Utah Medical Marijuana passes

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Will that grant me eternal life, exaltation, and please Heavenly Father?

It was a joke, relax. 

[JohnsonJones]

The church has been "losing" political influence ever since Brigham Young ceased to be in charge or what was basically a theocracy in Utah.  Church leaders have not had that type of political power combining religious theology and government since his time.

In relation to Utah being part of the United States of America, as the US was NEVER SUPPOSED to be a theocracy, and is abhorrent to the principles of the Constitution, I think that is probably something that Americans (at least US citizens and maybe Canadians) would appreciate.

In this light, just as we would not want the Catholic church, or a Baptist Convention, or a Islamic congregation, or any other religious entity dictating our laws and government, I personally think that in regards to churches and religion, perhaps they should not try to dictate specific governmental laws.  When people vote as per their thoughts rather than directed by their church it can show the futility of doing so.  Most things in the past 30 years that the church has tried to counter directly in politics (which I don't think any church should try to dictate to it's members) has either immediately or eventually (such as with Gay Marriage) had the exact opposite occur. 

On the otherhand, when it let's members vote as per the dictates of their hearts and only emphasizes that one should follow the moral conscience that guides them in the commandments and following them while participating in the Church, I think far greater outcomes in regards to obedience to the laws of the Lord are seen in regards to political outcomes and choices.

Just my thought on the topic that has passed further up in the thread.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I personally think that in regards to churches and religion, perhaps they should not try to dictate specific governmental laws. 

Agree totally. 

[mordorbund]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The church has been "losing" political influence ever since Brigham Young ceased to be in charge or what was basically a theocracy in Utah.  Church leaders have not had that type of political power combining religious theology and government since his time.

In relation to Utah being part of the United States of America, as the US was NEVER SUPPOSED to be a theocracy, and is abhorrent to the principles of the Constitution, I think that is probably something that Americans (at least US citizens and maybe Canadians) would appreciate.

In this light, just as we would not want the Catholic church, or a Baptist Convention, or a Islamic congregation, or any other religious entity dictating our laws and government, I personally think that in regards to churches and religion, perhaps they should not try to dictate specific governmental laws.  When people vote as per their thoughts rather than directed by their church it can show the futility of doing so.  Most things in the past 30 years that the church has tried to counter directly in politics (which I don't think any church should try to dictate to it's members) has either immediately or eventually (such as with Gay Marriage) had the exact opposite occur. 

On the otherhand, when it let's members vote as per the dictates of their hearts and only emphasizes that one should follow the moral conscience that guides them in the commandments and following them while participating in the Church, I think far greater outcomes in regards to obedience to the laws of the Lord are seen in regards to political outcomes and choices.

Just my thought on the topic that has passed further up in the thread.

Just curious, since you been around the block a few times. Did you feel the same way when Historically Black Protestant churches got involved in Civil Rights legislation?

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Just curious, since you been around the block a few times. Did you feel the same way when Historically Black Protestant churches got involved in Civil Rights legislation?

No, I didn't view it like that. 

It may appear to have been church led from some perspectives today, but that is not how I viewed it.  In addition, the actual message that King jr. promoted was something I did not have a problem with (and inherently agreed with in and of itself).  If anything, most churches where I was at that I was familiar with at the time were OPPOSED to the Civil Rights Movement (admittedly most were WHITE churches that I experienced).

It is true that one of the main firepoints of the Early Civil Rights movement was born within those Black Protestant Churches that you bring up, but this was because of who went to those churches and THEIR concerns.  The birthplace of many of these movements can be traced to these churches, but to think that it just STAYED in these churches rather than spread like wildfire regardless of denomination is ignoring how the Civil Rights Movement occurred or gained power to do what it did over time.  In MY VIEW, the movement was more an expression of their religious feelings, desires for freedom, and an expression of morality rather than something that was expressely taught for most of the time.  Martin Luther King jr. being a major mover of this movement was an expression of his morality rather than something that was pushed upon him by higher leaders of his church (and to understand why, one must understand how many of the Southern Protestant churches work which is VERY different than how the LDS, Catholic, Methodist or other more organized religions operate).  His was a message more of INCLUSION and LOVE for ALL rather than a specifically racist message (such as that from Malcom X or others who promoted more radical means).

