ERayR Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Sin has no middle ground. You either do it, or abstain from it.I totally agree with you. The problem is the line of demarcation is not always clear.
Bernard Gui Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Not a description I would use and I have know several.Some can be angry and abusive.
Sethbag Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Sin has no middle ground. You either do it, or abstain from it.This is non-responsive to what I was observing. In your depictions or discussions about alcohol and its effects, usage, etc. you depict an environment where people either abstain totally, or are drunk off their gourd. Whether it's sinful to drink alcohol or not is not even the issue. It's your sober/drunk false dichotomy that I was talking about.Btw, I reject your concept of sin anyhow. Of course, that must be because I want to excuse myself for sinning, right?
mathonihah Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I totally agree with you. The problem is the line of demarcation is not always clear.I think people always know when they are sinning, or stepping over the line. Experimenting to see how close you can get to the edge without sinning is itself a sin.
Cobalt-70 Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Where does it say that he did both at the same time? It is true that he drank wine (unlike John the Baptist who never did). It is also true that he was compassionate towards sinners, and taught them (such as the woman who was caught in adultery). But where does it say that he did both at the same time?Whenever Jesus would have gone into somebody's home to teach and have a communal meal, there would have been wine there. This was the Roman Empire, and wine was the staple drink. Also, Jesus liked to teach over meals.
mathonihah Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 This is non-responsive to what I was observing. In your depictions or discussions about alcohol and its effects, usage, etc. you depict an environment where people either abstain totally, or are drunk off their gourd. Whether it's sinful to drink alcohol or not is not even the issue. It's your sober/drunk false dichotomy that I was talking about.I am LDS, so I am bound by LDS standards. You are not LDS, so you live by whatever standard you like. The criteria stated above may be applicable to, or accepted by your standard; but no by LDS standard. In Mormonism, total abstinence is required form all alcoholic drinks, be they wines, beers, spirits, or any other—at all times, and under all circumstances. No amount of rationalization will change that.Btw, I reject your concept of sin anyhow. Of course, that must be because I want to excuse myself for sinning, right?What is "my concept of sin" that you reject?
Sethbag Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 The one under which having a beer with dinner constitutes a "sin".
ERayR Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I think people always know when they are sinning, or stepping over the line. Experimenting to see how close you can get to the edge without sinning is itself a sin.Would you say it is a sin for a non-Mormon to drink beer?
mathonihah Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 The one under which having a beer with dinner constitutes a "sin".It is a sin only if you are LDS and have covenanted with the Lord to abstain.Would you say it is a sin for a non-Mormon to drink beer?Sin is a transgression if the law. Those who are under the law, will be judged by the law; those who are without law, will be judged without law.
Saints Alive Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 Would you say it is a sin for a non-Mormon to drink beer?Id say its not a sin for a Mormon to have a beer.
mathonihah Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Id say its not a sin for a Mormon to have a beer.In my book, whenever you make a covenant with the Lord or his Church and break it, that is a sin. Before you are baptised you make a covenant to abide by all the laws of the Church, including the Word of Wisdom; and the Word of Wisdom is explained to you to include abstaining from all alcoholic drinks. There are no exceptions.
Saints Alive Posted February 17, 2013 Author Posted February 17, 2013 ; and the Word of Wisdom is explained to you to include abstaining from all alcoholic drinks. There are no exceptions.I disagree, the WoW is quite clear that beer is ok to drink.
mathonihah Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I disagree, the WoW is quite clear that beer is ok to drink.Maybe clear to you, but not to me.
Saints Alive Posted February 17, 2013 Author Posted February 17, 2013 Maybe clear to you, but not to me.Good for you.
