Force and Agency

[Jason]

The only issue here is "Recreational Distrubution." Because an abusive and harmful intent specifically part of the contract, the government has a duty to prosecute to protect from harm and abuse.



Yes, recreational import, recreational manufacture, recreational export, ect (harm and abuse is specified in contract)

Could "recreational" have the same meaning as "rationalization"?

Earlier you mentioned trying to reconcile the teachings of the prophets with the "libertarian principles" as well as the Constitution. Have the prophets ever specified a difference with regard to "recreational" use versus "other" use?

[Jason]

So your world will be much happier if we just let you use your drugs to your heart's content? That somehow in that process you will have liberty and become more free? That you can then live as God intended (chained to addictive substances?) without fear of "the man" using violence against you???

Sorry....wickedness never was nor never will be happiness!

Sorry, but this only shows your ignorance of the nature of this herb that God created.

How many people are addicted to marijuana? Compared to that, how many are addicted to sugar? How many people die from long-term use of marijuana? How many die from the diseases that result from using too much sugar?

On the flip-side, what are the benefits of marijuana and how would it compare in effectiveness versus side effects of drugs like Prozac and Zoloft (or the dozens of other drugs that marijuana can more effectively replace)?

Do you know the answers to your questions?

I've had a number of friends use marijuana. In almost every case after a couple of years they progressed to harder drugs in order to get the same or better effect on their brains. One is still in prison for getting caught bringing $10k in cocaine across the Mexican border. He got off on the civilian charges due to some errors in paperwork by law enforcement but the military drew a much harder line in the sand.

Drugs effect the brain. The brain controls the body. The body is a temple and houses the spirit.

The devil's aim is to destroy agency whichever way he can get at it.

[davedan]

1. Satan's aim to destroy the agency of man is to do as Korihor says "whatever a man did was no sin". Gods law make us free. Using drugs for recreation makes us mindless captives.

Sorry, but this only shows your ignorance of the nature of this herb that God created.

2. All herbs have a use but not all herbs were intended to be smoked or put in brownies. Some are given to be used with "widom and skill".

3. The Prophets opposed repealing prohibition. Prohibition only prohibited the Distrubution of recreational "beverage" alcohol.

[Amonhi]

Except Moses was later cursed for not being obedient and Aaron was taken as well. The reason? They were not obedient in commanding the rock to flow forth water and instead hit the rock with the staff.

Moses wasn't cursed for disobedience, he was cursed for making the people think it was him rather than God. Took honor to himself. When a prophet gets a big head and leads people to him rather than to God, he gets into trouble... See the thread http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 14&t=22492

[John Michael Kane]

The rules empower us to become like God.

By the way, great topic, and excellent points by all. I haven't finished reading, but I wanted to add a few cents...
The rules/laws were added because of transgression. They will be taken away when we can rightly govern ourselves.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; ...Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
...Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

In essence, you tell a 3 year old that they can't touch the matches, (law). But when they have grown to be adults, we expect that they can use the matches correctly and the law/rule is removed. This is NOT how our present earthly governments work.

It has been said that "Obedience" is greater than "Sacrifice". I say that "Morality" is greater than "Obedience" and when we as a society learn that, then there will be no need for laws. (Morality = Do what is right because it is right.)

Laws are imposed to create the illusion of love between people who are not truly loving. All the laws and the prophets are fulfilled when true love has come. This is why God is "love" and we need to become "love" to be like him.

Laws use the threat of force in an effort to PREVENT wrong doing. If you hit your brother, I will send you to your room... When people break the law, they become subject to a predetermine punishment. (Best case scenario.) So the act of breaking the law and receiving the punishment was a choice in itself. So, the law might say, "If thou kill, then thou shalt be killed. If a person were to choose to kill, then they were also choosing to be killed. This doesn't by any means make the law correct, just or moral. And a person may have to break the law in order to be moral. And a moral person may be subject to an immoral law and like Daniel be thrown to the lions or like others be consumed in the fire.

God might ask you to kill your son or cut off the head of a drunk man which can even be contrary to His previous commandments.

Again, do what is right because it is right or "Morality" is greater than "Obedience". Eventually we must learn to call the shots if we are to be like God. According to the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood, No power or even influence can, (and if it can, it ought not to be), maintained by virtue of the priesthood or position in that priesthood, only by "persuasion" and the other principles of righteous leadership. This oath and Covenant also applies to God who cannot not, or ought not, to maintain power or influence by virtue of His Priesthood. God must persuade.

