Jump to content

Article re church's interest in land


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indulging in alcohol consumption can be very destructive indeed. It’s not merely a temporal covenant. There really is wisdom in abstaining, even if you’re not under covenant to obey the Word of Wisdom. 

In many cultures throughout history drinking alcohol was probably safer in terms of health than drinking the water.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In many cultures throughout history drinking alcohol was probably safer in terms of health than drinking the water.

I'd say that'd be more location based than culture based though. Even today there are plenty of places in 1st world countries where it's still unsafe to drink the water (even from the taps).

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By definition, a resurrected being would not need food for survival or sustenance

CFR please 

Also just because some behaviour is optional doesn’t mean the parts of the body involved would automatically become vestigial.  Eating, especially with others, is an enjoyable occupation. If eternity is the ultimate joy filled experience, I see no reason why our digestive system would shrink to practically nonexistent. 
 

Would something fill in the space left behind or would we just be hollow in those areas?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please 

Also just because some behaviour is optional doesn’t mean the parts of the body involved would automatically become vestigial.  Eating, especially with others, is an enjoyable occupation. If eternity is the ultimate joy filled experience, I see no reason why our digestive system would shrink to practically nonexistent. 
 

Would something fill in the space left behind or would we just be hollow in those areas?

And would throw out the teaching that there will be sex happening in the CK with children to follow. Completely goes against all that stuff, and would definitely throw out the argument that gay marriage can't be right because two of the same sex can't produce a child and that's the number one deal in the CK. Or the upper tier of it.

Or maybe the church believes women will have a baby with the Holy Ghost overtaking her. But that goes against early leaders comments that it's physical sex. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

In the resurrection, we’ll be able to smoke meth? ;) 

Possibly, but don’t think we would want to as I am guessing it wouldn’t make us high...meth imo is a corruption of good things and a perfected body would reject corruption Imo. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'd say that'd be more location based than culture based though. Even today there are plenty of places in 1st world countries where it's still unsafe to drink the water (even from the taps).

When I visited Europe in 1968, we were told not to drink tap water in France or Italy.

Even small children only drank water if it had a little wine in it.

My uncle lived in France, and that's what his kids drank as well

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please 

Also just because some behaviour is optional doesn’t mean the parts of the body involved would automatically become vestigial.  Eating, especially with others, is an enjoyable occupation. If eternity is the ultimate joy filled experience, I see no reason why our digestive system would shrink to practically nonexistent. 
 

Would something fill in the space left behind or would we just be hollow in those areas?

CFR? Just my own opinion. I didn’t think we were required on here to give backup documentation for our opinions (beyond our own reasoning). Otherwise, I could require you to document yours (beyond your own reasoning) that a resurrected body will have a functioning digestive tract and metabolism, etc., which I won’t do. 
 

When I said vestigial, I didn’t have in mind anything shrinking or there being a need to fill in the space. This is all detail I haven’t thought deeply enough to speculate about. It’s not that important to me, really. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In many cultures throughout history drinking alcohol was probably safer in terms of health than drinking the water.

Doesn’t make it a good idea today, when most of us have access to sanitary conditions. It’s like saying regular wine consumption is healthy because it’s an anti-oxidant. So are unfermented grape juice and other things. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t make it a good idea today, when most of us have access to sanitary conditions. It’s like saying regular wine consumption is healthy because it’s an anti-oxidant. So are unfermented grape juice and other things. 

The focus is on the alcohol content of wine.  Which has to do with "sanitizing" certain microbes and tiny insects.  Just what I have heard (so please no CFR, shudder shudder  :blink:).

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, longview said:

The focus is on the alcohol content of wine.  Which has to do with "sanitizing" certain microbes and tiny insects.  Just what I have heard (so please no CFR, shudder shudder  :blink:).

I’ve not encountered that argument, but I don’t find it compelling either. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'd say that'd be more location based than culture based though. Even today there are plenty of places in 1st world countries where it's still unsafe to drink the water (even from the taps).