That said, I lived in the South for some of the major years of the events that occurred, and I suppose was partially racist (that was NOT unusual at the time).  There WERE things that I got unhappy or infuriated with at the time.  For 20 years they were making changes due to integration and trying to ensure that schools were as equal as they could be.  This meant that some people did not go to the school they originally thought they would go to.  Instead there was a Black High School and a White High School originally.  Instead, they integrated them a bit.  This meant that some went to what was traditionally the Black High School which was infuriating at times.  You may have had older siblings that went to one High School, but then you went to what was considered the Rival High School.  Some people may have had a school that was nearer to them, but due to integration got bused across town to another one instead.  Instead of going to the closest school, they went to a further one.  It seemed at times to be unnecessarily imposed upon the South while the Northern schools were doing similar things (by zoning at times) and having no actions taken against them.

Business actions were very similar to how the government is trying to impose it's will in the LGBT discussions today.  Understand I do not equate Race with LGBT and think there are very large and inherent differences that should be obvious (an LBG individual for example is not apparent or obvious when looked upon while race normally is, for example).  However, the thoughts against legislation was similar.  For example, how there are those that wish to refuse to serve LGBT individuals today and are going to court over it.  In the same manner, there were businesses that were VERY angry at being legislated on who they had to or did not have to allow or HOW they dealt with in their business.  The idea was that the courts and other measures were taking away one's freedom to operate and do business as one desired, either through the dictates of conscience or the dictates of religion.

In regards to religion, some churches felt that this was a direct attack upon their beliefs and their freedom to act upon them.  People were frustrated.  There were things that you would probably consider very racists that even I thought and felt at those times.  For me it had nothing to do with religion, but deeply set cultural values that were difficult to recognize and at times to overcome.  I'm sure that there are some from my generation that STILL have these feelings and never overcame them.  Many of these racists ideas even persist today among some (for example, there was an obvious reason for AA which most from the South could recognize in the WHY it was implemented, even if they did not agree with HOW it was implemented or even the morality behind it...something which I wonder if it was lost today.  Many today may not be racist but because the do not understand what was happening and what still could happen, they are against Affirmative Action.  Still, AA is inherently racist still, in my opinion which MAY make me dated.  I feel it is dated because it EXCLUDES some of the smallest groups of minorities today such as Asian Americans typically which shows that racism STILL exists against some groups).

I do not feel that the Mormons were any better than anyone else in regards to racism, integration, and other aspects that were common in the culture of the South and other areas of the nation at the time (and to assume that segregation was only a problem of the South is something that was populated by the North and I also feel was a myth. In the 80s I felt that there may actually have been more blatant and obvious racism in the North that was allowed than there was in the South, but because the South was stigmatized the South was the main focus of integration while the North and West were largely ignored.

I see a similar way of treating minorities still in existence in regards to those of Native origins but from Central and South American Nations today.  This is especially prevalent in the West (Against those that many call Hispanics, though normally this is in relation to a specific group of Hispanics).  I also see racism still prevalent in the North.  This does not excuse the South (where I think it still exists, but is more hidden today where it was far more open in the past when I was young).  The Civil Rights movement you could say has ALWAYS included those who went to churches in the South, but just like today, is no more a facet that is pushed as one of their main points than it was ever done in the past.  There are Pastors and church leaders that are part of this movement, but their involvement does not necessarily make their CHURCH the main proponent of this movement today or yesteryear.  It is rather simply an output of their morality and the exercise of that morality as encouraged by their religion, rather than a religious political campaign that is waged solely by their church and dictated solely over the pulpit. 

Does that answer your question.

My answer to it thus is...

In short, NO.

The Longer answer is more complicated.

Edited November 12, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

No, I didn't view it like that. 

