aide when no one made any comment specifically toward individuals who drink alcohol.

Getting to use the word "quash" in ordinary conversation on a regular basis, is one of the best things about being a lawyer.

My reason for posting this study it that this is an LDS site, and we have been told for almost two hundred years by our prophets that drinking is a bad idea. This is the first time I've seen a study that said alcohol causes cancer. So obviously that's interesting to Mormons. I haven't said anything about people being bad who drink alcohol. That's something people have assumed here. I don't personally think of drinking as being immoral, not in the sense that murdering, stealing or adultery are immoral. However, we have enough health information in 2016 to say that drinking is a bad idea - it causes many problems for individuals, families and society. Just like we have enough medical evidence to say smoking is a bad idea. LDS, additionally, have modern prophets to reinforce what science now tells us: using alcohol and tobacco are a bad idea - also spiritually, in addition to physically and for society. Cancer is the second cause of death. That means a lot of people dying, not just being "early detected." Call that what you want.

There are several "nonrevelation(s)" in the Doctrine and Covenants. The significant difference between them and the revelations is that they are all labeled as such. Section 134, for example, and the letters Joseph wrote regarding Baptism for the Dead, are clearly noted as being letters and statements of policy, etc. But to reject a clear revelation is to reject the prophet who received it. One cannot reject Joseph the Prophet of the Restoration without rejecting the Restoration. Aside from section 132, where else do we have explicit doctrine on either Temples or Celestial Marriage? And what is the purpose of the Temples aside from sealings? Sealings are the culmination of the Endowment (which means, literally, "gift"). Without them, the Temples are just buildings. Lehi

"Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, exceeded only by heart disease. One of every four deaths in the United States is due to cancer." Obviously if those people hadn't gotten cancer they would have lived longer. Cancer is also not a fun way to die, so you want to try to avoid it. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/types.htm It's not an epidemic, it's a pandemic. Yes, cancer, is more of an old person's disease. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to avoid it.

Just a couple weeks ago there was a news story splashing all around the headlines about hot coffee and tea causing cancer due to temperature. I think it was something like any hot beverage 150 degrees or hotter if I remember correctly. That story was all over for about a week and then seemed to disappear as many health/medical stories do.

AngelMarvel, I'm so glad you are still with us.

Yes to both.

Well, the problem with that passage of Hyrum's is that it sounds dangerously like just his view on it and not actual revelation. Notice that he says, "I say". BY's talk on it seems much more authoritative. And as for the above, again, I don't have The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation so I can't check where John Widtsoe quoted Joseph Smith for that.

Obedience is always necessary. I see polygamy in the same light as i see the Law of Moses...Something when commanded then our exaltation depends on it... and when it is not, it does not.

I don't understand why so many people have problems understanding that Alcohol is a poison. I didn't drink Alcohol before I joined the Church.

I agree entirely, the only other thing I would add to the formerly promiscuous potential spouse is that she is also medically clean as certain diseases may change the calculus. Forgiveness is one thing, consequences are another.

He is not playing games with you and he his not stringing you along... He has already clearly stated his intention and is acting accordingly. You might want more... that is to bad because he isn't going to give it to you. You need to focus your attention elsewhere... Until you do you will be stringing yourself along.

The guy said he doesn't want to be committed before a mission, as concealed by the Lord, and he's holding true to his word. That's not a bad thing! Don't except him to do otherwise, and just casually hang out for now.

You could start at this citation index entry for verse 9, and work your way up the list of entries. Opinions and observations follow (nothing to do with the source of that explanation): The wording of verse 9 (had to go find out which one it was) struck me this morning (not for the body (which I think of as external) or the belly (which I think of as stomach)). In a RS lesson a few years back, a sister who worked for a doctor (I think a coroner or forensic doctor, but definitely a medical doctor) described what he told her about the damage done by ingesting things the temperature of coffee and tea (obviously not iced). It was quite disturbing. Enough to make me wonder if we should only consume lukewarm soup. Of course, I'm reasonably sure it's not only the heat that's the problem (or the Lord would have said to not drink them hot). Both have other bad stuff in them*(**), and the wise thing seems to stay far from them in all their forms (iced or ice creamed or added to chocolates or whatever); and also to make sure that whatever else you're eating or drinking has cooled down to a temperature that isn't going to burn your mouth. *I know it's been said caffeine isn't the reason, but simply learning the way caffeine works (and how your body works very hard to make up for what it does) is more than enough argument for me to avoid caffeine. Seems to me if avoiding caffeine wasn't the intended reason for not consuming "hot drinks", it's a nice extra benefit. (**) and even if they don't, avoiding them because the Lord said to seems like a good idea. FWIW.

Alvin's exaltation was still contingent on certain future events. We know this because in that same vision Joseph saw his father and mother in the Celestial Kingdom; even though both were actually still alive as of the date of the vision (1836). Thus the vision was of what could be and perhaps even would be--not of things as they currently stood at the time.