Stargazer Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 The same revelatory source says barley is for the making of mild drinks, and this can reasonably be construed as including beer. If you're a strict constructionist/originalist with regard to scripture, then you haven't really got a strong case against beer, and if you're a theojudicial activist, then the text doesn't matter anyhow, because you're substituting your own judgment, or someone else's, for what was written previously.It's odd, but I actually agree with you, here at least. I believe it is probably correct that mild drinks included beer. However, I also believe that modern authoritative interpretation of the WoW overrides that interpretation, excluding beer from the category of "mild drinks". And I am substituting someone else's judgement (the judgement of the leadership of the Church) for what was written previously. I happen to believe that they have the authority to do so. 2
Stargazer Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 And further down it says, 20 And shall arun and not be bweary, and shall walk and not faint. I've seen plenty adhere to this that couldn't run a 10 yard dash.Including me! Well, I might make 10 yards, dashing. Beyond that, however, it would very much be in doubt.But if I were to lose, say, 100 lbs, and walk a mile every day for a few months, I believe I could definitely run and not be weary! 1
Fando Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Our faith boils down to two points, either you express obedience to the covenants you have taken, in which case you follow all of the commandments that the living profit and apostles dictate are in effect, or you do not express obedience. If you express obedience you are demonstrating you faith through selflessness, because God's commandments are more important to you than your secular analysis and opinion on church doctrine. If you break your covenants you are expressing pride, which is a much greater sin than we give it credit for. In fact, when looking at the sin of pride through an eternal lens we discover that all of the commandments are really established to prevent us from exercising pride, which was the sin that cast Lucifer and one third of our brothers and sisters from the premarital existence. Ergo, follow the Ten Commandments, know the commandments that the church follows, and repent when your self control falters. Wait the appropriate time to understand you transgression before just saying sorry and then repeating the sin--that is truly mocking God--and understand that you are a human who is not perfect, but that when your countenance is turned toward God you will no longer attempt to justify breaking covenants because you think they are out-moded. Bottom line: faith and obedience equal countenance toward God; breaking covenants and disobeying equals pride and a countenance turned toward Satan. 1
pogi Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Id say its not a sin for a Mormon to have a beer.I don't know, I'd probably leave that one up to a judge in Israel to be safe. Who needs the extra calories any way?
MiserereNobis Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Who needs the extra calories any way? Yup. So order that extra large chocolate milk shake instead Our previous Pontiff loved his beer -- he was German, after all Edited February 25, 2014 by MiserereNobis
ERayR Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I disagree, the WoW is quite clear that beer is ok to drink. Id say it depends on what covenants you have made. But then if you are a baptized member you have made covenants which drinking beer would break, All your contortions to the contrary IMNSHO drinking alcoholic beverages is not OK.
Bikeemikey Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 In my book, whenever you make a covenant with the Lord or his Church and break it, that is a sin. Before you are baptised you make a covenant to abide by all the laws of the Church, including the Word of Wisdom; and the Word of Wisdom is explained to you to include abstaining from all alcoholic drinks. There are no exceptions.I don't think LDS make any covenants prior to baptism. Baptism is the first covenant.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think LDS make any covenants prior to baptism. Baptism is the first covenant.Faith is.
Bikeemikey Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Faith is.Not to derail but faith is a principle, as is repentance. Neither is a covenant. Baptism is a covenant, on the fence about the gift of the Holy Ghost... That one might just be a gift :-)
Anteojito Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The question is irrelevant to the point.I believe the prophets and apostles receive and respond to revelation on a daily basis on myriad items, large and small. You seem to be saying they are not revelations unless each and every one is written down and pubished.Since we all agree that the prophets and apostles are flawed men, then how do we know if they are providing revelation and when they are just speaking as men? Is one earring for women and none for men revelation or just a pet peeve? We have the 1949 letter signed by the first presidency stating: The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." So was that revelation or just the opinions of flawed men? BTW, you would think that the word of wisdom would have has something about boiling water before drinking it. Actually in those days hot drinks would have been safer than water.
thesometimesaint Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Not to derail but faith is a principle, as is repentance. Neither is a covenant. Baptism is a covenant, on the fence about the gift of the Holy Ghost... That one might just be a gift :-) Not to further derail, but faith is also a covenant we make with God. We agree to believe.
Recommended Posts