"Reasons" for bans on coffee, earrings, swearing..

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

marg wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:Reasons: (not purposes;-) to assert authority and control for the purpose of subjugation; well-intended, misinformed, misplaced advice; prejudicial standards of one era inappropriate in another; ignorance; fear; insensitivity; frustration; match the 7DA health standards...

Now for tatoos and ear rings: plain and simple stupidy and ignorance of human developmental stages and issues of individuality!! The final display of non-inspiration. Very purposeful, for the discerninig!!


Hi Roger,

Do you also think rules may be used for psychology purposes of differentiating from other religious groups? (Yes) If all churches or sects were pretty much the same, people would find switching out of the group to another sect fairly easy. (True) The more differentiation which sets them apart, the less likely the switch. Once people are mentally committed (i like that term :-) to Mormonism, then following peculiar rules enables them to differentiate themselves but as well some of the rules gives followers a sense of superiority over other groups. (The nature of us beasts ;-) (bold & UL added)


Hi Marg, A new "ANYTHING" has to differentiate itself from its market competetors. Or, be a counterfit and steal, rather than compete. Some might say Joseph Smith was/did both??

Sooo, when 'prophet' is at stake, does the end justify/out-live the means??? History is replete with scoundrels whose dynasty becomes not only socially acceptable but honoured. Monarchy (and Political Nepotism in Democracy :0) thrives on such immoral deceit.

When my wife and i joined in the '50s, a buzz-word seemed to be "...pecluiar people..." and suggested we had joined a special group with special-everything. We weren't especially impressed with that. We already thought we were pretty special :-). What we wanted was a Church that provided a good and friendly place to harbor our young family. And to a degree it did that, as well as gave us uncounted opportunities for personal growth.

BUT, we didn't allow ourselves to be duped by toooo much unreasonable thinking. Ex: i strongly objected to 'pinning crepe paper' to the bottom of mini-skirts at dances, (they really did that!?) and, we did "The Twist" with Chubby Checker ----- before it was "approved"!!! :-)

I think on display in these church edicts is fear, insecurity, ignorance, bad-advice, lack of inspiration AND revelation. As the LDS church matures--funeral by funeral, as someone said a few threads ago--such absurdities will be dispensed with.

Of course, not ALL will go. Some folks like wearing different "garments" exposed or otherwise. So be it.

Ajax, Closer to "Main-Stream" will be good IF it's the stream of Unitarian-Universalists, Episcopalians or Canad's new United Church!!! Not the orthodox Evangelical 'stream', which at the time LDS has more in common with than not. Ya get that "Cool-7"? :-) As such, expanding its good-stuff, and dumping its other, LDSism could be a useful Community Church... IMSCO, Roger
_marg

Post by _marg »

Roger Morrison wrote: When my wife and i joined in the '50s, a buzz-word seemed to be "...pecluiar people..." and suggested we had joined a special group with special-everything. We weren't especially impressed with that. We already thought we were pretty special :-). What we wanted was a Church that provided a good and friendly place to harbor our young family. And to a degree it did that, as well as gave us uncounted opportunities for personal growth.

BUT, we didn't allow ourselves to be duped by toooo much unreasonable thinking. Ex: i strongly objected to 'pinning crepe paper' to the bottom of mini-skirts at dances, (they really did that!?) and, we did "The Twist" with Chubby Checker ----- before it was "approved"!!! :-)


So what is your background? How religious was your upbringing? Your wife’s? Why choose the Mormon church over the one you were raised in? What opportunities did the church give you for personal growth? Do you think all church (Christian) are pretty much the same in their demands on followers? ... In the absurdities of their beliefs?
Are you kids now adults and paying tithe members? Did your kids go on missions? Would you have considered raising your kids in Scientology? If not, why not?

As a comment, I believe previously you said when the church no longer offered you (perceived) benefits, you left. It would seem to me that would be much easier for a person whose extended family is not tied to the Mormon church and who was not indoctrinated their entire life into the church than it would for someone brought up from birth in the church.

I think on display in these church edicts is fear, insecurity, ignorance, bad-advice, lack of inspiration AND revelation. As the LDS church matures--funeral by funeral, as someone said a few threads ago--such absurdities will be dispensed with.


