LDS leaders on physician assisted suicide and other topics

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng

its laid out in all 12 verses

 

 

Thank you. I will prayerfully  ponder these verses..

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Sorry LP, 

You misunderstood what I said. I don't really have time to explain. I was disparaging myself not you. So just chalk it up to my poor communication (no sarcasm there). 

I'm going to bow out because I just don't have time to spend arguing about arguing or to perfect my communication. I just don't have time to explain clear enough, which is no ones fault but my own. 

I respect you and hope you know that I, like you, and every person on this board wants to see an end to discrimination and racism. 

I, too, am sorry for the misunderstanding. I imagine it was on both our parts. And I agree that taking a break from this conversation is for the best. No hard feelings.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thank you. I will prayerfully  ponder these verses..

Welcome...

 

Personally for me it seems to draw a clear line between punishing 'action' and punishing 'thought'  One is acceptable for the government to do the other is not.

It fits into the discussion due to the face that Racism (or other hate crimes) is about punishing 'thought' as well as 'action' and that is a line we should not encourage or allow the government to cross...  If for no other reason if we allow it we get something like the commission of civil liberties report that the church and many other faiths have come out against.

 

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

For me it's not that simple. I'm trying to decide what the proper role of government is. In order to vote my conscience I want to know that.

Which government?

Federal Government - Its role is only 3 things.  Anything beyond this is not their role:

1.)  National Defense

2.)  Bill of Rights

3.)  Interstate commerce

State Government - this depends on what powers the people of the State handed over to the State Government.  IF you properly limited the reach of the Feds, the State Government is where you "vote your conscience".  You can have a nanny State government if that is the people's desire or you can have a postage stamp size State Government if that is the people's desire.

As far as the Christian ideal of government - the government only needs to protect 2 things - Free Agency and Families.  Hence, the LDS Church's vocal advicement on Gay Marriage and Drugs.

Edited October 24, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

45 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I, too, am sorry for the misunderstanding. I imagine it was on both our parts. And I agree that taking a break from this conversation is for the best. No hard feelings.

I love that about you Lit. Some people (myself included, for sure) always need to have the last word or don't know when to quit. You and @Windseeker are very wise and we could all learn a lot from you. 

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

As far as the Christian ideal of government - the government only needs to protect 2 things - Free Agency and Families.  Hence, the LDS Church's vocal advicement on Gay Marriage and Drugs.

 

I would think that the ideal government for a Christian (by definition) would be a theocracy under the rule of a King – also called a “Kingdom”.   That the king would have powers of both a “Priest” and High Priest in the theocratic order as well as Judge (both provider and interpreter of the law) for secular affairs – The order defined as ideal for LDS would be the order of Melchizedek.  So much for a constitution and a government by the people.

Our current form of government is far from what I understand to be the divine government that rules in heaven (Kingdom of Heaven – by definition) that Christians think they will be “saved” in order to become a citizen of the ideal government.

It is also interesting to me that most Christians are supposed to believe that any infraction of the law is punishable by death.  Unless it is them – then they think they will be forgiven?????  In other words – that only those that do not really know what they are doing will be punished – those that know better will be let off the hook.

Of course I am taking some liberties here – but it should demonstrate why many of my atheists in the scientific community think Christianity at its core is hypocritical and highly contradictory.   I am quite sure that few that call themselves Christian have any idea what it is going to be like to live under the laws that govern heave.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

14 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Back to the marijuana question...on which I am still undecided...

In a wonderful speech, that Ezra Taft Benson gave as Secretary of State, called The Proper Role of Government (you can easily find it on line if you are so inclined). ... He went on to say that the Government should not use it's collective power to do anything that we as citizens on our own could not do.  

He was speaking of welfare, but lately I've been thinking about how this applies to legalized marijuana and other sticky issues. ...

I reviewed the address as you suggested, particularly with what you said in mind. Taking his argument at face value it does seem to make it easy to say that since I don't have the power to prevent you from using marijuana, then I can't delegate that power to the government. I think that's the direction you were going. Am I correct? I have no dispute with the Church having the right, of course, to put its position out there in the public square. However, if Secretary Benson's argument is to be considered valid, then ought it not have application to this issue, too?  Moreover, one wonders why the Church doesn't therefore have the same view toward alcohol (as marijuana) given the realities of alcohol use. Is it purely a matter of practicality as in not allowing a spigot to be opened, even though another (larger perhaps) spigot already flows, so to speak? Your thoughts?