Yeah, there is a cultural element based on where some societies chose to get their water but it is mostly about what water you have access to.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t make it a good idea today, when most of us have access to sanitary conditions. It’s like saying regular wine consumption is healthy because it’s an anti-oxidant. So are unfermented grape juice and other things. 

You’re actually better off just eating grapes than drinking either wine of grape juice. Especially red and purple ones. That wasn’t possible either for many in the past. Wine was the only way the stuff would last in the trip from the grower to the consumer.

I am not convinced that total abstention from alcohol is generally desirable. It is forbidden specifically in this generation and only to those who have made covenants because of the evils of this generation. I find going on about the evils of alcohol beyond that is reaching beyond the Word of Wisdom.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, there is a cultural element based on where some societies chose to get their water but it is mostly about what water you have access to.

You’re actually better off just eating grapes than drinking either wine of grape juice. Especially red and purple ones. That wasn’t possible either for many in the past. Wine was the only way the stuff would last in the trip from the grower to the consumer.

I am not convinced that total abstention from alcohol is generally desirable. It is forbidden specifically in this generation and only to those who have made covenants because of the evils of this generation. I find going on about the evils of alcohol beyond that is reaching beyond the Word of Wisdom.

I've met a lot of church members who somehow can't understand the idea of drinking in moderation. They think that you either abstain totally, or you're on the road to becoming an alcoholic. I don't really like wine, so that's not something I bother with. I have an IPA once in a while, but never more than one or two. I suppose I've killed a few brain cells (which I'm sure some people see as obvious), but I don't think it's enough to worry about.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced that total abstention from alcohol is generally desirable. It is forbidden specifically in this generation and only to those who have made covenants because of the evils of this generation. I find going on about the evils of alcohol beyond that is reaching beyond the Word of Wisdom.

One could make a reasonable argument that some people can drink alcohol and not suffer any consequences to speak of. But here you’ve gone beyond that and taken an extreme position that abstinence is not desirable. You’d be hard pressed to convince me that I’ve missed out on anything of real value by having abstained throughout my life. 
 

And there’s nothing wrong with accurately identifying health advantages that inhere from Word of Wisdom observance. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR? Just my own opinion. I didn’t think we were required on here to give backup documentation for our opinions (beyond our own reasoning). Otherwise, I could require you to document yours (beyond your own reasoning) that a resurrected body will have a functioning digestive tract and metabolism, etc., which I won’t do. 
 

When I said vestigial, I didn’t have in mind anything shrinking or there being a need to fill in the space. This is all detail I haven’t thought deeply enough to speculate about. It’s not that important to me, really. 

“By definition” is an assertion.  If you attach “in my opinion” or something like that, it would be helpful as that won’t waste either of our time by leading me to assume you have information I have not yet come across.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

. I suppose I've killed a few brain cells (which I'm sure some people see as obvious), but I don't think it's enough to worry about.

I was relatively relaxed about alcohol outside of pregnancy and drinking to the point of impairment (and for special health issues) prior to this latest study showing any alcohol kills brain cells, waiting to see more information on validity of findings and on lasting effect given the level of adaptability in the brain to see if I should be more uptight about it.  There is no way to completely avoid alcohol after all.

https://steadydrinker.com/articles/foods-drinks-alcohol/

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Calm said:

“By definition” is an assertion.  If you attach “in my opinion” or something like that, it would be helpful as that won’t waste either of our time by leading me to assume you have information I have not yet come across.

The statement you refer to is this:

By definition, a resurrected being would not need food for survival or sustenance 

That part should be axiomatic to both of us. Are you really saying a resurrected being will die unless he/she eats food? That a resurrected being is subject to death after all? That contradicts everything I’ve ever heard, read or taught in the Church on the topic of resurrection. 
 

Perhaps it is I who should be giving you the CFR. 
 

Added later: This is from the “Resurrection” entry in “Gospel Topics” on the Church website. The bolded emphasis is mine. 
 

Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the body in an immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death. Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, we are subject to physical death, which is the separation of the spirit from the body. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected and saved from physical death (see 1 Corinthians 15:22). Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the body in an immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That part should be axiomatic to both of us. Are you really saying a resurrected being will die unless he/she eats food?

There is information given in a definition and there are implications and inferences.

I don’t believe the scriptures or any other revelation has specifically defined what allows a resurrected being to never die, but I may have missed that.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One could make a reasonable argument that some people can drink alcohol and not suffer any consequences to speak of. But here you’ve gone beyond that and taken an extreme position that abstinence is not desirable. You’d be hard pressed to convince me that I’ve missed out on anything of real value by having abstained throughout my life. 
 

And there’s nothing wrong with accurately identifying health advantages that inhere from Word of Wisdom observance. 

I haven’t taken that stand. I am taking the stand that the Word of Wisdom is not intuitive and does not stem from reason. I follow the Word of Wisdom though some may disagree with me for various reasons. I consider it to be good counsel given by God for this specific time. That is great. It should be followed by the saints.

I wouldn’t try to convince you of any such thing.

Identifying health advantages is fine as long as it does not drip over into condemnation of non-members who are not doing what they obviously should be. I would never presume to try to talk my friends out of drinking based on the health advantages that can accrue and suggesting drinking is a colossally stupid decision. I might if they were an alcoholic or a member or both. Also if they drive drunk or go boating drunk or something dangerous along those lines.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is information given in a definition and there are implications and inferences.

I don’t believe the scriptures or any other revelation has specifically defined what allows a resurrected being to never die, but I may have missed that.

The teaching is that a resurrected being is inherently not subject to death or sickness (see my quotation above from “Gospel Topics”). The notion that such a being is subject to death after all and must rely on food for survival is so at odds with Church doctrine and teaching and a normative understanding thereof that I think a CFR is incumbent upon you, not me. This is the first I’ve heard of such a thing from a professing member of the Church. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I haven’t taken that stand. I am taking the stand that the Word of Wisdom is not intuitive and does not stem from reason. I follow the Word of Wisdom though some may disagree with me for various reasons. I consider it to be good counsel given by God for this specific time. That is great. It should be followed by the saints.

I wouldn’t try to convince you of any such thing.

Identifying health advantages is fine as long as it does not drip over into condemnation of non-members who are not doing what they obviously should be. I would never presume to try to talk my friends out of drinking based on the health advantages that can accrue and suggesting drinking is a colossally stupid decision. I might if they were an alcoholic or a member or both. Also if they drive drunk or go boating drunk or something dangerous along those lines.

Did you not say, “I am not convinced that total abstention from alcohol is generally desirable”? 
 

Isn’t that tantamount to saying that abstinence is generally undesirable? If not, please clarify. 
 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is the first I’ve heard of such a thing from a professing member of the Church. 

That they don’t know how resurrected beings aren’t subject to death?  Somehow I doubt that.  I think you may be misreading me.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

That they don’t know how resurrected beings aren’t subject to death?  Somehow I doubt that.  I think you may be misreading me.

No, that they rely on food for survival. 
 

How about the Father and the Son? Must they eat to survive or maintain wellness?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, that they rely on food for survival. 
 

How about the Father and the Son? Must they eat to survive or maintain wellness?

Yes, you are misreading me,  No, I am not interested in trying to correct the misreading as you appear to have overly focused on something trivial to my comment.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you not say, “I am not convinced that total abstention from alcohol is generally desirable”? 
 

Isn’t that tantamount to saying that abstinence is generally undesirable? If not, please clarify. 
 

I probably communicated that badly.

I am saying that for people in general it may not desirable. For members I think it is desirable. If everyone were a committed member than I would flip-flop to thinking abstinence in general is good. However if that were the case the evil and designing people that made the Word of Wisdom necessary wouldn’t be around either.

If the Savior returns and invites me to drink wine with him as he has promised to drink with others I also do not plan on trying to say it is against my religion. :)

Then again I doubt I will get an invite.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...