I was listening to the link I believe Jason Bourne gave for a Armand Mauss (sorry if I have the name slightly wrong as I’m going by memory), but Mr. Mauss was mentioning that before mid 1960’s the church was more liberal than it is now. There was less tension between outside society and the church compared to now. As society has become more liberal since that time..the church has become more conservative. So rather than as you suggest absurdities will be dispensed with, it doesn’t appear to be what has actually been happening.

So for example as society was accepting or getting used to miniskirts and the Twist back in the early 60's ( I believe) , those who frowned upon and viewed these new trends as reflective of poor moral values would find the church’s conservative position which you noted was against these, as appealing. And there would be a sense of superiority, that one had better moral values than those who accepted society's liberal behaviors. So socieity has not reverted to a more conservative position since then and it seems to me the church has continued with its extreme conservatism, such that absurdities are not being dispensed with as you suggest.

Of course, not ALL will go. Some folks like wearing different "garments" exposed or otherwise. So be it.


I think the case is more a function that some folks willingly accept authority with little to no questioning. It might be due to their nature or their upbringing or a function of both. Those who wear garments it would seem to me are that type. It isn't a matter of really liking garments, it's a matter of acceptance of what they've been told without much critical thinking applied.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Marg, i think we might be "sitting in the same pew." :-)

marg wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote: When my wife and i joined in the '50s, a buzz-word seemed to be "...pecluiar people..." and suggested we had joined a special group with special-everything. We weren't especially impressed with that. We already thought we were pretty special :-). What we wanted was a Church that provided a good and friendly place to harbor our young family. And to a degree it did that, as well as gave us uncounted opportunities for personal growth.

BUT, we didn't allow ourselves to be duped by toooo much unreasonable thinking. Ex: i strongly objected to 'pinning crepe paper' to the bottom of mini-skirts at dances, (they really did that!?) and, we did "The Twist" with Chubby Checker ----- before it was "approved"!!! :-)


So what is your background? How religious was your upbringing? Your wife’s? Why choose the Mormon church over the one you were raised in? Because of LDS missionaries AND our conclusion, at the time that it would be a good influence upon our growing family--in many ways it was, in others not. What opportunities did the church give you for personal growth? See below. Do you think all church (Christian) are pretty much the same in their demands on followers? No ... In the absurdities of their beliefs? No, except as most are based on "the Fall and Redemption of man." The ultimate absurdity, IMSCO.
Are you kids now adults and paying tithe members? 1 of 5 Did your kids go on missions? No, all girls :-) Grandson did. Would you have considered raising your kids in Scientology? If not, why not? I consider everything then act according to MY findings and goals.

Brought up in a good blue-collar Canadian United Church home. UC is a gentle, accepting, non-dogmatic, non-intrusive place of worship. One didn't need to be a "Saint" to attend. Probably the first to accept Women equal to Men in all matters. Possibly because they recognized women as the ones who held homes together, attended Home-and-School, and were generally more compassionate than men. Mother was church soloist and attended when we didn't go 'camping'. Dad attended on Mothers' Day and Easter. I attended SS where the teacher talked more about Saturday night's hockey game to young hockey fans...i wasn't a HF...

From your question re 'church opportunities' i take it you are nonLDS? One of LDS glories, if not THE, is its laity involvement as 'leaders' of local congregations. (Also has its down-side:-) Also, children are given opportunities to speak publicly in church services from very early ages. A wonderful exposure to public speaking that usually serves the individual positively through out their lives. Joining a very small LDS Branch we were warmly fellowshipped and early 'called' to serve in various areas of responsibilities. Both my wife and i held every low echelon position up to Stake Presidency. In this respect LDSism must add more polish to an individual than any church that i am aware of. It validates like non other--those who take their membership seriously, and resonsibly. Generally speaking, one doesn't attend church, they participate in the church. Can be both +/-.


As a comment, I believe previously you said when the church no longer offered you (perceived) benefits, you left. It would seem to me that would be much easier for a person whose extended family is not tied to the Mormon church and who was not indoctrinated their entire life into the church than it would for someone brought up from birth in the church.

I agree, much easier. I am extremely empathetic towards those living in such states of anxiety. To stand as individuals under such circumstances they must be of the highest states of morality and integrity. My 'prayers' are with them. It is most unfortunate that such 'Spirits' are lost by the institution. Another LDS institutional/corporate weakness.


I think on display in these church edicts is fear, insecurity, ignorance, bad-advice, lack of inspiration AND revelation. As the LDS church matures--funeral by funeral, as someone said a few threads ago--such absurdities will be dispensed with.


