Maxel

All right, so the issue that has been presented is the Word of Wisdom. The question at hand is why do opinions differ among Mormons regarding it a few points of it- particularly the dietary restrictions. Doctrine and Covenants 89, also called the Word of Wisdom, was given to Joseph Smith "[a]s a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings", and includes a condemnation of alcohol and tobaccor besides the dietary restrictions. Nowadays the Word of Wisdom is considered a commandment by the members and leaders of the Church, with particular emphasis on the members abstaining from alcohol and tobacco. To me, the Word of Wisdom is an example of a clear-cut commandment given from the Lord that the members in general are not ready to follow to its fullest extent, but are content to "strain at a gnat" concerning it. While caffeine is not strictly prohibited, it is an addictive substance. The modern prophets have expanded the word of wisdom to condemn the recreational use of all substances that have the possibility of creating dependencies. And that's as far as I can go tonight... I'm tired and I think it's beginning to show. I'll see where this thread has lead tomorrow.

Operated on a state level, this might be fine in certain states. However, I doubt the federal government would be able to be held accountable for the money (where's the stimulus money gone?), will allow the plan to be "opt-in", or even ask your opinion about whether you want to continue paying to support it or not.I can see the logic behind your position, though. Unfortunately, a plan like that would require upstanding men to be in political power- and recent events have shown the opposite to be true.

Thank you, pam! I knew if I busted out the mega buster someone would take notice.

So, are we supposed to debate these issues or discuss why the differing opinions among Mormons are indeed different? I'm ready and raring to go... Just need to make sure I'm heading in the right direction.

That's like saying a child capable of lifting a 1-pound rock is capable of hefting a 1-ton boulder. And there's a difference in principle- offering healthcare insurance to an enlisted soldier (who is working a dangerous job and healthcare acts as a benefit of the job) will be different from offering healthcare to the unemployed welfare cases (who aren't offering any work in return for the healthcare insurance).I understand there's more than just the chronic welfare cases who would benefit from nationalized healthcare, but the hyperbolic nature of my distinction has a point: those who receive healthcare insurance for free are offering nothing in return for the receipt of said healthcare insurance. Nice to see you posting again, Elphaba- missed you.

Still waiting for some patient soul to enlighten me about what a Temple of the Virgin has to do with the canyons... I'll be here practicing with my mega buster until someone can help me.

lost87 is cool. She gets the 'Maxel stamp of approval', which I think is worth roughly in U.S. currency.

Exactly! Well put.I fear that accepting the general idea of "tolerance"- both the good and bad kind- while neglecting the fostering of personal virtues within one's self (and especially neglecting one's personal duty to God) will lead to the good kind of tolerance dying wihin ourselves and the bad kind of tolerance festering.

I fear it's being pushed way too hard on the rising generation. My little sister had a back-to-school night for her public high school. Everywhere- in the classrooms, hallways, cafeteria...- were posters advocating tolerance and the acceptance of diversity. In my days of high schooling (a whole 5 years ago) I remember posters promoting personal virtues were the main wall decorations (I attended a charter school). I can't help but remember President Monson's remarks that sin often wears the halloween mask of tolerance a few General Conferences ago, and I'm wondering... Can a neglect of fostering personal virtues, coupled with the belief that "whatsoever a man does is no sin" and tolerance of diversity is prized as a virtue of the highest caliber lead to the bleak homogenization of the world and to (conspiracy theory alert!) some sort of global government? I'm reminded of the slogan on the coin that the Russian president presented as a prototype of a new world currency: "United in Diversity". It seems this kind of unification- the kind that comes because of diversity- is replacing the kind of unification that comes from believing similar values. The new kind of diversity can be summed up in the phrase "Divided we Stand"- but we know that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I think we see the common thread throughout history is that people don't come together unless they have a common, core value- such as a belief in God and/or that God favors a certain cause (their cause). One of my fears is that the devil will rage in the hearts of men who accept tolerance as the highest virtue, causing them to band together against those that believe in God- uniting them in a cause: the cause of hating righteousness. Those believing in tolerance of all kinds of wickedness will not be able to tolerate righteousness. Of course, if all this does happen, it's years away and would require more than a few natural and man-made disasters to push people to the 'edge of insanity', as it were. Just rambling... I'm troubled tonight.

Hotbeds of contention... Probably the reason there are so many differing opinions about LDS doctrine concerning certain matters is that there's no authoritative, prophetic statement concerning them. The Articles of Faith are the closest thing we have to a concise statement of doctrine on key points. The rest has to be gleaned from the rest of the scriptures, teachings of the prophets, revelation from the Holy Ghost, and more. Even the doctrine of deification (becoming gods) is barely touched in LDS canon- and that's a doctrine widely accepted as canonically proven by the general LDS populace. Also, I have to agree with the others who are saying that, when it comes to the core doctrines, Mormons are remarkably homogenized in their personal beliefs.

I agree with JAG, I think the principle is sound- offering people a good incentive for public service. I don't know if serving in the armed forces is the best way to go, but there are plenty of other options available. I'd prefer to see something like this done at the state level, which might disclude military service. Perhaps some sort of 'draft' to work in the prison system...

lost87- I think we ought to attempt to find out what the spirit was that lead the founding fathers to draft the Constitution, and attempt to capture the spirit of the Constitution extant at the time of its drafting before we go about talking about how it's a living, breathing document. I am a living, breathing person, but that doesn't mean I will one day be able to live without the necessities of living according to the physical and eternal principles that guide human life. In other words, whatever I do with my body, I must operate according to physical laws (I must eat, sleep, breathe, etc.) to survive. For a democratic republic to survive, it must also operate according to the laws that govern it- those laws are laid down in the Constitution. That's how I view the matter. And as for your "young and fiery passions"- I understand. I'm only 21 myself. Those same passions are what lead me to be rude in the first place.