Edited October 25, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I would think that the ideal government for a Christian (by definition) would be a theocracy under the rule of a King – also called a “Kingdom”.   That the king would have powers of both a “Priest” and High Priest in the theocratic order as well as Judge (both provider and interpreter of the law) for secular affairs – The order defined as ideal for LDS would be the order of Melchizedek.  So much for a constitution and a government by the people.

Our current form of government is far from what I understand to be the divine government that rules in heaven (Kingdom of Heaven – by definition) that Christians think they will be “saved” in order to become a citizen of the ideal government.

It is also interesting to me that most Christians are supposed to believe that any infraction of the law is punishable by death.  Unless it is them – then they think they will be forgiven?????  In other words – that only those that do not really know what they are doing will be punished – those that know better will be let off the hook.

Of course I am taking some liberties here – but it should demonstrate why many of my atheists in the scientific community think Christianity at its core is hypocritical and highly contradictory.   I am quite sure that few that call themselves Christian have any idea what it is going to be like to live under the laws that govern heave.

 

The Traveler

This is only ideal when Christ reigns and evil is bound.  Until such a time, even a Melchizedek priest who is, himself, working on his own salvation cannot rule over a theocracy that doesn't impinge on free agency.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

19 hours ago, anatess2 said:

As far as the Christian ideal of government - the government only needs to protect 2 things - Free Agency and Families.  Hence, the LDS Church's vocal advicement on Gay Marriage and Drugs.

I agree with you about the role of the Federal Government, hence my confusion on this marijuana business.  

I'm also not understanding your last line.  How does protecting free agency and families translate to advisement on drugs.  Wouldn't that be covered under free agency? 

9 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

I reviewed the address as you suggested, particularly with what you said in mind. Taking his argument at face value it does seem to make it easy to say that since I don't have the power to prevent you from using marijuana, then I can't delegate that power to the government. I think that's the direction you were going. Am I correct? I have no dispute with the Church having the right, of course, to put its position out there in the public square. However, if Secretary Benson's argument is to be considered valid, then ought it not have application to this issue, too?  Moreover, one wonders why the Church doesn't therefore have the same view toward alcohol (as marijuana) given the realities of alcohol use. Is it purely a matter of practicality as in not allowing a spigot to be opened, even though another (larger perhaps) spigot already flows, so to speak? Your thoughts?

Thanks!  I really appreciate that.  Yes, I believe you understand my perspective (and my confusion) well.  

About alcohol, I don't know for sure.  What I do know about that is that Utah has always had stricter laws regarding alcohol than other states.  I suppose this is an issue of controlling what they can?  

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would think that the ideal government for a Christian (by definition) would be a theocracy under the rule of a King – also called a “Kingdom”.   That the king would have powers of both a “Priest” and High Priest in the theocratic order as well as Judge (both provider and interpreter of the law) for secular affairs – The order defined as ideal for LDS would be the order of Melchizedek.  So much for a constitution and a government by the people.

Our current form of government is far from what I understand to be the divine government that rules in heaven (Kingdom of Heaven – by definition) that Christians think they will be “saved” in order to become a citizen of the ideal government.

A theocracy will be awesome when the Savior returns, but until then I can't see it working.

My thoughts on our current government:  we have been told in the D&C that the Constitution was inspired.  So we started with a great foundation.  However, like everything else with the potential for good i.e. music, Internet, TV, etc, Satan will try and use it for his purposes.  I think our government as it functions today is a long way from what the Founding Fathers envisioned. 

[Guest]

I'm thinking about the phrase 'Christian ideal of government'. Given that there are so many forms of Christianity I don't know that I can agree with one ideal summed up in terms of protecting free agency and families. LDS theology pretty much holds that the the form of government we enjoy here in the U.S. is inspired, of course. I dare say that many if not most other Christians agree. But if our government is inspired, then perhaps summing up the ideal ought to include other ideals (than just LDS ones) if you take my meaning. Moreover, if our form of government is inspired, then perhaps the Preamble to the Constitution ought to inspire us to believe that the ideal of government in a temporal sphere is meant to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty--objectives which are not static, nor have they been fully reached at any time since the Constitution was drafted. Nor do I think it's reasonable to expect that our government should reach a so-called state of ideal any more than any one of us should expect to have reached a state of perfection even as Christ is perfect--it's a process and a continual striving.

Edited October 25, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree with you about the role of the Federal Government, hence my confusion on this marijuana business.  