I was listening to the link I believe Jason Bourne gave for a Armand Mauss (sorry if I have the name slightly wrong as I’m going by memory), but Mr. Mauss was mentioning that before mid 1960’s the church was more liberal than it is now. There was less tension between outside society and the church compared to now. As society has become more liberal since that time..the church has become more conservative. So rather than as you suggest absurdities will be dispensed with, it doesn’t appear to be what has actually been happening. To some degree yes. But Black equality came in 1978. Women can now open and close church meetings with prayer. AND there are "Two Piece Garments" that don't hang below the knees :-)

So for example as society was accepting or getting used to miniskirts and the Twist back in the early 60's ( I believe) , those who frowned upon and viewed these new trends as reflective of poor moral values would find the church’s conservative position which you noted was against these, as appealing. Quite likely. And there would be a sense of superiority, that one had better moral values than those who accepted society's liberal behaviors. Possibly...but i think a feeling of "security" might be as appropriate. In general those who oppose "progress" do so out of fear. So socieity has not reverted to a more conservative position since then and it seems to me the church has continued with its extreme conservatism, such that absurdities are not being dispensed with as you suggest. Certainly not at the rate intelligence would expect.

Of course, not ALL will go. Some folks like wearing different "garments" exposed or otherwise. So be it.


I think the case is more a function that some folks willingly accept authority with little to no questioning. Tends to a sense of security, placing ones' self in the hands of superiors who one trusts. Until there is an awakening and questions about their keeper. It might be due to their nature or their upbringing or a function of both. Those who wear garments it would seem to me are that type. It isn't a matter of really liking garments, it's a matter of acceptance of what they've been told without much critical thinking applied. Correct. But it must be understood that wearing Gs is the determinate of Celestial residency. A very strong insentive.


Marg, you are generally right in your last paragraph. I suggest in times past, in NA, it was much easier for the Top to influence and control the Bottom. Conditions and circumstances that enabled that have rapidly changed. A fact that LDS heiarchy doesn't seem to appreciate. As more 2nd generation LDS become better educated--critical thinkers--Mormonism will be influenced to the better, or become relic.

I think LDSism has too much 'invested' to watch themselves become 'bankrupt' so to speak. Within their 'holdings' they do have some good stuff that does serve to benefit their happy-folks.

Good/nice dialogue, warm regards, Roger
_marg

Post by _marg »

Roger Morrison wrote:

Brought up in a good blue-collar Canadian United Church home. UC is a gentle, accepting, non-dogmatic, non-intrusive place of worship. One didn't need to be a "Saint" to attend. Probably the first to accept Women equal to Men in all matters. Possibly because they recognized women as the ones who held homes together, attended Home-and-School, and were generally more compassionate than men. Mother was church soloist and attended when we didn't go 'camping'. Dad attended on Mothers' Day and Easter. I attended SS where the teacher talked more about Saturday night's hockey game to young hockey fans...i wasn't a HF...


I grew up in Quebec in the West Island. Catholics had their separate school board and Protestant and others had theirs, which I believe was called the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal. I don't remember anyone expressing "wacky religious ideas" when I was growing up. Religion just didn't seem to be much an interest of anyone I knew, even the Catholic kids.

For all intents and purposes given my understanding of the United Church which was the main Protestant church in the area I lived, you essentially had almost an atheist type upbringing..no? Atheists could go to the United Church and not feel too out of place or that the service or beliefs were too weird.

My impression of Mormonism is that it is similar in absurdities and in requirement of time and devotion from members as the Jehovah Witnesses. That's my impression though I haven't spent nearly the time in looking into J.W's as I have into Mormonism.

I have a hard time fathoming how anyone who is brought up in an extremely liberal religious environment could get involved with Mormonism. I suspect your wife may have played a large roll in this.


From your question re 'church opportunities' i take it you are nonLDS? One of LDS glories, if not THE, is its laity involvement as 'leaders' of local congregations. (Also has its down-side:-) Also, children are given opportunities to speak publicly in church services from very early ages. A wonderful exposure to public speaking that usually serves the individual positively through out their lives. Joining a very small LDS Branch we were warmly fellowshipped and early 'called' to serve in various areas of responsibilities. Both my wife and i held every low echelon position up to Stake Presidency. In this respect LDSism must add more polish to an individual than any church that i am aware of. It validates like non other--those who take their membership seriously, and resonsibly. Generally speaking, one doesn't attend church, they participate in the church. Can be both +/-.


