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

[ERayR]

He turned water into wine after they had drunk all the wine on hand, and I can't see any reason to think that the children of the families were not present at the wedding celebration.

It is sometimes amusing to watch you set up straw men and shoot them down and then think you have accomplished something. Actually all you have done is left piles of burning straw.

[Five Solas]

Not to me. I don't see your logic or lack thereof.

And I'm not terribly optimistic I'm going to be able to get you to see it, ERayR. But let me try it this way: When I was growing up LDS and the subject of wine came up from the Bible (which didn't happen all that often), the preferred explanation I heard was that it wasn't wine at all, it was really unfermented grape juice. Think Welch's grape juice that you can buy in the grocery store. You're familiar, no?

Whatever the science of grape fermentation, this "traditional" explanation grants the LDS God a measure of consistency (he doesn't do a thing one day and then outlaw it the next). He's not left red-faced over his conduct in John 2 in light of D&C 89 and subsequent revelation. You're still tracking with me here, right?

Now go back and read Kenngo1969 (post #194, the last few sentences). Gone is the notion that wine = grape juice. But gone too is any sense of consistency. Kenngo1969 plainly believes when the Bible says wine it means wine. But in solving one problem he's introduced a much bigger one, IMO.

Still not seeing it, ERayR? No worries,

--Erik

[Five Solas]

You are assuming that LDS believe that the drinking of alcohol itself is a sin that we wish to protect our children from, it is not. ...

This will come as news to Programmer and to my LDS sister & brother-in-law (see post #189). How do we get the word out & spare ourselves some trouble? You write such well-reasoned posts calmoriah (even though I often disagree).

:0)

--Erik

[ERayR]

Now go back and read Kenngo1969 (post #194, the last few sentences). Gone is the notion that wine = grape juice. But gone too is any sense of consistency. Kenngo1969 plainly believes when the Bible says wine it means wine. But in solving one problem he's introduced a much bigger one, IMO.

Still not seeing it, ERayR? No worries,

--Erik

You seem to be operating under the assumption that God has one handy dandy little pocket rule book. IMNSHO it is not the alcohol or whatever but whether we will listen to council to help us in our place and time. As I stated in another thread this is not a pass/fail scenario but a sifting and sorting.

[ERayR]

This will come as news to Programmer and to my LDS sister & brother-in-law (see post #189). How do we get the word out & spare ourselves some trouble? You write such well-reasoned posts calmoriah (even though I often disagree).

:0)

--Erik

The sooner you stop worrying about Programmer and your LDS sister and brother-in-law the more time you will have to enjoy your own life. I have learned over the years it is much more productive to choose what I fret over. If I can do something about it OK but if I can't then drop it. Life gets so much simpler when I am not trying to solve problems I have no control over.

Edited May 27, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

If you accept the premise that Jesus is God and that He aided & abetted alcoholic beverage consumption at a party (a wedding feast to be exact, John 2) and then you assert that He gets a free pass because D&C 89 "hadn't been revealed" yet...

It's problematic, is it not?

--Erik

Still not a problem. Being a faithful Jew, Jesus probably didn't eat many ham and cheese sandwiches either. But I sure can enjoy them.

[Calm]

Whatever the science of grape fermentation, this "traditional" explanation grants the LDS God a measure of consistency (he doesn't do a thing one day and then outlaw it the next). He's not left red-faced over his conduct in John 2 in light of D&C 89 and subsequent revelation. You're still tracking with me here, right?

Do you believe that all laws given by God are still in effect at this time (circumcision as I mentioned above or the noneating of pork or mixing of meat and milk as mentioned by TSS)? If not, then how is that any different?

[mfbukowski]

Do you believe that all laws given by God are still in effect at this time (circumcision as I mentioned above or the noneating of pork or mixing of meat and milk as mentioned by TSS)? If not, then how is that any different?

Or how about the commandment to build an ark?

Do you mean I can finally get that thing out of my back yard?

My wife will be so happy!!

[Kenngo1969]

If you accept the premise that Jesus is God and that He aided & abetted alcoholic beverage consumption at a party (a wedding feast to be exact, John 2) and then you assert that He gets a free pass because D&C 89 "hadn't been revealed" yet...

It's problematic, is it not?

