LeSellers

Sadly medicine is not what most people think that it is.  For the most part medicine is a treatment of symptoms rather than a cause.  For example often aspirin is used for treatment of a headache but headaches are not cause by a lack of aspirin in our blood or anywhere else in the body.  What we always need to keep in mind is that medicines have side effects.   So we balance the ill side effects against the condition that is being suffered.   Seldom is medicine a cure but a way to deal with a condition while the physical body – or mind – finds a way to heal itself.   
In fact – many wonder about what is called the placebo effect and wonder if it is real – I believe it is the body or self that must heal.  I realize that may are upset with such a suggestion because of their dependency on various drugs for various things.  My point in posting is not to criticize – but to point out that there is no cure until the body or mind heals itself.  That the various treatments or drugs are not a cure but rather a means to cope.  And we all need help to cope with mortality – just that it is best – to my understanding – to teach the mind, spirit and body to cope without outside dependencies.  But then my religious friends do not like the idea of spiritual independence.
But it is my understanding that G-d will not do for us what we can do for ourselves – that he will only do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.  Like my atheist friends – when we think G-d is helping us with things we are capable of doing ourselves – I believe it is a delusion of coincidence.   Some have seen me argue the point of justice – that man is incapable of justice and thus if there is to be justice - man is dependent on G-d and without G-d there cannot be justice.  Not that man cannot strive for justice – just that his efforts will always fall short and create a condition of diminished returns where the human pursuit of justice will only produce more injustice. 
 
The Traveler

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine.
Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change. 

I do find it intriguing the splitting hairs of doctrine vs policy within Church members; however, I do understand also why it seems to always be pointed out, and yet the Word of Wisdom is doctrine, and within this doctrine there are practices which can either be removed or added upon. I just don't get the consistent need for individuals to distinguish (similar to other policies put forth -- it isn't doctrine -- nor was the Law of Moses at the time, it was a practice implemented by the Lord -- with punishments and blessing if not lived or lived).

As I understand it, the "policy versus doctrine" distinction is intended only to give us some guidance as to what Church practices hypothetically may change in the future--or have changed in the past.  It does not serve to justify noncompliance with a current divinely sanctioned Church practice.  I can canker my soul by violating a policy just as effectively as by violating a doctrine.

Although others have provided earlier references I think it's worth reminding everyone that the teachings of modern prophets are also authoritative.  You can find the teaching at mormon.org, "True to the Faith", "For the Strength of Youth", "Gospel Principles", etc.  You can also find references in general conference talks.  As President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson taught it in April 1983: 
 
Perhaps you wonder if it's like the priesthood policy and is a mistake.  If so, you'd be fooling yourself if you think you can make that decision.  Follow the prophet and you'll be blessed.
 
It is a matter of both policy and doctrine.  The policy part pertains to which substances we currently abstain from.  Obviously, the Lord's law of health has changed throughout the history of mankind.  He has his reasons.  The doctrine part was stated in a famous talk by Ezra Taft Benson in 1981:
That is doctrine.  Our observance of the word of wisdom and the manner in which we observe it is based on that doctrine. 
Another doctrine of interest as stated by President Benson:
And another:
 
Our observance of the word of wisdom is a matter of both policy and doctrine.

Read the history found in this chapter.  Looks like a commandment to me.  If a prophet's saying so isn't good enough, I recommend re-reading those scriptures about how it doesn't matter whether the Lord says it personally or through his servants.  What's more, I don't comprehend how there can be any doubt about these things - it's a no-brainer that they aren't good for you.
Baffling.

Indeed, yes!
That's why we build Temples around the world. Those who could not accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ during their lives will receive the opportunity in the Spirit World. In Doctrine and Covenants section 138, we read that Jesus organized His missionary forces to preach the same message there as here with this exception: the dead, as spirits, will have to have Faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, repent, accept proxy baptism and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by proxy.
We do these proxy ordinances for everyone we can find (with a few classes of exceptions). That's why we have the world's largest genealogical organization in the world.
Lehi

Joseph Smith has also been quoted as clarifying the phrase "hot drinks".
 

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

The way I read it is that it would *not* terminate your parental rights, legally speaking.  But theologically, the clear meaning is that "in the eternal scheme of things stepparent, not natural parent, is the child's true parent".  And there may be psychological repercussions for the way the child views the natural parent thereafter; which repercussions/attachment issues might be considered probative if a court thereafter is considering a parent's petition to involuntarily terminate the other parents' rights.
I know it's poor form to rip on a poster who is no longer participating; but I don't understand why the OP is so outraged about the concept of the church asking her to terminate her ex's parental rights legally when that's exactly what she's trying to do spiritually.  Perhaps I'm jaded for professional reasons, but it strikes me that the OP may be trying to get what she wants without interrupting the golden flow of child support dollars (stipulated stepparent adoptions aren't THAT expensive, and speaking as a lawyer, they are pretty easy).  To that, I would reply that part of what creates the qualitative aspect of the parent-child relationship is the material sacrifice that the parent has made in actually supporting the child rather than shunting that burden off onto a third party.  IMHO her new hubby needs to either man up and provide for the kid he claims to want, or else raise his own eternal offspring and quit trying to poach someone else's.
Sealing, in my understanding, is a lot more nuanced and involves a whole lot more than who will "be with" whom in the eternities; but even so, if someone came asking my permission to seal my kids to someone else my immediate answer would be "aw, HECK no!!!!!"

Pictures and music.
Photos/paintings of Christ, Temples, and similar items.
Uplifting music. It need not be the Tabernacle Choir (not a bad choice, but not the only choice, either), but be sure it's inspirational, whoever the performers are.
Even without children, be sure to have Family Home Evening, and a date night.
And don't forget Eowyn's advice.
Lehi

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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.

"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.
 

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

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

Yes to both.

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.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/23/alcohol-causes-7-types-cancer---least/87473546/
Health experts are calling for warning labels on booze, like those on tobacco products, based on a new study that finds alcohol is a direct cause of at least seven forms of cancer.
Drink only a little? You're still at risk, scientists write in the journal Addiction. After reviewing 10 years' worth of data from agencies including the World Cancer Research Fund, researchers conclude drinking is a direct cause of not just liver cancer, but also cancer of the colon, rectum, breast, oropharynx, larynx, and esophagus, reports the Guardian.

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.