The type of experience you are talking about I believe my husband got from the Kinsmen. Wives also participanted in many of the activities for the community service as well as the many social functions. A wife could also join the Kinnettes. I do think my kids missed out on group activities in which they'd have opportunities for speaking to the group. That is one of the benefits I see the church providing. My daughter taught english in Japan for a year and 1/2 so she had a "missionary" type experience which I believe can be a benefit. My son 23 years though hasn't had any of these experiences and just the other day I was thinking of encouraging him to join the Kinsmen.


I agree, much easier. I am extremely empathetic towards those living in such states of anxiety. To stand as individuals under such circumstances they must be of the highest states of morality and integrity. My 'prayers' are with them. It is most unfortunate that such 'Spirits' are lost by the institution. Another LDS institutional/corporate weakness.


Yes I agree, the exmormons I've seen on the Net display extremely strong moral values. The church essentially shuns exmembers and that punishment serves as a "barrier to exit." For an individual to leave they often have to put up with much hardship ..in their work, social and family life.


previously I wrote: And there would be a sense of superiority, that one had better moral values than those who accepted society's liberal behaviors.

Possibly...but i think a feeling of "security" might be as appropriate. In general those who oppose "progress" do so out of fear.


In my readings on the Net of most religious people I interpret an attitude of moral superiority, that they are better people than those outside their religious group. And this is particularly the case with Mormons. I think this is intentional by the Mormon church. It is a selling feature they offer which by the way I believe is one reason you bought into it. The church markets itself as providing the best moral guidance system with which to raise a family. The church leadership itself which controls to a great extent the progress or direction of the church I'm sure are fearful of progress which might weaken or destroy them, but I don't believe the average person is. They are just following along with whatever the church says.


previously: I think the case is more a function that some folks willingly accept authority with little to no questioning.

Tends to a sense of security, placing ones' self in the hands of superiors who one trusts. Until there is an awakening and questions about their keeper.


The Mormon church promotes discouragement of critical thinking on its beliefs and encouragement acceptance of its authority. While all religious groups probably do so to some extent, the Mormon church is extreme. So I don't think the main reason members accept their religious authority so willingly is a function of wanting "security" I do think for most members this acceptance is more a function of effective indoctrination particularly for those born into the church.

previously: It might be due to their nature or their upbringing or a function of both. Those who wear garments it would seem to me are that type. It isn't a matter of really liking garments, it's a matter of acceptance of what they've been told without much critical thinking applied.

[/quote]Correct. But it must be understood that wearing Gs is the determinate of Celestial residency. A very strong insentive. [/quote]

Right, and effective indoctrination which has suppressed critical thinking in certain areas is why the church can promote such an absurd belief and have intelligent people actually believe it. The human brain's ability to compartmentalize irrational beliefs, is why otherwise extremely intelligent rational individuals willingly belief utter nonsense.


Marg, you are generally right in your last paragraph. I suggest in times past, in NA, it was much easier for the Top to influence and control the Bottom. Conditions and circumstances that enabled that have rapidly changed. A fact that LDS heiarchy doesn't seem to appreciate. As more 2nd generation LDS become better educated--critical thinkers--Mormonism will be influenced to the better, or become relic.

I think LDSism has too much 'invested' to watch themselves become 'bankrupt' so to speak. Within their 'holdings' they do have some good stuff that does serve to benefit their happy-folks.


I have little respect for the church. But don't have the time atm to elaborate.
_OUT OF MY MISERY
_Emeritus
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:32 pm

Post by _OUT OF MY MISERY »

I love coffee, just got my order from DD today. I love to swear, but I can't swear here on this forum....I love earrings and

I think I will be getting a Tattoo shortly...I just can't decide where I want it on my body....???

DUNKIN DONUTS----
When I wake up I will be hungry....but this feels so good right now aaahhhhhh........
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Montreal, eh? We lived in Aylmer Que from '73 - 2000. RCC has certainly lost its influence in Quebec over the last few decades. Members became independent thinkers, if not critical. Similar freedom to the individual in a sense, but allows them to remain RC at heart just not in practice--of birth-control for one thing. Would you agree?

I think LDS folks might shift to a similar more liberal tolerant state as they admit the fallibility of their "Pope" and see the fablism that bases Mormonism, and religion as the big picture. I think there is an inordinate demand for truth in religion that religion was never intended to impart...

