A Drink In Seattle Vs. A Drink In Salt Lake City

[mfbukowski]

Covenant Theology is a better way to look at Old Testament vis-a-via New, IMO.

And how is it "better"?

Because you believe it supports your position better?

Covenant theology is nothing more than one interpretation and is itself non-biblical. It is one interpretation among many.

In fact dispensationalism as we believe it is very similar to CV- just with more covenants than 2

Edited May 30, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

Erik-

I'm more comfortable with the strength of my/our position, which is that God hasn't shut up, so there's no reason why I should confine myself to what he said a few thousand years ago and/or be reduced to comparing translations until I find one that says what I think it should! And as for the concept of dispensationalism being only a few hundred years old, as others have pointed out, it’s a lot older than that: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ and Joseph Smith all represent dispensations in LDS theology.. As for being too tough on me, I don't think that's been the case at all (although perhaps I'm simply not smart enough to know when I've been licked! ) The fact is, we're using, I think, irreconcilable paradigms. While I harbor no illusions that I'll be able to convince you to see things through my paradigm (from your perspective, you've already tried it and found it wanting), in order thoroughly to convince me, you'll have to explain convincingly why your paradigm is superior to mine/ours. That's a tall order; while I enjoy the discussion, in the end, we may simply have to agree, respectfully, to disagree.

-Ken

P.S.: While it’s possible that I simply don’t share your understanding of covenant theology, as I’ve already pointed out, I see no conflict in Christ being allowed to drink wine (yes, even if it’s something more than grape juice) and me not being allowed to do so: He didn’t make a covenant not to drink it, while I have. I’ve also made other covenants, as I believe He did. As for the whole Old Testament/Covenant-New Testament/Covenant dichotomy, the only religious group of which I am aware that places more emphasis on the Old Testament than Latter-day Saints are Jews. While the Book of Mormon’s Nephites “delighted” in certain Old Testament writings, and while they lived the Law of Moses, they did so because of how those prophecies and covenants pointed their people to Christ. Modern-day members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints take much the same approach toward the Old Testament. While the Book of Mormon makes clear that the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, there is still much in the Old Testament that is relevant to our day and beyond.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Five Solas]

Uh, yeah. Your argument obviously begs the question and assumes that prophets cannot receive new revelation.

What is implicit in your statement is the assumption that we don't need prophets in the first place because if there were to be any, they would only rehash what is already known- that is why we don't need them!

It's really not an argument at all, it's just an assertion of your previous position. Yawn.

You read a lot in a little, mfbukowski (and 3 rep points for it too!). But if I could add a nuance, it's that I don't subscribe to cessationism (please take note as well, Kenngo1969). I believe what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:10 applies now as it did then.

Thinking of your earlier "Our Values" post (#17--it was really something) and it calls to mind a most excellent Iggy Pop album, going back to 1979. See if you can figure out which one I'm thinking of. And enjoy your weekend!

--Erik

[Calm]

And as I told calmoriah, Covenant Theology is a better way to look at Old Testament vis-a-via New, IMO.

Hope this helps,

--Erik

If I get the general idea: Some covenants are applied to a particular people and others are universal. How is this different than what LDS believe?

[mfbukowski]

If I get the general idea: Some covenants are applied to a particular people and others are universal. How is this different than what LDS believe?

In fact dispensationalism as we believe it is very similar to CV- just with more covenants than 2

As usual, we are on the same wavelength.

[3DOP]

If I get the general idea: Some covenants are applied to a particular people and others are universal. How is this different than what LDS believe?

In my opinion, one needs to believe in dispensations, without being dispensationalist in the sense taught at Dallas Theological Seminary. Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote the classic systemtatic theology for the movement in the 1910's or 20's. C.I. Scofield's Reference Bible and Clarence Larkin's Illustrated charts, timelines, and graphs appeared around the same time. This is why five solas refers to dispensationalism, as a new thing. Of course the dispensations of which they speak go back to Adam as Kenngo points out. But five solas knew that.

In my journey, from being a dispensationalist to covenant theology was in many respects a bigger jump than from covenant theology to Catholicism, although the latter attracted much more attention.