I'm also not understanding your last line.  How does protecting free agency and families translate to advisement on drugs.  Wouldn't that be covered under free agency? 

 

The marijuana legislation is, so far, only brought up in State Laws across the US.  Florida, for example, have a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to legalize marijuana.  Now, if the progressives can't get their way through people's votes, then, just like they have done with everything else, they go through the courts to get their way and bypass the will of the people.  That would be how it will end up in Federal SCOTUS.

Drugs is a mind-altering substance that makes people fail to act according to their free agency but rather through the shackles of chemical intoxication.  Yes, if alcohol prohibition was going to be brought up to vote again, I am fairly certain the Church will give the same advicement.

Choosing to murder someone is covered under free agency... yet, we make it illegal.  Being legal or illegal has no bearing on free agency.  Nobody can stop you from doing anything illegal if you are so determined.  It simply puts a steep consequence to the action to make it non-normative.

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@UT.starscoper well-said.  I particularly appreciated your last line.  I never thought of it that way before, but that's brilliant.

@anatess2 we are really close to complete agreement...just not quite.  Murder is illegal because it impinges on someone else practicing their free agency, and their right to life in general.  But marijuana, wearing your seatbelt, wearing a helmet when riding a bike, these are all things that could be argued to only effect the person doing them.  So I see that as different.

[Traveler]

 

I will make a couple of bold statements – the statements are not for the purpose of controversy but to generate thinking – hopefully thinking against a landscape that is not actually new.

Bold Statement #1.  There is no such thing as an inspired government.  It is people that are inspired.  Some are inspired with evil and some are inspired by good.  There are a lot of people that do not seem to understand the difference – that do not seem to be inspired much at all.  Thus there are 3 kinds of people in this world.  (1. Those that dig in and make things happen and change things.   2. Those that sit on the sidelines watching things happen but never get involved – except maybe to complain about something they saw and 3. Those that forever wonder – what on earth is happening?)

Bold Statement #2.  The only purpose of laws – Laws are a method to govern people that refuse to be governed by intelligence, good sense and morals.   There will never be enough laws or a government strong enough or ruthless enough to govern (either protect or sufficiently punish) the foolish but laws are meaningless and completely unnecessary for the wise.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

@anatess2 we are really close to complete agreement...just not quite.  Murder is illegal because it impinges on someone else practicing their free agency, and their right to life in general.  But marijuana, wearing your seatbelt, wearing a helmet when riding a bike, these are all things that could be argued to only effect the person doing them.  So I see that as different.

A seat belt, a helmet,  has no bearing on free agency.  I can still exercise free agency while wearing a seat belt and a helmet together.  The Christian concept of free agency is not just for others but also for one's self.   Law is also not just for others but also for one's self.  Some States still hold attempted suicide a criminal act.  It became decriminalized not because "it doesn't hurt anybody" but because the people determined it is better to get these people to come forward to get help instead of exacting consequences to keep suicide non-normative.  Physician-assisted suicide is illegal in all States.

Also, the concept of "it doesn't hurt anybody" is a fallacy.  Not wearing a seat belt or a helmet causes insurance claims to be much higher affecting other insurers.  Drug use not only hurts one's self but also family and friends, especially those who are financially dependent on the user.  Physician-assisted suicide also impacts the family as evidenced by the Terry Shaivo case.  Even the common refrain of gay marriage - it doesn't hurt anybody and it is none of anybody else's business - is a lie.  Because, it wasn't too long after gay marriage became legalized that gay adoption was demanded.  In any case, the action of legalizing usually makes it normative.  This impacts the entire societal culture.  The "it doesn't hurt anybody" is a path to a hedonistic culture.

Anyway, that's my take on things.

Just as an FYI - I am ambivalent about legalization of marijuana.  I can see legalizing it for recreational use and then taxing the crap out of it to put into rehab centers.  But, I can also see God's will on the matter as represented by the Church.  So, if I were American, I'd go with the side of the Church.

Edited October 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 Bold Statement #2.  The only purpose of laws – Laws are a method to govern people that refuse to be governed by intelligence, good sense and morals.   There will never be enough laws or a government strong enough or ruthless enough to govern (either protect or sufficiently punish) the foolish but laws are meaningless and completely unnecessary for the wise.

