If the Word of Wisdom prohibits alcohol consumption

[_Sam Harris]

Do as I say, not as I do.

[_maklelan]

I see them as synonymous. Both words define the same thing: a principle that we are bound to adhere to.

No, they do not. A commandment is delivered from God through revelation to the prophet, who then presents it to the people for their vote. If the vote passes, the revelation is accepted as doctrine. I have no idea what a "binding principle" is, since it is not a commonly used term.[/quote]

Oh, that's classic. And yet you're positive they are not synonyms? That's silly.

unless the canon changes (either with additions or changes), they are not doctrine.

Where is this written?

[_harmony]

I see them as synonymous. Both words define the same thing: a principle that we are bound to adhere to.

No, they do not. A commandment is delivered from God through revelation to the prophet, who then presents it to the people for their vote. If the vote passes, the revelation is accepted as doctrine. I have no idea what a "binding principle" is, since it is not a commonly used term.

Oh, that's classic. And yet you're positive they are not synonyms? That's silly.

What is a "binding principle", Mak? Where did you first hear the term?

unless the canon changes (either with additions or changes), they are not doctrine.

Where is this written?

[/quote]

Are you trying to pin down what doctrine is, Mak? Or what the canon is? Or how the canon is established? Because I'm having a tough time believing you don't know how the canon and the doctrine is established.

[_maklelan]

What is a "binding principle", Mak? Where did you first hear the term?

Several times in the D&C it speaks of the law and the covenant as something requiring "binding." Whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, according to four different sections of the D&C. In several instances the commandments are referred to as "principles." Observe: D%C 138:4, 34 - "That through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved. . . And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be ajudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Principles that are binding cannot mean anything but commandments, unless you don't want to consider the rest of the standard works as criteria by which to judge this little semantics exercise.

unless the canon changes (either with additions or changes), they are not doctrine.

Where is this written?

Are you trying to pin down what doctrine is, Mak? Or what the canon is? Or how the canon is established? Because I'm having a tough time believing you don't know how the canon and the doctrine is established.

Actually, I've already explained exactly how it is established, but no canonization is at all required to create new commandments. You have insisted that it does, and I am asking for your source on that assertion. Can you provide it, yes or no?

[_harmony]

What is a "binding principle", Mak? Where did you first hear the term?

Several times in the D&C it speaks of the law and the covenant as something requiring "binding." Whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, according to four different sections of the D&C. In several instances the commandments are referred to as "principles." Observe: D%C 138:4, 34 - "That through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved. . . And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be ajudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Principles that are binding cannot mean anything but commandments, unless you don't want to consider the rest of the standard works as criteria by which to judge this little semantics exercise.

Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Now see? That didn't hurt at all, even though you did get a little sarcastic at the end.

unless the canon changes (either with additions or changes), they are not doctrine.

Where is this written?

Are you trying to pin down what doctrine is, Mak? Or what the canon is? Or how the canon is established? Because I'm having a tough time believing you don't know how the canon and the doctrine is established.

Actually, I've already explained exactly how it is established, but no canonization is at all required to create new commandments. You have insisted that it does, and I am asking for your source on that assertion. Can you provide it, yes or no?[/quote]

Now I find that interesting. Perhaps we should make a new thread for these questions of mine. I'll go start one now.

[_maklelan]

Now I find that interesting. Perhaps we should make a new thread for these questions of mine. I'll go start one now.

This question relates to the topic of the thread, so you could post it here, but while you're making that thread I'll go hunt down all the questions I asked you that you refused to address.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

why did the Prophet Joseph Smith himself partake of alcohol?

Jersey Girl

The point behind this thread is what exactly???

I am unclear on this...maybe I need another dancing Banana to get me through this thread????

[_Jersey Girl]

why did the Prophet Joseph Smith himself partake of alcohol?

Jersey Girl

The point behind this thread is what exactly???

I am unclear on this...maybe I need another dancing Banana to get me through this thread????

I explained the reasons for the series of threads I started here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=733

There are no free dancing bananas on this board. One must earn them through the righteous pursuit of whatever challenges I pull out of thin air.

Jersey Girl

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

why did the Prophet Joseph Smith himself partake of alcohol?

Jersey Girl

The point behind this thread is what exactly???

I am unclear on this...maybe I need another dancing Banana to get me through this thread????

I explained the reasons for the series of threads I started here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=733

There are no free dancing bananas on this board. One must earn them through the righteous pursuit of whatever challenges I pull out of thin air.

Jersey Girl

Thin air produces nothing but hot air..once breathed in and exhaled.....

You have been making many challenges lately...out of thin air....maybe I will swear in this thread....swearing seems to under your skin.....but wait I am a bigger person than that.....I think???

[_Mister Scratch]

What is a "binding principle", Mak? Where did you first hear the term?

Several times in the D&C it speaks of the law and the covenant as something requiring "binding." Whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, according to four different sections of the D&C. In several instances the commandments are referred to as "principles." Observe: D%C 138:4, 34 - "That through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved. . . And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be ajudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Principles that are binding cannot mean anything but commandments, unless you don't want to consider the rest of the standard works as criteria by which to judge this little semantics exercise.

unless the canon changes (either with additions or changes), they are not doctrine.

Where is this written?

Are you trying to pin down what doctrine is, Mak? Or what the canon is? Or how the canon is established? Because I'm having a tough time believing you don't know how the canon and the doctrine is established.

Actually, I've already explained exactly how it is established, but no canonization is at all required to create new commandments. You have insisted that it does, and I am asking for your source on that assertion. Can you provide it, yes or no?

Sadly, I think that at least on one level, you are correct, Mak. Unfortunately (and embarrassingly) for the Church, this means---among other things---that the long-standing, scripturally- and doctrinally-sanctioned ban on interracial marriage is still in effect.