I tend to think Mormons are closer to covenant theology but that may differ from one LDS to another. Covenant theology teaches that the covenant with the Jews ended with the tearing of Veil of the Temple. The biggest thing in my opinion is that the Old Testament according to covenant theology, foretells the coming of the Messiah and the birth of the Church. Promises made to Israel or Sion that are to be fulfilled by a revived Judaism in dispensationalism, after the Rapture of the Church, are fulfilled by Christ's Church now. This might help explain why covenant theology is usually amillenial or even postmillenial, while dispensationalists are ordinarily premillenial.

Covenant theology will tend to make one take a higher view of the visible church. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans do just that. While not usually going so far as saying they are the one true church, they insist on an ordered hierarchy whereby church discipline can be practised according to accepted laws and canons. I came from an ecclesiology where any unordained guy who wanted to could willy nilly start a church and call himself pastor! One true church? Don't you know the church is invisible? There is no visible church. The invisible church theory fits very well into dispensationalism because according to them, the church is virtually invisible in the Old Testament. This is why it was covenant theology rather than Catholicism which prompted my decision to leave the church in 1992, that I had started seven years before. This view of the Old Testament makes one think more about the necessary authority to administer ordinances/sacraments. It made me question whether I needed some kind of ceremonial unction from on high to qualify as a minister.

Anyway, while the idea of dispensations may resonate because the other movement's name sounds familiar, I tend to think that LDS are closer to what is commonly called covenant theology. I can't possibly speak for every dispensationalist or covenant theology adherent. There are many nuances and they have differences that have made terms like ultra-dispensationalism and ultra-Calvinism of some use. But I think my summary might be helpful for LDS who really aren't interested in embracing either view as a whole, to understand the distinctions and to not mistakenly think that they are dispensationalist in the sense of a Darby or Chafer.

Edited June 1, 2013 by 3DOP

[Kenngo1969]

OK, I must be dense. I'm not seeing the dichotomy between Dispensationalist and Covenant Theology (or perhaps I simply don't understand how those terms are being used in this discussion). I don't see why it's an Either-Or thing. Some covenants, e.g., those made at baptism, transcend dispensations, and some of them are specific to a dispensation (such as Law of Moses versus Christ's "But-I-Say-Unto-Yous.") There's some Great Mystery that apparently I'm not getting, but as I see it, people in every dispensation have made covenants. What am I missing?

[Five Solas]

OK, I must be dense. I'm not seeing the dichotomy between Dispensationalist and Covenant Theology (or perhaps I simply don't understand how those terms are being used in this discussion). I don't see why it's an Either-Or thing. Some covenants, e.g., those made at baptism, transcend dispensations, and some of them are specific to a dispensation (such as Law of Moses versus Christ's "But-I-Say-Unto-Yous.") There's some Great Mystery that apparently I'm not getting, but as I see it, people in every dispensation have made covenants. What am I missing?

Can see pandora's box is open. The LDS flavor of Dispensationalism (a New Testament/Covenant, then a New-New Testament, then a New-New-New Testament, etc., as mfbukowski suggests, post #226, "more covenants than 2") merits its own thread. When I have the energy (unless you want to have a run at it, 3DOP).

No Iggy Pop fans out there (not even you, Kenngo1969)? Nothin out of #228?

I'm looking for one new value

But nothing comes my way

Mods, feel free to close this thread. Hopefully the admitted consumer on the Utah "Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission" will get to keep his job. My position on warm beer (and tonic water w/ hint of gin) in SLC is abundantly clear to all readers.

I'm done with it

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

Can see pandora's box is open.

And who opened it?

You make assertions and then conveniently decide to close the thread when challenged.

I just wanted to point that out in the event that someone actually didn't already find it obvious.

[MorningStar]

In Seattle, you can buy an ice cold IPA (that’s India Pale Ale, for the uninitiated), bring it home, pop it open, and drink it on your deck. In SLC, you can drive to a state liquor store, and IF it happens to be open, buy a warm IPA, bring it home, put it in the fridge for a while, and then you can drink it (assuming it’s actually drinkable—IPA’s are supposed to be kept cool or they can go bad quickly).

In Seattle, you order a gin & tonic at any bar, and you get a tasty mix of gin & tonic water (I typically go with Bombay Sapphire). In SLC, you get tonic water w/ a splash of gin. And should you have the audacity in SLC to order a “double”—you get a “sidecar” the size of a thimble to add to your drink. And here’s the worst part—you pay just as much in SLC as you do in Seattle for a whole lot less!