To persuade means to provide enough reason for a person to do a thing so that if you removed all of your influence and let them act according to their free will, they, acting in accord with their own desires, will take the action you proscribed and willingly accept all the consequences of their actions.

As a side note:
You cannot rightly use the instruction God gave to Abraham to Kill Issac without understanding the whole picture. Abraham has received his Calling and Election made sure prior to Issac even being born. The promise was that He would be exalted unconditionally as long as he did not become a son of perdition by committing the unpardonable sin...

The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. - D&C 132:7

God was asking Abraham to commit the unpardonable sin by murdering his innocent and willing son, thereby loosing his Election and becoming a Son of Perdition. This was not a test to see if Abraham was worthy of his calling and election as some suppose, because he had already the promise. It was a test to see if he could be made a God on the spot.

The intelligences of the universe cannot honor us until they know that we will do what is right because it is right even when other Gods command to the contrary. It is a lesson we must learn before becoming a God.

Killing Issac was wrong no matter how you look at it. This essentially pitted Obedience against Morality. And Abraham showed that he would be obedient rather than moral. Although Obedience is the correct answer in the "Servant" phase of our progression, it is the wrong answer in "Son" and "Friend/Equal" phases of our progression.

This is a lesson which we all must eventually learn before becoming a God. Morality is greater than obedience.

Moses had passed this test and the scripture records,

And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

We see that Moses had no problem with telling God "No" when placed into these Obedience vs. Morality conflicts. (Ex. 32:10)

Except Moses was later cursed for not being obedient and Aaron was taken as well. The reason? They were not obedient in commanding the rock to flow forth water and instead hit the rock with the staff.

Moses wasn't cursed for disobedience, he was cursed for making the people think it was him rather than God. Took honor to himself. When a prophet gets a big head and leads people to him rather than to God, he gets into trouble... See the thread http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 14&t=22492

Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.

And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

....

And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying,

Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah.

Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto mount Hor:

And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.

And Moses did as the Lord commanded: and they went up into mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.

And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.

And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/20?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the Lord said unto Moses, Get thee up into this mount Abarim, and see the land which I have given unto the children of Israel.

And when thou hast seen it, thou also shalt be gathered unto thy people, as Aaron thy brother was gathered.

For ye rebelled against my commandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the water before their eyes: that is the water of Meribah in Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/num/27.12?lang=eng#11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[John Michael Kane]

Well then do we agree that Obedience trumps Morality or is it the other way around? Or are we trying to call the shot well before we are capable thus damning ourselves in the process?

[jonesde]

Well then do we agree that Obedience trumps Morality or is it the other way around? Or are we trying to call the shot well before we are capable thus damning ourselves in the process?

No, I wouldn't say obedience trumps morality... but sometimes our understanding of morality is not adequate to properly handle a situation and obedience is a necessary part of the learning process.

In Nephi's slaying of Laban, for example, it was an opportunity for Nephi to refine his moral understanding and choose something that would have contradicted his previous understanding. As part of the story he even explains the reasons and what he learned about morality.

[Jason]

Well then do we agree that Obedience trumps Morality or is it the other way around? Or are we trying to call the shot well before we are capable thus damning ourselves in the process?

No, I wouldn't say obedience trumps morality... but sometimes our understanding of morality is not adequate to properly handle a situation and obedience is a necessary part of the learning process.

In Nephi's slaying of Laban, for example, it was an opportunity for Nephi to refine his moral understanding and choose something that would have contradicted his previous understanding. As part of the story he even explains the reasons and what he learned about morality.

Great point! Would he have learned the lesson without being obedient? Can we progress without obedience to the respective laws at every level?

[sbsion]

CHAOS is better than force

[jonesde]

Well then do we agree that Obedience trumps Morality or is it the other way around? Or are we trying to call the shot well before we are capable thus damning ourselves in the process?

No, I wouldn't say obedience trumps morality... but sometimes our understanding of morality is not adequate to properly handle a situation and obedience is a necessary part of the learning process.

In Nephi's slaying of Laban, for example, it was an opportunity for Nephi to refine his moral understanding and choose something that would have contradicted his previous understanding. As part of the story he even explains the reasons and what he learned about morality.

Great point! Would he have learned the lesson without being obedient? Can we progress without obedience to the respective laws at every level?

That brings up another tricky question... who and/or what should we be obedient to. In Nephi's story he understood morality according to the laws of God he had been taught, but was obedient to inspiration (or direct revelation) from God. Sometimes there are other representatives of God or people of influence and respect in our lives so God doesn't have to directly command us in all things, and sometimes it is obedience to them that helps us learn.