Henry David Thoreau was one who proclaimed that government is best which governs least. He also mentioned that when men are prepared for it that is the sort of government we will have. I think the notion parallels what you are saying above. However, I can't help but be reminded of Hamlet's observation that therein lies the rub. 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

Henry David Thoreau was one who proclaimed that government is best which governs least. He also mentioned that when men are prepared for it that is the sort of government we will have. I think the notion parallels what you are saying above. However, I can't help but be reminded of Hamlet's observation that therein lies the rub. 

 

We are told in scripture that Agency is a choice of bondage and death or a choice of freedom and life.  Why on earth would anyone choose bondage and death over freedom and life?  Obviously fools and idiots convince themselves that somehow or for whatever reason – they are the exception and that whatever consequences that can possibility exist - only apply to others.

Often we talk of intelligence but sometimes I am not sure we understand intelligence.  In short there cannot be intelligence without a will to override tendencies, inclinations, passions, desires, orientations, wants or whatever it is that would other motivate us to choose bondage and death over freedom and life.  The problem, as it appears to me is that some are so bound to passions, unintelligent desires and whatever than we would rather stand in the bright sun of noon day and declare it night that to override stupidity with the sure force of intelligence and will to become disciplined and govern ourselves in order to break the lure of the “natural man” that is eternally bound in foolishness to death, bondage and the inability to take on responsibility for life.  So I will be plain and direct with another bold statement -- Homosexuality is not a choice of life – but to end life with the current generation.

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Also, the concept of "it doesn't hurt anybody" is a fallacy.  Not wearing a seat belt or a helmet causes insurance claims to be much higher affecting other insurers. 

 . . . Just as an FYI - I am ambivalent about legalization of marijuana.  I can see legalizing it for recreational use and then taxing the crap out of it to put into rehab centers.  But, I can also see God's will on the matter as represented by the Church.  So, if I were American, I'd go with the side of the Church.

If we're going to be that loose in our definition of what hurts other people, then if I quit my job, that hurts my neighbor because I have less money to pay into taxes that support the community.  Now to be fair, if you are seating in the back and not wearing your seatbelt causes you to fly forward and injure someone in the front seat then you have hurt someone else.  

If I lived in a state that was voting on the marijuana issue, I would go ahead and follow the counsel of our Leaders and vote against it.  But I don't think that they want us to blindly follow without thinking things through.  I'm just trying to understand this one.  And in my case, their counsel comes too late.  This issue was on the ballot in Washington a few years ago, the church hadn't said anything back then, so I made the best choice I could.  I voted for it.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

Henry David Thoreau was one who proclaimed that government is best which governs least. He also mentioned that when men are prepared for it that is the sort of government we will have. I think the notion parallels what you are saying above. However, I can't help but be reminded of Hamlet's observation that therein lies the rub. 

I love this, but....dare I show my ignorance?....I'm not clear on what you last line means.  I am familiar with Hamlet, though it's been ages since I read it.  I also read the Orson Scott Card book about Hamlet.   So just a brief refresher will probably be enough.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I love this, but....dare I show my ignorance?....I'm not clear on what you last line means.  I am familiar with Hamlet, though it's been ages since I read it.  I also read the Orson Scott Card book about Hamlet.   So just a brief refresher will probably be enough.  

To say [that when men are prepared for a government that governs least then they shall have it] begs us to admit that such a government must needs be a long way off if it depends on us being prepared for it. To say therein lies the rub is to say therein lies the obstacle, i.e. our propensity for thinking and acting in ways that accomplish the opposite of being prepared to govern ourselves. In other words, we are collectively subject to all the foibles that keep us unprepared. Thoreau was optimistic, but history often demonstrates that we have a tendency toward self-destruction rather than progression. 

[Guest]

Watching this thread has been fascinating--like watching a stream with seemingly countless ripples and eddying currents whirling off in every direction. Some of the eddies grow into near-whirlpools for a time. Others last only minutes and fizzle out. If it were a television show, it would have resulted in half a dozen spin-off pilots, heheheh. I'm only surprised there haven't been new forum topics spinning off.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

We are told in scripture that Agency is a choice of bondage and death or a choice of freedom and life.  Why on earth would anyone choose bondage and death over freedom and life?  Obviously fools and idiots convince themselves that somehow or for whatever reason – they are the exception and that whatever consequences that can possibility exist - only apply to others.