It may appear to have been church led from some perspectives today, but that is not how I viewed it.  In addition, the actual message that King jr. promoted was something I did not have a problem with (and inherently agreed with in and of itself).  If anything, most churches where I was at that I was familiar with at the time were OPPOSED to the Civil Rights Movement (admittedly most were WHITE churches that I experienced).

It is true that one of the main firepoints of the Early Civil Rights movement was born within those Black Protestant Churches that you bring up, but this was because of who went to those churches and THEIR concerns.  The birthplace of many of these movements can be traced to these churches, but to think that it just STAYED in these churches rather than spread like wildfire regardless of denomination is ignoring how the Civil Rights Movement occurred or gained power to do what it did over time.  In MY VIEW, the movement was more an expression of their religious feelings, desires for freedom, and an expression of morality rather than something that was expressely taught for most of the time.  Martin Luther King jr. being a major mover of this movement was an expression of his morality rather than something that was pushed upon him by higher leaders of his church (and to understand why, one must understand how many of the Southern Protestant churches work which is VERY different than how the LDS, Catholic, Methodist or other more organized religions operate).  His was a message more of INCLUSION and LOVE for ALL rather than a specifically racist message (such as that from Malcom X or others who promoted more radical means).

That said, I lived in the South for some of the major years of the events that occurred, and I suppose was partially racist (that was NOT unusual at the time).  There WERE things that I got unhappy or infuriated with at the time.  For 20 years they were making changes due to integration and trying to ensure that schools were as equal as they could be.  This meant that some people did not go to the school they originally thought they would go to.  Instead there was a Black High School and a White High School originally.  Instead, they integrated them a bit.  This meant that some went to what was traditionally the Black High School which was infuriating at times.  You may have had older siblings that went to one High School, but then you went to what was considered the Rival High School.  Some people may have had a school that was nearer to them, but due to integration got bused across town to another one instead.  Instead of going to the closest school, they went to a further one.  It seemed at times to be unnecessarily imposed upon the South while the Northern schools were doing similar things (by zoning at times) and having no actions taken against them.

Business actions were very similar to how the government is trying to impose it's will in the LGBT discussions today.  Understand I do not equate Race with LGBT and think there are very large and inherent differences that should be obvious (an LBG individual for example is not apparent or obvious when looked upon while race normally is, for example).  However, the thoughts against legislation was similar.  For example, how there are those that wish to refuse to serve LGBT individuals today and are going to court over it.  In the same manner, there were businesses that were VERY angry at being legislated on who they had to or did not have to allow or HOW they dealt with in their business.  The idea was that the courts and other measures were taking away one's freedom to operate and do business as one desired, either through the dictates of conscience or the dictates of religion.

In regards to religion, some churches felt that this was a direct attack upon their beliefs and their freedom to act upon them.  People were frustrated.  There were things that you would probably consider very racists that even I thought and felt at those times.  For me it had nothing to do with religion, but deeply set cultural values that were difficult to recognize and at times to overcome.  I'm sure that there are some from my generation that STILL have these feelings and never overcame them.  Many of these racists ideas even persist today among some (for example, there was an obvious reason for AA which most from the South could recognize in the WHY it was implemented, even if they did not agree with HOW it was implemented or even the morality behind it...something which I wonder if it was lost today.  Many today may not be racist but because the do not understand what was happening and what still could happen, they are against Affirmative Action.  Still, AA is inherently racist still, in my opinion which MAY make me dated.  I feel it is dated because it EXCLUDES some of the smallest groups of minorities today such as Asian Americans typically which shows that racism STILL exists against some groups).

I do not feel that the Mormons were any better than anyone else in regards to racism, integration, and other aspects that were common in the culture of the South and other areas of the nation at the time (and to assume that segregation was only a problem of the South is something that was populated by the North and I also feel was a myth. In the 80s I felt that there may actually have been more blatant and obvious racism in the North that was allowed than there was in the South, but because the South was stigmatized the South was the main focus of integration while the North and West were largely ignored.