Religions are about hope for the hopeless, faith for the fearful, rewards for the faithful/obedient, answers for the frightened and a reason to be diligent in commitment to ecclesiastic powers seen as representing a deity. Non of which need "truth" to impact individual, or group disposition and the consequent pay-backs, whatever they might be.

When discussing/considering religion we make a BIG mistake to think of it in terms as we would've any branch of science or engineering. Religion does not have to be provable to be usable. IMSCO, that is.

Marg your post above:
Correct. But it must be understood that wearing Gs is the determinate of Celestial residency. A very strong insentive. [/quote]

Right, and effective indoctrination which has suppressed critical thinking in certain areas is why the church (and the Establishment) can promote such an absurd belief(s) and have intelligent people actually believe it. The human brain's ability to compartmentalize irrational beliefs, is why otherwise extremely intelligent rational individuals willingly belief utter nonsense. Agreed, like acquiring more and more stuff, attempting to look better than others, altering ones'self with drugs/cosmetics/surgery... steal, lie, cheat, kill and war to satisfy dysfunctions... (Bold added by RM)



Quote:
Marg, you are generally right in your last paragraph. I suggest in times past, in NA, it was much easier for the Top to influence and control the Bottom. Conditions and circumstances that enabled that have rapidly changed. A fact that LDS heiarchy doesn't seem to appreciate. As more 2nd generation LDS become better educated--critical thinkers--Mormonism will be influenced to the better, or become another relic.

I think LDSism has too much 'invested' to watch themselves become 'bankrupt' so to speak. Within their 'holdings' they do have some good stuff that does serve to benefit their happy-folks.



I have little respect for the church. But don't have the time atm to elaborate. (Respect for any church? Or anything having to do with them, or religion in general?)

[/quote]

If not in Que, where now? I have a daughter living in Montreal when--she's not travelling. Warm regards, Roger
_marg

Post by _marg »

Montreal, eh? We lived in Aylmer Que from '73 - 2000. RCC has certainly lost its influence in Quebec over the last few decades. Members became independent thinkers, if not critical. Similar freedom to the individual in a sense, but allows them to remain RC at heart just not in practice--of birth-control for one thing. Would you agree?


Well I’ve pretty much been out of Quebec since 1973. But given my impression I would agree. Armand Mauss ( I should listen to that link again) mentioned a tension between the Mormon church and outside society. I think the tension between RC and society is weaker than for the Mormon church and society. The pope may promote no birth control but individual RC's choose what they will and will not accept from the church. So my impression is that the RCC exerts less control over followers than does the Mormon church.

I think LDS folks might shift to a similar more liberal tolerant state as they admit the fallibility of their "Pope" and see the fablism that bases Mormonism, and religion as the big picture. I think there is an inordinate demand for truth in religion that religion was never intended to impart...


Mormons (born into the church) seem to be (for the most part) extremely (excessively in my opinion) obedient and non-questioning of church authority. As adults there are (I believe) many who effectively have applied critical thinking to church claims and appreciate the church for what it is (not an authority of a god) nor all its claims true. They would leave the church were it not for the personal costs to them of losing family, and their social network. As that critical thinking group within the church grows, which it likely will due to increased access to information via the internet it will likely have an impact on others to be more questioning of the church. Easier access to information via the Internet will make it difficult to keep followers ignorant. As far as the future of Mormonism, I don’t predict. I’m still trying to understand how a church can have such control over intelligent individuals.

Regarding your last sentence, I’m not sure if people have sought truth from religion or if religious authorities have made claims to truth (via God) in order to control people. Without claims to “truth” church authorities would have little justification to demand unquestioning obedience.


Religions are about hope for the hopeless, faith for the fearful, rewards for the faithful/obedient, answers for the frightened and a reason to be diligent in commitment to ecclesiastic powers seen as representing a deity. Non of which need "truth" to impact individual, or group disposition and the consequent pay-backs, whatever they might be.


It is easy for someone like myself, who has had a comfortable middle class upbringing, few worries, to not need a safety net of people to rely upon. I’m sure many people are members of a church not for reasons that the church has the “truth” but rather for social and security benefits.

When discussing/considering religion we make a BIG mistake to think of it in terms as we would've any branch of science or engineering. Religion does not have to be provable to be usable. IMSCO, that is.


I agree fully. And that concept can be applied to any belief. As long as it serves a beneficial purpose for an individual, it doesn’t really matter that the belief is rational.


