Force and Agency

[Original_Intent]

...

And my other questions were never addressed - if government can enforce right and wrong, who gets to decide what qualifies? What is regulated, what isn't? Any power that you grant government to enforce your values, can also be turned against you to enforce someone else's values. So what boundaries are set, if any?

...

We must be so very careful though. So much of what we aim for, with good intentions, the devil is able to turn against us. We give the state power to take away children from parents that are abusive, and then raising your child in a religious environment is portrayed as inflicting mental abuse on your child, and your child has a "right" to be raised in a guilt free environment - suddenly, the government is showing up at the door of the very folks who wanted government to have that authority for the good of the children - never dreaming that said power would be turned against them, because they are good parents. And it was only intended to apply to bad parents.

Far more harm has been caused by government given too much power than is caused by individuals exercising too much freedom.

These are very good points OI. I've often wondered if persecution of the Church might not be done by way of the very laws that Church members used to persecute their neighbors with different beliefs... thinking those different beliefs to be wicked and thereby trying to justify the violent persecution against them.

Very rarely do the wicked punish the righteous or the righteous punish the wicked in scriptural accounts, it is generally the wicked punishing the wicked... and usually the wicked who think they are righteous committing the greatest offenses. I fear this is the path that many in the Church are on, and it is clearly a path that has corrupted Christianity since practically the beginning and continues to corrupt much of Christianity (and other religions and non-religious belief systems) to this day.

So many people seem to think that allowing other people to be free in their way so that we can be free in our way will result in loss of liberty and even destruction of the Church. Certain actions of the Church can perhaps be interpreted that way, but I don't think those are the correct interpretations and even some lower Church leaders seem to spread it.

As George Washington wrote: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Using it irresponsibly to force the behaviors of others, especially when there are many other ways to influence behaviors in more effective and Christlike ways, may lead to the very calamities we fear.

I understand your concerns and share them, but I think this conversation has us arguing whether we should move more toward totalitarianism or anarchy. They are both losing scenarios.

I don't know which is preferable between the two, so I don't see the point in getting hot and bothered by which candidate to choose. Both roads suck for me and mine. On the anarchy side, my kids get to see advertisements for abhorrent things and evil IS thrust upon them. Onthe totalitarian side my kids lose their liberties.

I don't give a hoot anymore which candidate wins. Until we have repentance we will have poo on a stick.

I want neither anarchy nor totalitarianism. I believe there is a proper role of government. And that is the ideal that we shoud strive for. Currently, we have far more problems of government exceeding its just boundaries than of it not doing enough - although some here on the forum and elsewhere do seem to feel that mroe government is needed.

The books "The Proper Role of Government" and "Moral Basis for a Free Society" do a great job of pretty much spelling out where those boundaries are. The latter book also has a great letter from Elder H Verlan Anderson to the 11 LDS Congressmen and Senators in 1991 explaining scripturally why the impending invasion of Iraq was immoral and support of it would bring judgements upon us. I believe most if not all of those LDS representatives disregarded this counsel.

[ChelC]

I have read the Proper Role of Government. I agree that our rights are the same collectively as they are individually. I don't believe in more government, I believe in different government. I also know that the ballot box is not how you get there.

[jonesde]

I have read the Proper Role of Government. I agree that our rights are the same collectively as they are individually. I don't believe in more government, I believe in different government. I also know that the ballot box is not how you get there.

Agreed, the ballot box is not getting us anywhere. There are too many other ways to influence government that seem to have a greater impact, even funding marketing to influence the ballot box is more significant.

It seems like the only solution is for more people, including those in government and those trying to hold them accountable, to understand the principles of liberty (or of the proper role of government). Even getting involved in politics personally does little good if the majority of other people you are working with, or even who are working for you, have very different ideas.

There's also the civil disobedience approach, which I guess is an attempt to get more attention and spread a message, or perhaps help people doing harm in government to see what they are doing and choose to repent.

Whatever the approach, it's a tricky problem.

[davedan]

Let me clarify what I was saying:

1. "Satan's plan was to force us to do right"?
2. Could a misunderstanding of this cause us to falsely believe:
A. All force is bad.
B. Since Government = force, therefore all government is bad
C. Any force destroys agency
D. Agency = "do as you will" or "do whatever you want"
E. Anything that stands in the way of choosing or doing evil is evil.
F. A free society must establish equal and unfettered acess and opportunities to sin in every way for all people.

3. Moroni 7:17 "for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him."

Satan doesn't persuade, coerce, or force anyone to do good but only to do evil. Therefore, force isn't necessarily or intrinsically evil. By extension, government isn't necessarily or intrinsically evil.