--Erik

Please bear with me. I'm limited to single-paragraph (and/or looooong paragraph) responses because the [Enter] key on my keyboard doesn't seem to want to work on the Board, even though apparently, it works everywhere else. I'm sure you know, given your past association with the Church, that we LDS believe in the principle of "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10 KJV). Similarly, the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of receiving light and continuing in God, whereupon we receive more light, "And that light growth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (Doctrine & Covenants 50:24). 2 Nephi 29:9 notes, "And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever." Even Christ Himself, although he achieved perfection in His premortal state except for not having been resurrected yet (compare Matthew 5:48 with 3 Nephi 12:48 in the Book of Mormon), "increased in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God and man" during His mortal life (Luke 2:52 KJV). Christ lived the Gospel and the covenants of His Dispensation. We live the Gospel and the covenants of our Dispensation. I don't find the concepts of an open canon and of continuing revelation "problematic" in the least. Again, if you wish to confine yourself to the Holy Bible (which, while I revere it, I don't consider it God's last, best word on any subject except, perhaps, for what Christ and His Apostles did in the old world), more power to you: Latter-day Saints are under no such constraints. Edited May 27, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

Or how about the commandment to build an ark?

Do you mean I can finally get that thing out of my back yard?

My wife will be so happy!!

I have been preparing to cross the river Jordon and destroy the inhabitants completely. I glad I can finally drop that. I aam just getting to old for an invasion.

[mfbukowski]

I have been preparing to cross the river Jordon and destroy the inhabitants completely. I glad I can finally drop that. I aam just getting to old for an invasion.

Great example- I was trying to think of another but couldn't! Smashed any golden calves lately?

[Stargazer]

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

Up until the last election we had state liquor stores in Washington state, too. There are lots of "dry" counties throughout the USA. Alcohol regulations vary widely all over the place, and you while you might be jusitifed in blaming LDS for certain peculiarities in SLC, you would not be able to do so in other places. And in some other places they are REALLY weird.

But let's blame the LDS. That's always more fun.

[Stargazer]

This will come as news to Programmer and to my LDS sister & brother-in-law (see post #189). How do we get the word out & spare ourselves some trouble? You write such well-reasoned posts calmoriah (even though I often disagree).

:0)

--Erik

Yes it will be news to some. So what? I've heard weirder personal doctrines coming out of the mouths of Evangelicals.

The wife and I just got back from a cruise vacation where the cruise line gifted us with a bottle of wine. I suppose some would think it sinful, but we did not immediately pop the cork and dump the contents down the drain. We gave it to our son and daughter-in-law who are not members of the Church. Waste not, want not.

Yes, and it surprised our son, who grew up LDS but left the Church in order to be in the same denomination as his wife.

[Stargazer]

If you accept the premise that Jesus is God and that He aided & abetted alcoholic beverage consumption at a party (a wedding feast to be exact, John 2) and then you assert that He gets a free pass because D&C 89 "hadn't been revealed" yet...

It's problematic, is it not?

--Erik

No, it isn't. Why do you think so?

Jesus gave the entire Law of Moses to Moses. Do you really think he was following every jot and tittle of that while he awaited His time on earth?

[Calm]

Yes it will be news to some. So what? I've heard weirder personal doctrines coming out of the mouths of Evangelicals.

The wife and I just got back from a cruise vacation where the cruise line gifted us with a bottle of wine. I suppose some would think it sinful, but we did not immediately pop the cork and dump the contents down the drain. We gave it to our son and daughter-in-law who are not members of the Church. Waste not, want not.

Yes, and it surprised our son, who grew up LDS but left the Church in order to be in the same denomination as his wife.

We had a bottle of fine rum handy to use to help a friend through her first tornado, worked great for reducing her level of anxiety to acceptable from total panic. It was even consumed in our home! (basement under the stairs to be exact)

[Kenngo1969]

We had a bottle of fine rum handy to use to help a friend through her first tornado, worked great for reducing her level of anxiety to acceptable from total panic. It was even consumed in our home! (basement under the stairs to be exact)

Sounds like quite a party!

[ERayR]

We had a bottle of fine rum handy to use to help a friend through her first tornado, worked great for reducing her level of anxiety to acceptable from total panic. It was even consumed in our home! (basement under the stairs to be exact)

Its hard to be panicked if your totally zonked.