I’m just going to put it out there: Should I (or anyone) blame this state of affairs in SLC on the LDS? Should I feel annoyed at Mormons every time I visit my folks who live in Utah? Or should I feel grateful that they’re giving me an opportunity to repent & change my ways while I wait for that warm beer to cool in the fridge?

For a non-LDS visitor to Utah, what’s the proper way to feel about the local culture as reflected by its liquor laws?

--Erik

I think maybe you should evaluate the importance you place on liquor, especially when you are just visiting.

[Bernard Gui]

I think maybe you should evaluate the importance you place on liquor, especially when you are just visiting.

Alcoholism is an equal opportunity destroyer.

A

A

[Bill Hamblin]

I just spent a few days in Seattle and was amazed to learn I can not get a drink there just as easily as I can not get a drink in Provo. I did see dozens of drunks and addicts wandering the streets of Seattle. To each his own.

[canard78]

Seriously- are we discussing one person's complaint about not being able to buy cold beer in Utah?

Seriously?

Is that what this board has come to?

I guess it is.

That'll teach you for celabrating chasing away Rob Bowman. At least he was willing to discuss points of doctrine.

I don't know what all the fuss is about... Beer smells.

[mfbukowski]

That'll teach you for celabrating chasing away Rob Bowman. At least he was willing to discuss points of doctrine.

I don't know what all the fuss is about... Beer smells.

I remember the first time I wanted to drink a beer- many years before I even knew what a Mormon was- it was like choking down something that smelled like- well just say it was as if I was drinking something that had been completely through the human body at least once before.

But drinking it was "cool" and proved I was an adult!. Hey man, I wasn't going to miss a chance to be cool just because I had to drink something that smelled like- you know.

But then you get a taste for it- how I am not sure. But I can't possibly believe there is anyone who thought it smelled and tasted great the first time they experienced it.

[Calm]

I remember the first time I wanted to drink a beer- many years before I even knew what a Mormon was- it was like choking down something that smelled like- well just say it was as if I was drinking something that had been completely through the human body at least once before.

But drinking it was "cool" and proved I was an adult!. Hey man, I wasn't going to miss a chance to be cool just because I had to drink something that smelled like- you know.

But then you get a taste for it- how I am not sure. But I can't possibly believe there is anyone who thought it smelled and tasted great the first time they experienced it.

Someone (Log?) used to call it "yeast piss", made me laugh.

[omni]

But then you get a taste for it- how I am not sure. But I can't possibly believe there is anyone who thought it smelled and tasted great the first time they experienced it.

I've only tried it once and I thought it tasted horrible. Knowing what a popular drink it is I thought there was something wrong with me, but it turns out I'm quite normal.

[canard78]

Someone (Log?) used to call it "yeast piss", made me laugh.

I'm shocked. Is that considered appropriate language for a refined lady such as yourself? Or maybe that's only coarse in UK.

[canard78]

I remember the first time I wanted to drink a beer- many years before I even knew what a Mormon was- it was like choking down something that smelled like- well just say it was as if I was drinking something that had been completely through the human body at least once before.

But drinking it was "cool" and proved I was an adult!. Hey man, I wasn't going to miss a chance to be cool just because I had to drink something that smelled like- you know.

But then you get a taste for it- how I am not sure. But I can't possibly believe there is anyone who thought it smelled and tasted great the first time they experienced it.

You have to feed a kid broccoli 7 times before they will eat it.

I've no intention of getting through 7 pints to acquire the taste.

I remember the same conversation with my 18yo cousin. He hated the stuff but stuck at it and said he was acquiring the taste for it.

Very strange.

[mfbukowski]

You have to feed a kid broccoli 7 times before they will eat it.

I've no intention of getting through 7 pints to acquire the taste.

I remember the same conversation with my 18yo cousin. He hated the stuff but stuck at it and said he was acquiring the taste for it.

Very strange.

Actually, I had the same experience with coffee. To make it even drinkable at first, I had to put in at least 4 teaspoons of sugar and a ton of milk, or even better, cream.

Before long I was drinking it black- because that was the coolest of all, and drinking stout malt ale which was the coolest and most macho beer you could drink (and the best part was that very few people could stand the bitterness- thereby making it even cooler!)

Boy, was I smart or what??

[thesometimesaint]

That was my experience with coffee too.