I see a similar way of treating minorities still in existence in regards to those of Native origins but from Central and South American Nations today.  This is especially prevalent in the West (Against those that many call Hispanics, though normally this is in relation to a specific group of Hispanics).  I also see racism still prevalent in the North.  This does not excuse the South (where I think it still exists, but is more hidden today where it was far more open in the past when I was young).  The Civil Rights movement you could say has ALWAYS included those who went to churches in the South, but just like today, is no more a facet that is pushed as one of their main points than it was ever done in the past.  There are Pastors and church leaders that are part of this movement, but their involvement does not necessarily make their CHURCH the main proponent of this movement today or yesteryear.  It is rather simply an output of their morality and the exercise of that morality as encouraged by their religion, rather than a religious political campaign that is waged solely by their church and dictated solely over the pulpit. 

Does that answer your question.

My answer to it thus is...

In short, NO.

The Longer answer is more complicated.

That's pretty much how I understood it.  Thanks, JJ.

[mordorbund]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

No, I didn't view it like that. 

It may appear to have been church led from some perspectives today, but that is not how I viewed it.  In addition, the actual message that King jr. promoted was something I did not have a problem with (and inherently agreed with in and of itself).  If anything, most churches where I was at that I was familiar with at the time were OPPOSED to the Civil Rights Movement (admittedly most were WHITE churches that I experienced)

....

The Civil Rights movement you could say has ALWAYS included those who went to churches in the South, but just like today, is no more a facet that is pushed as one of their main points than it was ever done in the past.  There are Pastors and church leaders that are part of this movement, but their involvement does not necessarily make their CHURCH the main proponent of this movement today or yesteryear.  It is rather simply an output of their morality and the exercise of that morality as encouraged by their religion, rather than a religious political campaign that is waged solely by their church and dictated solely over the pulpit. 

Does that answer your question.

In short, NO.

The Longer answer is more complicated.

For the first bolded part, that's been my observation for people who want church (any church) out of politics. If some powerhouse backs their position (on immigration, prohibition, abortion, LGBT issues, city building, women's rights, civil rights, etc), they're all for it. But if that powerhouse is a church and against their position, then there suddenly needs to be a crisper division between church and state.

For the second bolded, I need some additional clarification. It sounds like you just have an issue with the scale of it, or perhaps it's the type of influence exercised. If scale, so long as a church leader is only wielding influence over a single congregation, then that's ok. Are you still okay with it if it's a mega church? Or what about popular televangelists who don't have a congregation per se? Does this extend to celebrities as well? Is Oprah too popular to stump for Obama?

If it's the type of influence (organized lobbying vs ad hoc membership organizing), your last statement seems to betray it. If congregants spontaneously organize around some cause, it will likely be driven by a campaign waged "over the pulpit". Additionally, if the cause touches on some moral value espoused by the church organization, I think that organization has a vested interest in deploying every ethical method to have their voice heard. And the funds for that lobbying is coming from.... well, congregants who support those moral values. I see little difference between my actual labor going to march on Washington vs converting my labor to cash and outsourcing a professional to represent my (or my church's) interests.

So it sounds like it really stands on that first bolded point, although if you want I can continue on this second reasoning.

 

[mordorbund]

On a more general note, any group that comes from an Abrahamic background (Islamo-Judeo-Christian) should recognize that prophets were not just called to preach to congregations, but also to counsel kings and influence policy. So in a Democracy or a Republic, it would fully be in line with that tradition to have prophets counseling presidents, magistrates, congresses, and rulers.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

For the first bolded part, that's been my observation for people who want church (any church) out of politics. If some powerhouse backs their position (on immigration, prohibition, abortion, LGBT issues, city building, women's rights, civil rights, etc), they're all for it. But if that powerhouse is a church and against their position, then there suddenly needs to be a crisper division between church and state.

For the second bolded, I need some additional clarification. It sounds like you just have an issue with the scale of it, or perhaps it's the type of influence exercised. If scale, so long as a church leader is only wielding influence over a single congregation, then that's ok. Are you still okay with it if it's a mega church? Or what about popular televangelists who don't have a congregation per se? Does this extend to celebrities as well? Is Oprah too popular to stump for Obama?