On the other hand, we have to be careful because people and laws of man are not perfect and can lead us into many wrong paths and corrupt our understanding of morality... perhaps requiring years of study and experiences to correct that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "respective laws at every level", but in general I'd say that the laws of man are an extremely dangerous set of guidelines to base one's morality on (they only partially overlap with the laws of God... ie some things are illegal that God allows and even encourages, and other things are legal that God clearly does not allow and will judge against), and will often lead to temporal and eternal ruin.

[Jason]

Well then do we agree that Obedience trumps Morality or is it the other way around? Or are we trying to call the shot well before we are capable thus damning ourselves in the process?

No, I wouldn't say obedience trumps morality... but sometimes our understanding of morality is not adequate to properly handle a situation and obedience is a necessary part of the learning process.

In Nephi's slaying of Laban, for example, it was an opportunity for Nephi to refine his moral understanding and choose something that would have contradicted his previous understanding. As part of the story he even explains the reasons and what he learned about morality.

Great point! Would he have learned the lesson without being obedient? Can we progress without obedience to the respective laws at every level?

That brings up another tricky question... who and/or what should we be obedient to. In Nephi's story he understood morality according to the laws of God he had been taught, but was obedient to inspiration (or direct revelation) from God. Sometimes there are other representatives of God or people of influence and respect in our lives so God doesn't have to directly command us in all things, and sometimes it is obedience to them that helps us learn.

On the other hand, we have to be careful because people and laws of man are not perfect and can lead us into many wrong paths and corrupt our understanding of morality... perhaps requiring years of study and experiences to correct that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "respective laws at every level", but in general I'd say that the laws of man are an extremely dangerous set of guidelines to base one's morality on (they only partially overlap with the laws of God... ie some things are illegal that God allows and even encourages, and other things are legal that God clearly does not allow and will judge against), and will often lead to temporal and eternal ruin.

Sorry I should have clarified that comment on respective law.

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20–21).

“All kingdoms have a law given” (D&C 88:36)

“He who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory” (D&C 88:22–24).

We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked 3 and of His acting in His wrath 4 against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself.” 5 God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.

...the kingdom of glory to which the Final Judgment assigns us is not determined by love but by the law that God has invoked in His plan to qualify us for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7)

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... w?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He further explained that for these opposites or alternatives to exist, there must be law. Law provides us the options. It is by the operation of laws that things happen. By using or obeying a law, one can bring about a particular result—and by disobedience, the opposite result. Without law there could be no God, for He would be powerless to cause anything to happen (see 2 Nephi 2:13). Without law, neither He nor we would be able to predict or choose a particular outcome by a given action. Our existence and the creation around us are convincing evidence that God, the Creator, exists and that our mortal world consists of “both things to act and things to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:14)—or, in other words, choices.

Freedom of choice is the freedom to obey or disobey existing laws—not the freedom to alter their consequences. Law, as mentioned earlier, exists as a foundational element of moral agency with fixed outcomes that do not vary according to our opinions or preferences. Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed, “We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the great Lawgiver, He gave laws and commandments for the benefit of all our Heavenly Father’s children. Indeed, His law fulfilled all previous covenants with the house of Israel. Said He:

“Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.” (3 Ne. 15:9.)

His law required all mankind, regardless of station in life, to repent and be baptized in His name and receive the Holy Ghost as the sanctifying power to cleanse themselves from sin. Compliance with these laws and ordinances will enable each individual to stand guiltless before Him at the day of judgment. Those who so comply are likened to one who builds his house on a firm foundation—so that even “the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.” (3 Ne. 11:39.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/06/jesus ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[davedan]

On the other hand, we have to be careful because people and laws of man are not perfect and can lead us into many wrong paths and corrupt our understanding of morality... perhaps requiring years of study and experiences to correct that.

The basis for Constitutional law was "natural law" or "the Biblical Golden Rule". If you abuse or harm another, the law has the responsibility to forcibly stop the abuse and harm.

Instead, our justice system is controlled by the over-interpretation of the "rule of law" which says "nothing is illegal unless there is a specific law making it illegal".

Why cant a jury just simply decide cases based on the "golden rule?". Would I want someone to do this to me? Then decide if there is sufficient evidence proving that the defendant inflicted harm or abuse on the victim.

[jonesde]

On the other hand, we have to be careful because people and laws of man are not perfect and can lead us into many wrong paths and corrupt our understanding of morality... perhaps requiring years of study and experiences to correct that.

The basis for Constitutional law was "natural law" or "the Biblical Golden Rule". If you abuse or harm another, the law has the responsibility to forcibly stop the abuse and harm.