[3DOP]

I am fine with you guys not drinking coffee and beer, etc. Good on you. Be not drunk...but be filled with the Spirit. Think about that verse. The fulness of the Holy Ghost has at least one parallel with drunkenness.

Both make you less concerned about what others think of you.

I heard a sermon on this once, and that is the point I remember. Maybe you can come up with others.

Hey, I have another.

Both taste great! Taste and see that the Lord is good. I am not saying that I have experienced the fulness of the Holy Ghost. I talk about that on faith, but with firm conviction. I know you'll agree (about the Holy Ghost).

You guys can generalize about the taste of coffee and wine and beer and hard alcohol all you want. But good coffee, good wine, good beers/stouts/ales and good scotch, cognac, and other spirits have amazingly diverse and interesting tastes. You guys aren't even making any distinction between Old Milwaukee and a good microbrew! Beer? Oh yeah. Its all terrible! All beer tastes bad? All beer? Yup. Its all the same. Its all terrible. You guys are okay for staying away from all these temptations that I occasionally struggle with. But really. C'mon. Saying all booze tastes bad is like saying unmarried sex is very physically unpleasant. I have never been with anyone but my wife, so maybe I should argue that it is really unpleasant to be with somebody other than your wife? Its one thing to encourage people to lay off the sauce, its another to tell them it stinks. Its one thing to warn people of the pitfalls of sex out of wedlock, it would be another to say that it causes immediate intense pain.

Anyway, I am afraid its too late to convince me that you guys who speak so knowingly of how smelly and disgusting these beverages are that are forbidden to you, have any experience of tasty adult beverages. Like I said, its not a bad thing to stay away from it completely, because it can compete with the Holy Ghost in our lives. But its a bad argument to say it all tastes terrible.

3DOP

Edited June 3, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Anyway, I am afraid its too late to convince me that you guys who speak so knowingly of how smelly and disgusting these beverages are that are forbidden to you, have any experience of tasty adult beverages. Like I said, its not a bad thing to stay away from it completely, because it can compete with the Holy Ghost in our lives. But its a bad argument to say it all tastes terrible.

I converted at age 32 after surviving the '60's as a student radical, and I was at least partially addicted to about every nasty thing known to mankind, smoked two packs a day (tobacco that is ) and drank coffee by the gallon and anything else I could get my hands on.

I loved all of the above and still miss a good stout on a hot day.

Now fess up.

The FIRST sip of beer you had in your life was the best thing you ever tasted?

Your first taste of coffee sent you into ecstasy?

I remember laughing with all my jaded friends about their first sips of all the above, and it was universally acknowledged that both of these were "acquired tastes".

Why one would want to acquire a taste for one more thing in one's life that is addictive is beyond me.

Heck I can't quit the ice cream habit- why would I want more??

[Scott Lloyd]

I converted at age 32 after surviving the '60's as a student radical, and I was at least partially addicted to about every nasty thing known to mankind, smoked two packs a day (tobacco that is ) and drank coffee by the gallon and anything else I could get my hands on.

I loved all of the above and still miss a good stout on a hot day.

Now fess up.

The FIRST sip of beer you had in your life was the best thing you ever tasted?

Your first taste of coffee sent you into ecstasy?

I remember laughing with all my jaded friends about their first sips of all the above, and it was universally acknowledged that both of these were "acquired tastes".

Why one would want to acquire a taste for one more thing in one's life that is addictive is beyond me.

Heck I can't quit the ice cream habit- why would I want more??

I submit that, for one who was not exposed to it from a very young age, -- as most Americans are -- cola is an acquired taste.

For many years during my childhood, I mistakenly believed it was forbidden in the Word of Wisdom.

Though I know better, now, it still tastes nasty to me -- like paint thinner -- and I would not drink it, even if the caffeine content were not an issue to me.

And I'm like you. It's just one on a list of addictions I'm glad I don't have to deal with. I have quite enough bad habits to overcome.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[3DOP]

bukowski

I converted at age 32 after surviving the '60's as a student radical, and I was at least partially addicted to about every nasty thing known to mankind, smoked two packs a day (tobacco that is ) and drank coffee by the gallon and anything else I could get my hands on.

3DOP

And you are as radical as ever!