If it's the type of influence (organized lobbying vs ad hoc membership organizing), your last statement seems to betray it. If congregants spontaneously organize around some cause, it will likely be driven by a campaign waged "over the pulpit". Additionally, if the cause touches on some moral value espoused by the church organization, I think that organization has a vested interest in deploying every ethical method to have their voice heard. And the funds for that lobbying is coming from.... well, congregants who support those moral values. I see little difference between my actual labor going to march on Washington vs converting my labor to cash and outsourcing a professional to represent my (or my church's) interests.

So it sounds like it really stands on that first bolded point, although if you want I can continue on this second reasoning.

 

I think you misunderstand the Civil Rights movement if you are reading it that way. 

The "Black Protestant" churches you refer to were NOT united.  IF they had tried something like the LDS church did in organizing with the California propositions a few years ago, or making political statements to the affect in the same degree that the LDS church did with Marijuana they would have been quickly closed down officially by the government in the South at the time.  The groups DID organize, but normally it was not because they were under a church direction to do so, but they were part of various groups (that were composed of church members...there is a difference) that may have utilized church resources at times to do so as that was the only avenue they really could utilize to organize in the way necessary.

That members of the same church have similar views and opinions should NOT be surprising.  Utah and Southern Idaho are mostly LDS and the Republican Party is extremely strong there.  Congregants of the LDS Church (or Mormons in general, not just from one church, but from that background generally) are NOT spontaneously organizing because the Mormon Churches are all campaigning for them to be Republican over the pulpit. 

That said, King's initial group may have come from his church, but they were actually a small minority within his church at first.  They were members of his church, but were NOT THE CHURCH he was preaching to.  Even his own church there were divisions, some felt he was taking the right action, others felt he was going about it entirely incorrectly.  He did not say they were sinners or wrong for doing so or feeling that way.  He did not say thus sayeth the Lord or thus sayeth the church to try to say they had to do as he said.  In fact, he did the exact opposite most of the time.  His focus was inclusion, and as such, he gained larger and larger numbers. You are confusing the fact that just because King was a minister, that means he could not act upon his own conscience and morality on his own without trying to force it upon an official church sanction or even upon the greater church unity.  What's more, at first, the greater church unity that he was a part of did NOT approve of his actions or his group. (PS: I want to reinforce the words...AT FIRST...in case some missed them at first...:) ).

There is a misunderstanding about the South and how things operated at the time.  Another reason one can see that the Civil Rights movement had root in the churches of the South at the time was because of the atmosphere.  There were few places where African Americans could gather safely and discuss such issues.  They could do these in their Churches.  Furthermore, as these were places where morality and conscience were focuses of discussion, it became a natural arena for those involved with the Civil Rights movement to meet and for it to be born.  To equate it the same as the LDS church or Catholic Church trying to influence politics is like saying that those Mormons today who vote for laws that are anti-alcohol or make the consumption and possession of it more difficult in any recent election in the US are officially speaking for the LDS church.

There is a VAST difference between MEMBERS (even Bishops and Stake Presidents who are involved in local politics, or Preists and Pastors in other churches) taking part in activities that are politically motivated and a Church making an official stance or pushing a specific political agenda.

However, our opinions on such may vary.  We may disagree on what we view and how we view it.

Edited November 13, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

#ItsDifferentWhenAGroupILikeDoesIt

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

#ItsDifferentWhenAGroupILikeDoesIt

That's what I've been saying about politics for years bro. 

[Tyme]

On 11/8/2018 at 9:27 AM, Still_Small_Voice said:

In my opinion it does not matter than the people voted to pass medical marijuana.  The Utah legislature is going to modify the medical cannabis laws anyway.

What concerns me is those that voted to expand Obamacare in Utah.  This is going to require a huge tax increase and it has been a disaster in every other state where they have implemented this expansion of "free" health care.  I hope the Utah legislature modifies this medicaid law heavily as well but I doubt it.  Governor Herbert wanted Obamacare in Utah and tried to get it passed thru before.