Instead, our justice system is controlled by the over-interpretation of the "rule of law" which says "nothing is illegal unless there is a specific law making it illegal".

Why cant a jury just simply decide cases based on the "golden rule?". Would I want someone to do this to me? Then decide if there is sufficient evidence proving that the defendant inflicted harm or abuse on the victim.

There are lots of problems with rule of law versus rule by man. Our current system is actually turning into more of a rule by man system because there are SO many laws (literally millions of pages of state, local, and federal laws), and various laws that are highly subjective and broad (such as disturbing the peace, contempt of court, failure to obey a lawful order, etc). With that sort of a body of law, people in government can go after anyone at any time, even if there is no harm done and no moral reason for it... just like they could in a rule by man system.

Of course, in theory there is no such thing as a pure rule of law system, which I guess maybe you were trying to point out. All laws are enforced by men and are interpreted by men.

That said, a highly broad and subjective law like just the golden rule would be a nightmare. I might do something to someone else because it's something I like done to me, but they don't like it done to them... or perhaps they do like it done to them by they would not like it done to them by me. I might think I'm fully within the law, but end up in court/jail/etc anyway.

That could happen to anyone at any time if someone just convinces a jury that they didn't want the thing to happen to them. This could include the use of language (even non-curse words, just personal or unpopular speech), the growing of plants or raising animals that other people (even far away, non-neighbors) don't like, or any and every sort of thing.

People's preferences vary, and some people like to be offended. If that was the legal standard, ie the legal bar were set so low, then things would be a serious mess.

[Jason]

On the other hand, we have to be careful because people and laws of man are not perfect and can lead us into many wrong paths and corrupt our understanding of morality... perhaps requiring years of study and experiences to correct that.

The basis for Constitutional law was "natural law" or "the Biblical Golden Rule". If you abuse or harm another, the law has the responsibility to forcibly stop the abuse and harm.

Instead, our justice system is controlled by the over-interpretation of the "rule of law" which says "nothing is illegal unless there is a specific law making it illegal".

Why cant a jury just simply decide cases based on the "golden rule?". Would I want someone to do this to me? Then decide if there is sufficient evidence proving that the defendant inflicted harm or abuse on the victim.

There are lots of problems with rule of law versus rule by man. Our current system is actually turning into more of a rule by man system because there are SO many laws (literally millions of pages of state, local, and federal laws), and various laws that are highly subjective and broad (such as disturbing the peace, contempt of court, failure to obey a lawful order, etc). With that sort of a body of law, people in government can go after anyone at any time, even if there is no harm done and no moral reason for it... just like they could in a rule by man system.

Of course, in theory there is no such thing as a pure rule of law system, which I guess maybe you were trying to point out. All laws are enforced by men and are interpreted by men.

That said, a highly broad and subjective law like just the golden rule would be a nightmare. I might do something to someone else because it's something I like done to me, but they don't like it done to them... or perhaps they do like it done to them by they would not like it done to them by me. I might think I'm fully within the law, but end up in court/jail/etc anyway.

That could happen to anyone at any time if someone just convinces a jury that they didn't want the thing to happen to them. This could include the use of language (even non-curse words, just personal or unpopular speech), the growing of plants or raising animals that other people (even far away, non-neighbors) don't like, or any and every sort of thing.

People's preferences vary, and some people like to be offended. If that was the legal standard, ie the legal bar were set so low, then things would be a serious mess.

The only way to have true equality in my opinion is to base man's law upon a third party such as God. That way everyone is on equal turf and its not my law versus your law.

That's not even delving into the role of God as our creator as well as one of such intelligence and wisdom to create worlds without number....who's sole purpose in life is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

[jonesde]

The only way to have true equality in my opinion is to base man's law upon a third party such as God. That way everyone is on equal turf and its not my law versus your law.

If God (I guess you mean Christ?) personally stepped in an took over government and justice systems, it would certainly change and improve the way they operate... but even Christ would have to delegate.

Still, are we so incapable of governing ourselves that the only way we can have peace is to have Christ personally step in and correct and govern us?

Maybe so...

[Jason]

The only way to have true equality in my opinion is to base man's law upon a third party such as God. That way everyone is on equal turf and its not my law versus your law.

If God (I guess you mean Christ?) personally stepped in an took over government and justice systems, it would certainly change and improve the way they operate... but even Christ would have to delegate.

Still, are we so incapable of governing ourselves that the only way we can have peace is to have Christ personally step in and correct and govern us?

Maybe so...

That seemed to be Hugh Nibley's take on it for whatever its worth...

Beyond Politics
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... ts/?id=162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;