I couldn't take tobacco. Everybody else I knew smoked. Not me. I remember at 15 or 16 being amazed with how mild pot was in comparison. I won't give the story, but I am for keeping pot illegal. I think it is deceiving. I haven't smoked dope since Feb of 1978. I had friends with whom I would get drunk at night, and they would wake up in the morning and start right up again. I know its just the way I am made with all my strengths and weaknesses. But I just wasn't tempted to be crazy like that. Even before I got religious I wanted to be sober for a few days before the next bender. I can see that some people are just crazy if they touch alcohol. So don't touch it if that's how you are.

bukowski

I loved all of the above and still miss a good stout on a hot day.

3DOP

Its hard to remember what it was like. It really is. I didn't love it then or now. I go lager when I am working in the yard in the summer.

bukowski

Now fess up.

The FIRST sip of beer you had in your life was the best thing you ever tasted?

3DOP

I think I might have been seven years old and it was probably a Blitz or Hamm's. It was maybe the worst thing I ever tasted. Satisfied? Heh. I don't recommend the beer our parents drank in the 50's and 60's as tasting good.

bukowski

Your first taste of coffee sent you into ecstasy?

3DOP

Oh yeah. I was flying high on that Maxwell House.

bukowski

I remember laughing with all my jaded friends about their first sips of all the above, and it was universally acknowledged that both of these were "acquired tastes".

3DOP

Well. To be serious, I can not agree that only those tastes which give immediate satisfaction are worth acquiring. Shakespeare, Mozart, and Emily ****inson are arguably good tastes that require acquisition too.

bukowski

Why one would want to acquire a taste for one more thing in one's life that is addictive is beyond me.

3DOP

Addiction implies an unhealthy attraction, so I agree one should not be addicted to anything. Neither coffee, nor alcohol, nor the arts. Only God.

bukowski

Heck I can't quit the ice cream habit- why would I want more??

3DOP

Upon that, I am dedicating the rest of June 3, 2013, to abstinence from ice cream. I am not addicted. I am not addicted. I am not addicted.

Heh.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

bukowski

I converted at age 32 after surviving the '60's as a student radical, and I was at least partially addicted to about every nasty thing known to mankind, smoked two packs a day (tobacco that is ) and drank coffee by the gallon and anything else I could get my hands on.

3DOP

And you are as radical as ever!

I couldn't take tobacco. Everybody else I knew smoked. Not me. I remember at 15 or 16 being amazed with how mild pot was in comparison. I won't give the story, but I am for keeping pot illegal. I think it is deceiving. I haven't smoked dope since Feb of 1978. I had friends with whom I would get drunk at night, and they would wake up in the morning and start right up again. I know its just the way I am made with all my strengths and weaknesses. But I just wasn't tempted to be crazy like that. Even before I got religious I wanted to be sober for a few days before the next bender. I can see that some people are just crazy if they touch alcohol. So don't touch it if that's how you are.

bukowski

I loved all of the above and still miss a good stout on a hot day.

3DOP

Its hard to remember what it was like. It really is. I didn't love it then or now. I go lager when I am working in the yard in the summer.

bukowski

Now fess up.

The FIRST sip of beer you had in your life was the best thing you ever tasted?

3DOP

I think I might have been seven years old and it was probably a Blitz or Hamm's. It was maybe the worst thing I ever tasted. Satisfied? Heh. I don't recommend the beer our parents drank in the 50's and 60's as tasting good.

bukowski

Your first taste of coffee sent you into ecstasy?

3DOP

Oh yeah. I was flying high on that Maxwell House.

bukowski

I remember laughing with all my jaded friends about their first sips of all the above, and it was universally acknowledged that both of these were "acquired tastes".

3DOP

Well. To be serious, I can not agree that only those tastes which give immediate satisfaction are worth acquiring. Shakespeare, Mozart, and Emily ****inson are arguably good tastes that require acquisition too.

bukowski

Why one would want to acquire a taste for one more thing in one's life that is addictive is beyond me.

3DOP

Addiction implies an unhealthy attraction, so I agree one should not be addicted to anything. Neither coffee, nor alcohol, nor the arts. Only God.

bukowski

Heck I can't quit the ice cream habit- why would I want more??

3DOP

Upon that, I am dedicating the rest of June 3, 2013, to abstinence from ice cream. I am not addicted. I am not addicted. I am not addicted.

Heh.

3DOP

Good stuff!

You can abstain for me by proxy too, and that way I will be 1 day into my new way of life, free from the curses of ice cream!

Edited June 3, 2013 by mfbukowski