There are nearly always two facets of a sin: the physical and the spiritual. The Atonement always negates (given repentance) the spiritual side and pays the price for that implicit or explicit rebellion. The Atonement may or may not reduce or eliminate the physical side. Sometimes, it affects others, sometimes not. The Atonement will probably not eliminate the suffering caused to others. It may or may not reduce the effect on oneself. One of the phases or steps of repentance is restoration. If possible (and it's not always possible), when one repays or restores the injured party to his previous state, the sinner can change the equation entirely in regards to the offended mortal. But the harm to God is not so easily "straight-forwardly" repaired: we cannot make God "whole" again. It isn't too far off the mark to see the repercussions of our sinful acts as "aversion therapy", with this major caveat: there is not always a direct negative effect on the sinner. A female teacher who seduces one of her students may not get caught. She does not suffer in any physical way from her perfidy. No aversion, no "therapy". A sod may or may not suffer from cirrhosis, may never crash, may never miss work, and might even enjoy hangovers. No aversion, no therapy. But, for those who do suffer directly and physically, what they go through ought to teach them that touching the hot stove again is a seriously bad idea. But their pain does not clear the slate, wipe out the debt. It is a beneficial side effect, nothing more. Lehi

It sounds like what they will make you read in hell, if they allow reading there!

I love Asterix and Obelix too. Obelix is so delightfully dumb. I remember one story where they are (as usual) fighting, and Obelix says: "I wish I knew why we're fighting. I hope Asterix explains it to me later."

I guess we're not worried about derailing this nice thread, so... I think that anyone who produces mass media must be very careful. Whatever influence, good or evil, you put into the world is multiplied by millions of readers or viewers who are affected by your creations. If it's true that we are rewarded with joy or suffering for the consequences of our actions in this life, I can only think that the post-mortal consequences for you will be magnified as well according to how many people you have influenced. My best hope for George Martin at this point is that he is somehow spiritually retarded, and doesn't fully understand good versus evil, and so he won't be judged as fully responsible. Like some kind of medical, physical, neurological deficiency.

I'm not sure that G.R.R. Martin is trying to call evil good, but he's certainly trying to ensure that good does not exist in his world* - everything is evil and one evil loses to other evils, over and over - and he makes no effort to make the evil people sympathetic - quite the opposite, people who started sympathetic quickly turn despicable. Yick. (I can only assume it got worse after what I read, since it got continually worse through what I read.) *Honestly, I fear for his soul. As an author, I know how embedded your fiction is in your own soul - it's an expression thereof and I can only conclude that GRRM's soul is black as the pits of hell to have allowed that stuff to fester and multiply inside.

Amen, brother!

I watched the TV episode 1 of Game of Thrones, heavily content-filtered through Angel. Yucky story. And the very last thing you see is two adulterers throwing a young boy off a tower. Based on plot summaries I've seen, Vidangel saved me from seeing, among other things, a forced-marriage wedding night rape, an orgy, and incestuous sex. There is also a lot of nudity, graphic sex, and graphic violence, from what I've read. I only got a little bit into the novels. I'd heard from others that were no "good" characters, and I didn't like the overall feel of the book. The author is not trying to edify me or provide me with wholesome entertainment. I don't trust him. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to, that I could get into the plot, the world-building, etc. But I don't want to develop a taste for things like this. About the TV version:

Are you talking about the TV show or the books? I've never seen the TV show, and gave up during or at the end of book 2. In the books, if you skip past the sex scenes you'll land on the vulgarity or brutality or some other evil. Those books are pure unfiltered hell. (Exceedingly well-written, but still hell - and I mean that quite literally - Satan would feel at home in that series.) In short, I could not find a single good character or redeeming quality in them after the first 100 pages of book 1.

So, if your brain is tired, you may want to try the Mrs. Pollifax books - they don't have intricate spy plots that twist your brain around. I was sure I would hate them, but my mom insisted, and I love them now. In all the rest, there's a chance of language and sex scenes, but nothing shocking, as I recall: Adam Hall - The first one is The Quiller Memorandum - they'll be hard to find - they're all out of print, except maybe the last - but I see you can get the first on Kindle. The Tango Briefing is probably my favorite, and might be a better start than the first one. These are in the first person - which I wasn't sure I would like, but he does it well. Under his real name, Elleston Trevor, he wrote the quite famous Flight of the Phoenix, which was a popular movie. Len Deighton - The Ipcress File - short, but hard to follow the plot, as I recall. His older ones are better than the newer ones. Lawrence Block's Evan Tanner series, starts with The Thief Who Couldn't Sleep - totally different style, quite funny. Not exactly spy, but WWII: Alistair MacLean, the guy who wrote The Guns of Navarone - fabulous book. And I'm having a hard time remembering more (it's been a long time - I only still have Adam Hall's books - I consider him the best as far as actual espionage goes - oh, and Dorothy Gillman's).

Try the salted one to fit in your skinny jeans.

I still don't understand how BLM can claim the Freddie Grey case as racism.

:choke: :gag: That's a bit too much butter.

If he were throwing himself around in the back of the van, it was his own choice. I'm not sure (and I suspect you are not, either) that there are seat belts in paddy wagons. There weren't when I inspected one decades back. I know there aren't in school buses (because it would be a nightmare in a fire or other disaster). But seat belts are not difficult to undo, without free hands. I've done it myself, and wasn't even trying for that. (It's one reason that Chrysler changed the design of door handles on their cars, with others following suit: the door handle and the seat belt buckle were too similar and people tried to open the doors instead of unbuckling the seat belt.) Even if there were no seat belts, the other arrestee was not hurt, why Grey only? Lehi

Lee's excommunication was annulled posthumously; at which time Lee was (one presumes) highly unlikely to continue the sort of conduct that would have heaped condemnation upon him. If he--or anyone else--is to repent and make any sort of progress in the hereafter; it seems reasonable to conclude that he is going to need the covenant of baptism at minimum. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that *most* excommunications will be administratively undone at some point after the parties involved are dead--even if that isn't the church's current practice; I think theologically it's inevitable.