My apologies for the personalization of the attack. I wasn't thinking too much of the effect it would have on you- it was a venting of the frustration I feel with those whose general actions follow the vein you described: not knowing what the Constitution says about an issue, but liking the idea... because. 'Because' can be anything from thinking the idea is based in valid eternal principles to liking an idea because the president can make a compelling surface-level argument for the idea.I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings. I forgive you. When you have time, I would be interested in how you could use the Constitution to defend the idea of nationalized healthcare.EDIT: I only saw your posting of the general welfare clause after I posted this. No doubt that plays a part in the equation. Again, my apologies for the personalized nature of my remarks.

And this is the problem with modern American citizenry."No... I don't know what the Constitution has to say about issue A... But our charismatic president thinks it's a good idea so... yeah, why not?" Those "dead guys" laid the foundation of the government of the nation that rose to be the most powerful in the world. I think you would do well to respect them and the Constitution they drafted- especially if you're Mormon, since it's LDS doctrine that the Constitution is inspired of God. ------------------ As for your quesiton, Gatorman- I've seen it argued that the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" can be construed to mean health care (because of the word "Life"). I think this is a pretty weak argument, though, so I won't press it here. It would be interesting for someone to make a case, using the original Constitution, for nationalized healthcare.

Because money is limited...? And every American hasn't put his/her life on the line for the country the way that soldiers are routinely asked to do?Two good reasons that popped right out at me.

Those pictures are beautiful! I love how intricate and detailed the results of the weather and time are on natural surfaces. Maybe it's because I'm a non-Utahn, but does the phrase 'Temple of the Virgin' have a special significance to the Virgin Canyon Narrows?

prisonchaplain is one of the 'good guy' evangelicals (not here to bash Mormons). So is Dr T if you see him around, and some other evangelicals that frequent this site. Most people who come here to bash or find fault with LDS doctrine don't last long.

Moksha- I apologize for calling you a Pharisee. It was rude and uncalled for. Please forgive me. Sorry.

I always miss the good stuff.[/attempted-levity-afer-getting-angry]

Moksha, I've said it before and I'll say it again:I have no pocketbook to be inconveienced! My family's dirt poor! I'm dirt poor! I have clinical depression and it's insanely hard for me to hold down a 9-5 job! I'm someone who would benefit greatly from nationalized healthcare! Why am I against it? Because it goes against the principles of proper government outlined in the Constitution, and because the American government has proven that it can't be trusted with our tax dollars! It's priniple I'm concerned with- not personal convenience. And I'll deny the kind of "caring" of the sick and the poor that governments do 70*7 times unless I receive revelation telling me I should accept it. The government is regulatory in nature, not nurturing. Can a pear tree bring forth apples? No. Neither would one call a carpenter to fix a computer (kudos for the analogy, anatess). Governments are given to man to ensure everyone of his basic, God-given rights- healthcare insurance isn't one of them, despite what some well-meaning individuals might otherwise preach.

In the Book of Mormon, it is revealed that the wickedness of the lawyers paved the way for the destruction of Ammonihah. I can't help but thinking an overdpendence on legal authorities also leads to destruction by way of greedy entitlement attitudes. Also, the more lawyers there are, the more work (i.e. lawsuits) needs to exist to sustain all those lawyers. So, what's the solution? The lawyers stir up the people to anger one with another (like the lawyers of Ammonihah did).And all this gives a bad rep to the good lawyers out there who want to defend the rights and liberties of the people.

Actually, that's a really good analogy. Let me see if I can bring it farther with profit:When a person sins, it does a damage to his soul (like receiving a physical cut damages one's body). Satan and the Holy Ghost offer different treatments: Satan offers advil to dull the pain but offers no lasting treatment. Ultimately, the game of covering up the symptoms will allow the wound to fester and maybe become deadly to one's soul. The Holy Ghost, however, offers more comprehensive treatment that strikes at the heart of the pain. Through repentance, the wound can be mended just like a physical wound. Until the wound heals, the Holy Ghost offers a resounding peace that swallows up the pain in the joy of Christ.

I agree, except I would make the distinction between the peace the Holy Ghost brings and the peace the Devil brings (I know you understand the difference, PC, but others might not). The peace Satan brings is a dulling of our senses and conscience- the peace the Holy Ghost brings is an alleviation of guilt and a profound, abiding joy.I've always thought that one important purpose the scriptures provide is giving us quantifiable actions (paying tithing, serving one's fellow man, submitting to shame given us by another, etc.) that lead to the receipt of the peace of conscience that the Holy Ghost brings. Satan encourages us to be prideful and hate our neighbor, while Christ encourages us to be humble and love our neighbor. Love and hate are two very different feelings that are easily discernible. [/tangent]

Yep. Had the wrong prophet in mind. Thanks for searching out the real story. You get a gold star.

Sssshhhh, you'll get reported to the White House... Go put your Angry Mob costume on. I bought one for $1,000,000 from Palerider- he says it's a bargain.Once your Angry Mob costume is on, you can post in total anonymity and you won't be black listed!