[Calm]

Its hard to be panicked if your totally zonked.

That was the idea....and it worked.

[Five Solas]

Please bear with me. I'm limited to single-paragraph (and/or looooong paragraph) responses because the [Enter] key on my keyboard doesn't seem to want to work on the Board, even though apparently, it works everywhere else. I'm sure you know, given your past association with the Church, that we LDS believe in the principle of "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10 KJV). Similarly, the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of receiving light and continuing in God, whereupon we receive more light, "And that light growth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (Doctrine & Covenants 50:24). 2 Nephi 29:9 notes, "And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever." Even Christ Himself, although he achieved perfection in His premortal state except for not having been resurrected yet (compare Matthew 5:48 with 3 Nephi 12:48 in the Book of Mormon), "increased in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God and man" during His mortal life (Luke 2:52 KJV). Christ lived the Gospel and the covenants of His Dispensation. We live the Gospel and the covenants of our Dispensation. I don't find the concepts of an open canon and of continuing revelation "problematic" in the least. Again, if you wish to confine yourself to the Holy Bible (which, while I revere it, I don't consider it God's last, best word on any subject except, perhaps, for what Christ and His Apostles did in the old world), more power to you: Latter-day Saints are under no such constraints.

You’d do well to venture outside the KJV, Kenngo1969. Isaiah 28:9-10 from the Jewish Publication Society’s 1985 translation of TANAKH.

9 To whom would he give instruction?

To whom expound a message?

To those newly weaned from milk,

Just taken away from the breast?

10 That same mutter upon mutter,

Murmur upon murmur,

Now here, now there!

To be perfectly blunt—that really kinda sums it up. Regarding Isaiah 28:10, the commentary in the Jewish Study Bible adds, “Murmur…now there: The Heb consists of repetitive gibberish; Isaiah’s audience disregards his poetic warnings as monotonous nonsense.”

Quite a verse for you to hang your dispensationalist hat on.

And worth noting that Dispensationalism, as you, ERayR, thesometimesaint, calmoriah, mfbukowski and Stargazer seem to be resorting to in order to explain/justify a God who aids & abets one moment and outlaws the next—is a pretty modern conception, dating back about to the time of Joseph Smith. Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia....spensationalism

I think the old-school (when I was growing up) LDS explanation that wine in the Bible = unfermented grape juice was a whole lot easier to digest than your offering. Curious it appears to have no supporters on this forum.

I do appreciate your replies, even though I feel I'm kind of tough on you. Warmest regards,

--Erik

Edited May 29, 2013 by Five Solas

[thesometimesaint]

You’d do well to venture outside the KJV, Kenngo1969. Isaiah 28:9-10 from the Jewish Publication Society’s 1985 translation of TANAKH.

9 To whom would he give instruction?

To whom expound a message?

To those newly weaned from milk,

Just taken away from the breast?

10 That same mutter upon mutter,

Murmur upon murmur,

Now here, now there!

To be perfectly blunt—that really kinda sums it up. Regarding Isaiah 28:10, the commentary in the Jewish Study Bible adds, “Murmur…now there: The Heb consists of repetitive gibberish; Isaiah’s audience disregards his poetic warnings as monotonous nonsense.”

Quite a verse for you to hang your dispensationalist hat on.

And worth noting that Dispensationalism, as you, ERayR, thesometimesaint, calmoriah, mfbukowski and Stargazer seem to be resorting to in order to explain/justify a God who aids & abets one moment and outlaws the next—is a pretty modern conception, dating back about to the time of Joseph Smith. Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia....spensationalism

I think the old-school (when I was growing up) LDS explanation that wine in the Bible = unfermented grape juice was a whole lot easier to digest than your offering. Curious it appears to have no supporters on this forum.

I do appreciate your replies, even though I feel I'm kind of tough on you. Warmest regards,

--Erik

The OT part of the Christian Bible itself has contradictory "commandments" in it. Exodus 20 has Thou shalt not kill, yet Deuteronomy 20 has Thou shalt utterly destroy them.

The concept goes back a lot further that JS. There is about a 400 year gap from the last of the Old Testament to the beginnings of the New Testament.