I don’t think giving 300k low-income people health insurance is a disaster. It’s the right thing to do and can’t believe Utah didn’t do it sooner.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

I don’t think giving 300k low-income people health insurance is a disaster.

Would you think it a disaster if a corresponding number of formerly middle-income people can no longer afford healthcare (or have now become low-income people) because costs skyrocketed to ridiculous amounts at the mere mention of "Obamacare"?  Because that is what happened - for every online person claiming they can suddenly afford healthcare, I can find an in-person human standing face-to-face with me who will tell you that their healthcare expenses are to up 5 times or more compared to before "Obamacare" became a word - and I'm one of them.  I have never encountered an in-person person who says their healthcare costs have decreased or that healthcare is now more affordable - I only ever see / hear of those people online.

[Tyme]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Would you think it a disaster if a corresponding number of formerly middle-income people can no longer afford healthcare (or have now become low-income people) because costs skyrocketed to ridiculous amounts at the mere mention of "Obamacare"?  Because that is what happened - for every online person claiming they can suddenly afford healthcare, I can find an in-person human standing face-to-face with me who will tell you that their healthcare expenses are to up 5 times or more compared to before "Obamacare" became a word - and I'm one of them.  I have never encountered an in-person person who says their healthcare costs have decreased or that healthcare is now more affordable - I only ever see / hear of those people online.

What does that have to do with Medicaid expansion? The truth is Medicaid expansion doesn’t cause higher insurance prices.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Tyme said:

What does that have to do with Medicaid expansion? The truth is Medicaid expansion doesn’t cause higher insurance prices.

Yes, it does.  Medicaid is a source of income for the medical industry.  When that money is freely given, the price for the medical industry goes up across the board.  When those prices go up, insurance for paying for those services goes up.

[Tyme]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, it does.  Medicaid is a source of income for the medical industry.  When that money is freely given, the price for the medical industry goes up across the board.  When those prices go up, insurance for paying for those services goes up.

I believe the government pays for it not the medical industry. They just sell their services at a fairer price to Medicaid.

We really need universal healthcare to bring down the outrageous prices of medical.

aorry for jacking your thread Mormongator

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I believe the government pays for it not the medical industry. They just sell their services at a fairer price to Medicaid.

We really need universal healthcare to bring down the outrageous prices of medical.

aorry for jacking your thread Mormongator

I didn't say the medical industry pays for it.  Do you not understand the nature of circulation of funds, supply and demand, and basic economics?

[Tyme]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't say the medical industry pays for it.  Do you not understand the nature of circulation of funds, supply and demand, and basic economics?

 

Chill out homie. My argument is that all people deserve healthcare. That Medicaid expansion does not raise the price of insurance.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Tyme

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Tyme said:

 

Chill out homie. My argument is that all people deserve healthcare. That Medicaid expansion does not raise the price of insurance.

And my point was that if you don't believe Medicaid effects insurance prices, you don't understand basic economics.

The remark about "deserving" healthcare is another argument which I was not addressing at this time.

[Tyme]

What do you know about trantimtutation economics?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Tyme said:

What do you know about trantimtutation economics?

Well, when you can spell it correctly, I can answer it correctly.

[Tyme]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, when you can spell it correctly, I can answer it correctly.

You won’t find it on the internet. It will be in an encyclopedia at the library. They teach it to economics students in grad school.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Tyme said:

What do you know about trantimtutation economics?

You won't even find it in an encyclopedia, nor a dictionary.  Logic dictates you either meant transmutation or transformation.  Or maybe something involving Kafka and the pharaohs of Egypt from the 18th dynasty...

[NeuroTypical]

6 minutes ago, Tyme said:

You won’t find it on the internet.

Um, just so you know, the entire first world is looking at you like this.

[Tyme]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

You won't even find it in an encyclopedia, nor a dictionary.  Logic dictates you either meant transmutation or transformation.  Or maybe something involving Kafka and the pharaohs of Egypt from the 18th dynasty...

Just trying to add some levity to the forums. I thought it was getting a little too heated.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Tyme