Often we talk of intelligence but sometimes I am not sure we understand intelligence.  In short there cannot be intelligence without a will to override tendencies, inclinations, passions, desires, orientations, wants or whatever it is that would other motivate us to choose bondage and death over freedom and life.  The problem, as it appears to me is that some are so bound to passions, unintelligent desires and whatever than we would rather stand in the bright sun of noon day and declare it night that to override stupidity with the sure force of intelligence and will to become disciplined and govern ourselves in order to break the lure of the “natural man” that is eternally bound in foolishness to death, bondage and the inability to take on responsibility for life.  So I will be plain and direct with another bold statement -- Homosexuality is not a choice of life – but to end life with the current generation.

This is what I understand you to be saying. With our agency we may choose life and freedom, or bondage and death. People get fooled, or make conscious choices that satisfy their lusts (whatever lust we care to name). It is unintelligent to make such bad choices. This leads us to consider homosexuality, which is essentially a choice to step away from participation in the circle of life in terms of procreation. Do I apprehend your meaning?

[Traveler]

50 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

Watching this thread has been fascinating--like watching a stream with seemingly countless ripples and eddying currents whirling off in every direction. Some of the eddies grow into near-whirlpools for a time. Others last only minutes and fizzle out. If it were a television show, it would have resulted in half a dozen spin-off pilots, heheheh. I'm only surprised there haven't been new forum topics spinning off.

 

 

As a possible side note for your stream analogy.  Being an experienced and certified white water rafter – it really is not all that difficult when looking at a river with seemingly countless ripples and eddying currents whirling off in every direction to figure out what and where to put your boat to get the most out of the river for one’s intent of being on the river in the first place.   The real problem is getting everybody in the boat to work to gather as a unit to move the boat where it needs to go at the time and in the place it needs to go there.

The worse problem is someone that just does not understand their role and responsibility - especially those that think little details (like keeping a life preserver tightly buckled in calm water) is no one else’s problem but theirs.

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@UT.starscoper, oh! Of course! I get it now.  Thanks so much.  

[james12]

On 10/25/2016 at 7:20 AM, anatess2 said:

Drugs is a mind-altering substance that makes people fail to act according to their free agency but rather through the shackles of chemical intoxication.  Yes, if alcohol prohibition was going to be brought up to vote again, I am fairly certain the Church will give the same advicement.

Choosing to murder someone is covered under free agency... yet, we make it illegal.  Being legal or illegal has no bearing on free agency.  Nobody can stop you from doing anything illegal if you are so determined.  It simply puts a steep consequence to the action to make it non-normative.

Anatess, The "freedom" you espouse here is not true freedom at all. For it appears that you agree with coercing someone to follow the law in certain instances. Said another way, it appears you would be in favor of forcing a person to do what he ought to do so that he doesn't become shcakled by chemical intoxication. 

I wonder if you or anyone else would agree to this statement by Thomas Hill Green who once said of prohibition in England:

Quote

The citizens of England now make it law. We ask them by law to put a restraint on themselves in the matter of strong drink. We ask them further to limit, or even altogether to give up, the not very precious liberty of buying and selling alcohol, in order that they may become more free to exercise the faculties and improve the talents which God has given them. (Green 1906, 386, see also Realizing Freedom p. 21)

Should government seek to impose penalties on our actions so that our higher self has freedom? I say there is grave risk in such an action. 

[Guest]

For anyone who cares , my opinion with regard to agency (freedom if one likes) goes thusly.  As a believer I perceive that God gave me agency, i.e. the ability to make good or evil choices, with the understanding (whether or not I like it) that my choices have consequences. This is between God and me.  Without regard to God (if, for example, I happen to live atheistically) my agency remains mine as a member of whatever society I happen to belong. I have the ability to make lawful or unlawful choices with the understanding (whether or not I like it) that my choices have consequences; and this is between me and my fellow members of society.

So, with my agency let’s suppose I choose to smoke marijuana or drink alcohol. (And in my so-called altered mind-state I commit murder--or whatever killing while under the influence is named in my society). In my relationship with God (whether I acknowledge such a relationship or not) I may be found unworthy to receive certain blessings that I could have otherwise claimed—because there is a law irrevocably degreed in Heaven upon which all blessings are predicated. This may be important in my mind as I go about my life, or it may not--even though I am ultimately accountable to God.  

At the same time and in my relationship with my fellow members of society I may be found guilty, and be compelled (by my fellow members of society) to pay the penalty; again because in my society there is, so to speak, "a law" upon which my liberty, freedom, etc. to live without being compelled to pay said penalty is predicated. This is because I am ultimately accountable to my fellow members of society by virtue of my continued choice to remain a member of said society (whether I’m willing to verbalize admission of the fact, or not). 

Edited October 27, 2016 by UT.starscoper