(Respect for any church? Or anything having to do with them, or religion in general?)


I look upon religion for the most part as anti-critical thinking. Where a religion encourages critical thinking I respect it. But it is not in the best interest of any religious group to encourage critical thinking..except if it means individual can earn greater income and afford to give the church more money.


If not in Que, where now? I have a daughter living in Montreal when--she's not travelling.


I’ve lived in Montreal, Toronto, St. Catherines, Vancouver, and Mission Viejo California, since 1973. Currently in Vancouver where we probably will stay. My husband took an early retirement.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

marg wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:Reasons: (not purposes;-) to assert authority and control for the purpose of subjugation; well-intended, misinformed, misplaced advice; prejudicial standards of one era inappropriate in another; ignorance; fear; insensitivity; frustration; match the 7DA health standards...

Now for tatoos and ear rings: plain and simple stupidy and ignorance of human developmental stages and issues of individuality!! The final display of non-inspiration. Very purposeful, for the discerninig!!


Hi Roger,

Do you also think rules may be used for psychology purposes of differentiating from other religious groups? If all churches or sects were pretty much the same, people would find switching out of the group to another sect fairly easy. The more differentiation which sets them apart, the less likely the switch. Once people are mentally committed to Mormonism, then following peculiar rules enables them to differentiate themselves but as well some of the rules gives followers a sense of superiority over other groups.



Yes, yes. In the thread I started about the Armand Mauss podcast from Sunstone I touch on this. The LDS Church as an organization is interested in just the right amount of tension between assimilation into society and being so different that it becomes a pariah, like it was in from 1830-1900 or so. Thus it may swing back and forth from towards one or the other. Things like the WoW, the one and only true priesthood, dress and grooming, etc. all serve to create a tension against society that keeps the members feeling different enough, or special enough that they will maintain belief and support as well as attract new members that want to be part of something distinct and different. But if it becomes too different it will not attract new members. Or too much like society as well, why join a church that is like what someone already has. But swings back and forth will impact current member. More towards society and the most conservative may leave. More away and the more liberal may leave. For the corporate Church the question will be what will cause the least casualties.
_Mephitus
_Emeritus
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:44 pm

Post by _Mephitus »

I view it as fear mongering. Today i see around me many parents that are unable to see how to teach their children temperance in action or deed. And as such, they only can think to teach the extreme ends of avoidance. As one such example, "abstinence only" sexual education. In such a learning environment, children are presented only a single side, with nothing to pair it against or with. with no other frame of referance, when they do act sexualy they do not know healthy vs harmfull activities. When one looks at this in regards to the WoW, one sees that the only option is to completely avoid these things rather than understand how they can be enjoyed under a very simple level of moderation. So when some experiment, they are unable to screen healthy behavior from unhealthy. And as children are very common to act out, this becomes a unifying beacon when they abuse. It is cited as a prime example as to why they have the ban to begin with. In areas of the world where such activity is normal, and trained to everyone with moderation, the issue almost ceases to exist.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Post by _why me »

The Word of Wisdom is one of the greatest things about the LDS church and yes, it was a head of its time when it was implemented.

First, alcohol has caused great damage to family life. And although it may be true, that one can drink a glass of wine a day without harm or one cup of coffee a day without risk or smoke one cigarette a day, without the threat of cancer, but unfortunately, many people cannot stop with just one. And it is here that the problem exists. There are many a alcoholics who started in their downward slide with that first glass of wine, beer or whiskey. And many a cancer patients began their addiction with that first cigarette and of course, many of addicted coffee drinkers started their addiction with that first cup of coffee.

Where I live, alcohol consumption is hitting the roof because of cheaper booze prices. And this in turn, creates more abuse in the home, and it is usually the woman and the child who suffer. And coffee consumption is very high, and of course coffee is a stimulant.

The word of wisdom saves lives and that is why is it one of the greatest things about the WoW. In fact, I can say with a straight face, that the LDS church has saved lives through its idea of the word of wisdom.

Now about the abstaining from sex before marriage. Recently, there was an article in my newspaper about the increases of STD's. Inside the article were reports that children as young as 12 were catching STD's. Sorry, such youngsters should be playing with barbie dolls and not having sex. I see no good to come of having sex when one is below the age of adulthood. Again the LDS church has been a head of its time in its cautioning about no premarital sex.
Post Reply