Have you ever wished the church would allow for moderate drinking?

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Perhaps WITHIN the church. For example, a lot of traditional Christians are aware that LDS do not drink coffee/tea. Are we accountable for that knowledge?

From my perspective, yes...but that isn't really meaningful in the grand scheme of things. Whereas I consider the primary concern acceptance of truth, clearly if one stands at judgment day having not accepted truth, the issue of coffee consumption won't really come into play.

I, of course, do not expect traditional Christians to agree with me.

Edited August 16, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, SilentOne said:

 

I think the requirement would come in when somebody is aware that the commandment is of God. So somebody being aware that we have a prohibition against drinking doesn't make them subject to the commandment, but if they receive a witness that the gospel is true and the church is being lead by prophets, they are then responsible for following all our commandments that they are aware of.

Sure, but wouldn't you grant that they are subject, in the first place, to the command to seek a witness of the truthfulness of the gospel? And doesn't A lead to B to C, etc?

[prisonchaplain]

Ironically, @The Folk Prophet I do agree. If the LDS understanding of the gospel is correct, then non-LDS will be held to account for not humbling ourselves before truth, when it was provided. LDS will be held accountability for compromising the truths they did embrace.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

Ironically, @The Folk Prophet I do agree. If the LDS understanding of the gospel is correct, then non-LDS will be held to account for not humbling ourselves before truth, when it was provided. LDS will be held accountability for compromising the truths they did embrace.

And ditto if the Assemblies of God is correct.

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But you're Canadian.  Your parties are in Canadia.  I thought all you Canadians were kind, mild-mannered, polite, non-violent people.

Not on hockey night!

[Guest MormonGator]

59 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Not on hockey night!

And um, @Sunday21?  In most Canadian bars (especially in rural Quebec) they'll serve you beer at age 7. 

[Guest]

This talk about drinking is fine and all, but let's keep in mind the words of Bob Dylan, someone who probably knows the consequences of moderate drinking:

"Now the Rainman gave me two cures, Then he said, 'Jump right in'

The one was Texas medicine, The other was railroad gin

And like a fool I mixed them, And it strangled up my mind

And now people just get uglier, and I have no sense of time."

Edited August 16, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And ditto if the Assemblies of God is correct.

Or even the foundational doctrines of historic Christianity. I was once asked by a poster on this site how close s/he would have to get to agreeing with me on doctrine in order to be saved. My answer was that there is not one AG fundamental truth that aligns perfectly with the Articles of Faith, and vice versa. Broad agreement, yes--but not one that is precise. How wrong can we be and be right? That's not my call. What we can all agree on is that we must be sincerely submitted to the Holy Spirit's revelation and direction.

[Guest]

.

Edited August 16, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Sunday21]

54 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And um, @Sunday21?  In most Canadian bars (especially in rural Quebec) they'll serve you beer at age 7. 

Dude!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

but not one that is precise. 

Not even the 13th or 11th?

[prisonchaplain]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not even the 13th or 11th?

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

Broadly, this is a great encouragement for the U.S. government to institute. However, as a church, we would focus more on Jesus as the only way of salvation--urging those of other faiths to repent and be redeemed through faith in the Son of God, God himself, before the coming judgment of the LORD.

 

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

 

This is where the nuance is most precise. In reality, we probably do agree on this. However, this article is probably the one that gives rise to the false accusation that LDS believe in "works salvation." The criticism is over-done, and not accurate. However, we would likely focus on the actions of Article 13 being the fruit of a Holy Spirit-empowered life.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

1. Broadly, this is a great encouragement for the U.S. government to institute. However, as a church, we would focus more on Jesus as the only way of salvation--urging those of other faiths to repent and be redeemed through faith in the Son of God, God himself, before the coming judgment of the LORD.

2. This is where the nuance is most precise. In reality, we probably do agree on this. However, this article is probably the one that gives rise to the false accusation that LDS believe in "works salvation." The criticism is over-done, and not accurate. However, we would likely focus on the actions of Article 13 being the fruit of a Holy Spirit-empowered life.

1. Whatever you could "possibly" infer from this, you have to know that our beliefs and intended meaning are in line with what you described here.  Hence missionary work.

2. You may be right.  But I've never thought of it that way.  I've never related the 13th article to "works salvation" but rather the "feeling and motivation" of an individual living a Christlike life.  If you are correct about the intended meaning, then I get the minor disagreement.  But I don't believe Joseph ever meant it that way.  I think this was just a "Kum by Yah" statement for us to get along with one another.  Similar for the 11th as well.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Broadly, this is a great encouragement for the U.S. government to institute. However, as a church, we would focus more on Jesus as the only way of salvation--urging those of other faiths to repent and be redeemed through faith in the Son of God, God himself, before the coming judgment of the LORD.

Maybe I'm giving AG to much credit.  Is it part of your belief system that if you had control of the government that you would forbid other faiths from practicing?

Since it was written to a political newspaper, part of the motivation behind the statements were to let people know that if we (as a politically engaged people) would gain any political power, we would not use political power to forbid their practice of religion.  It was also partly a plea to allow us to practice as we wished.

If AG do not agree with that much, then I'm sorely disappointed.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Maybe I'm giving AG to much credit.  Is it part of your belief system that if you had control of the government that you would forbid other faiths from practicing?

Since it was written to a political newspaper, part of the motivation behind the statements were to let people know that if we (as a politically engaged people) would gain any political power, we would not use political power to forbid their practice of religion.  It was also partly a plea to allow us to practice as we wished.

If AG do not agree with that much, then I'm sorely disappointed.

I wasn't considering the historic context of the Article--just that it is a statement of the church's most foundational beliefs. Nevertheless, it's clearly written as a statement affirming religious liberty. It's just that the A/G has a different history. Our founders were from the wrong side of the tracks, and our persecution was at the hands of fellow Christians, not the government. So, lacking political power and facing no opposition from Caesar (though some local sheriffs gave our healing evangelists a hard time for 'practicing medicine without a license') it would not have occurred to them to make a statement about religious pluralism. The whole purpose in organizing a movement at all was to promote missionary work.

Edited August 16, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

@Carborendum I hope what you are getting from my responses is that it's not a matter of strong disagreement between our statements, but rather different emphases. Article 11 does, indirectly, touch upon our beliefs about the afterlife. Most Christians believe in a heaven and a hell. Heaven is only for those who follow Jesus. So, the idea of stating within our most foundational truths a call for religious liberty and pluralism by government would not make sense for us. However, in a church where non-followers of Jesus might attain a heavenly reward in the Terrestial Kingdom, and one in which secular government targeted the church for removal--and even extermination, Article 11 was terribly important. 

[mrmarklin]

On 8/15/2017 at 8:38 AM, anatess2 said:

Consumption of alcoholic beverages is only a sin to those who made that covenant.  It doesn't really matter when the law was made into a covenant.  It only matters when one entered the covenant.

Per se, consumption of tobacco or alcohol is not a sin. 

Of course not keeping one's covenants is sinful. 

My problem with many people that perceive the consumption as a sin is the fact that they see people that consume are "bad" sinful people. And that's not true of non covenant people. 

[Suzie]

No, never. I hate the smell of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee (smells like feces) so no thanks.