I've been a member for 42 years now. I've heard that argument, but never believed it. It is totally lacking evidence even from the Bible itself. We have no modern day revelation on what Jesus did contradicting what is claimed in the Bible.

Always good to talk to you too.

[Calm]

And worth noting that Dispensationalism, as you, ERayR, thesometimesaint, calmoriah, mfbukowski and Stargazer seem to be resorting to in order to explain/justify a God who aids & abets one moment and outlaws the next—is a pretty modern conception, dating back about to the time of Joseph Smith. Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia....spensationalism

I think the old-school (when I was growing up) LDS explanation that wine in the Bible = unfermented grape juice was a whole lot easier to digest than your offering. Curious it appears to have no supporters on this forum.

Perhaps I have missed it or just don't understand your post here, but I see no response to how you would interpret the cessation of certain commands from God given in the past to believers (such as circumcision, diet restrictions of pork, etc. and other things that have been mentioned that have been applied to the group and not individuals).

Why do you see the WoW as significantly different than the diet restrictions of the ancient Israelites that you don't currently follow (I am assuming this, perhaps you do follow kosher rules and have your children circumcised, would stone adulterers, etc. if you had a chance...please correct me if I've made an invalid assumption about what commands from the Bible you choose to follow).

[Five Solas]

Perhaps I have missed it or just don't understand your post here, but I see no response to how you would interpret the cessation of certain commands from God given in the past to believers (such as circumcision, diet restrictions of pork, etc. and other things that have been mentioned that have been applied to the group and not individuals).

Why do you see the WoW as significantly different than the diet restrictions of the ancient Israelites that you don't currently follow (I am assuming this, perhaps you do follow kosher rules and have your children circumcised, would stone adulterers, etc. if you had a chance...please correct me if I've made an invalid assumption about what commands from the Bible you choose to follow).

Hey calmoriah--

In answer to your question regarding my understanding/interpretation of Old Testament vs. New--I'm a lot more comfortable with the alternative view to Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology. The link I provided previously should be of some help to you if you're interested in exploring further.

Regards,

--Erik

[Five Solas]

The OT part of the Christian Bible itself has contradictory "commandments" in it. Exodus 20 has Thou shalt not kill, yet Deuteronomy 20 has Thou shalt utterly destroy them.

The concept goes back a lot further that JS. There is about a 400 year gap from the last of the Old Testament to the beginnings of the New Testament.

I've been a member for 42 years now. I've heard that argument, but never believed it. It is totally lacking evidence even from the Bible itself. We have no modern day revelation on what Jesus did contradicting what is claimed in the Bible.

Always good to talk to you too.

IMO, it's kind of the same problem as Kenngo1969--an over-reliance on the KJV. "Kill" is not the commonly accepted rendering from the Hebrew. Although your example isn't quite as explosive as his (Isaiah 28:10, post #219).

As I wrote previously, Dispensationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon, appearing on the scene around the time of Joseph Smith. 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

[thesometimesaint]

IMO, it's kind of the same problem as Kenngo1969--an over-reliance on the KJV. "Kill" is not the commonly accepted rendering from the Hebrew. Although your example isn't quite as explosive as his (Isaiah 28:10, post #219).

As I wrote previously, Dispensationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon, appearing on the scene around the time of Joseph Smith. 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

We believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. That gives the LDS a large degree of latitude in determining what is its actual doctrines are. I know of no other Christian groups that claims every word of the Bible is literally true when pinned down to specifics. IE; There are no four corners on a globe. I don't care how high up a mountain you are you aren't going to literally see with your human eyes the whole world at once, or any ball for that matter.

Given the overall context of the Decalogue. The word kill can only mean murder. The unlawful killing of a human being. It certainly wouldn't apply to plants and animals, war, punishment for crime. Which the Bible presents plenty of evidence for killing in war to be restricted to murder. IE; "Thou shalt utterly destroy".

The word dispensationalism is relatively new. The concepts behind it are as old as the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Dispensationalism

JS had nothing to do with it. You are falling for the old correlation is causation fallacy.

[mfbukowski]

As I wrote previously, Dispensationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon, appearing on the scene around the time of Joseph Smith.

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.