2 Ne 2:16 "man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other"

Agency depends on being enticed by good and evil. Misguided parents think that not teaching their children morals, values, religion and letting them decide for themselves when they are older is a good thing. However, since Satan doesn't take a vacation in enticing evil, if parents don't entice for good, their children are not free because they are subjected to unapposed evil enticements.

With this in mind. The Righteous don't need to do Satan's work for him. We don't need to help Satan out making sin accessible and inticing. If we are on Gods side, there is nothing wrong with making a society were righteousness is enticing and accessible and sin is not inticing and not accessible. Let Satan and his followers do their work, and let us do our work by making sin unenticing and not easily accessible. Furthermore, 2Nephi 2:16 Doesn't say you have to be equally enticed by good and evil. So, there is nothing wrong with Gods people making righteousness much more enticing and evil much less accessible and much less inviting.

Alma 1:17-18 "Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief. And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death."

Religion/Priesthood = Persuasion and Love. Government = Fear and Force. While there is no place for coercive force in religion, there is a righteous role of government and force in maintaining a free and righteous society. Many LDS mistakenly believe that there is no place for government/force in a perfect Zion or Millennial society. In reality, republican limited government operated in the Bible during the times of the Judges. In the Book of Mormon, Alma recognized a need for a separation of church and state when he gave up the Chief Judge seat in order to devote his energies to his religious ministry. In the Millennium, there are 2 capitals: Zion and Jerusalem. Zion will be the religious capital and Jerusalem will be the capital of government. A perfect society is not a theocracy.

Constitution = self government. I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. In a free society, the force of government is only necessary when religious persuasion fails. Therefore, religion has an indespensible role in a constitutional government to teach righteousness, discourage evil, and call the people to repentance. There is also an indispensable place for disfellowshipping and excommunication.

Furthermore, according to the Book of Mormon, government created fear of the threat of force was also important to a free society. When citizens violate the liberties of others, the government has the duty to forcibly punish and rehabilitate the offender.

What is the role of government for those who choose to use drugs? Illicit drugs used to get "high" harm the survival of the species. Humans have been designed with a physiologic and psychological reward system to reward productive behavior. If a person finds and uses a chemical that artifically stimulates the reward centers without paying the price of productive behavior, they are lying and cheating to themselves and they have stolen the "high" without earning it.

Imagine a person who climbs a mountain. When he gets to the top, he enjoys the rush that goes along with achieving his goal of reaching the summit. Now imagine that that same person can sit on the sofa at the base of the mountain and smoke or inject some chemical and experience the same psychologic and physiologic rush of chemicals? How much more likely is that individual to climb the mountain if he can get the same reward sitting on his couch? In this way, widespread use of illicit drugs decreases the fitness and productiveness of the human species independent of its potential direct and indirect health effects.

Now, it is true that this individuals choice to use illicit drugs is not violating the liberties of others. Therefore, there is no role for government fear or force against the drug abuser. Religion has a role to encourage repentance, and voluntary rehabilitation. Religion can disfellowship and excommunicate.

However, the Distrubution of illicit drugs is another matter. While the drug user is lying, cheating, stealing, and abusing himself; he is doing it to himself. However, when someone engages in the distribution of illicit drugs to the drug abuser, the distributor become as enabler, facilitator, and accomplice in a lie, fraud, thrift, and abuse. Distributing drugs is more than just an issue of private contracting and informed consent. Therefore, the government can and should exercise prosecutory force against illicit drug distributors. This principle is exactly why Physician assisted suicide is illegal and immoral. The government doesn't prosecute a person for attempted suicide, but the will prosecute a physician for being an accomplice to suicide. I call this the Dr. Kevorkian principle.

That said, there remains a potential acceptible use and role for drug distribution for medical purposes of relieving suffering. Prov 31:6-7 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.". That said, any drug according to the Word of Wisdom should be used with "judgement and skill". Also, those worthy of the temple were never to partake. (Lev 10:9).

[davedan]

Moses 1:1-4 "Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, ... he became Satan"

Now that we have discussed what Satan's plan is not. What was and still is Satan's plan? How did Satan plan seek to destroy the agency of man? The best way to understand Satan's plan is to meet someone living it. A few years ago, I met one.

During my residency training, I was working in the emergency department one evening I evaluated and treated a homeless man who was rather alcohol intoxicated, had been violently assaulted, and who had suffered a rather large laceration to his scalp and face. While I was repairing this man's wound, I got to know him and his circumstance.

While sewing up this man's wounds, I asked this man where he stayed. He told me that he was lining "in a hole in the ground down by the river." He said just like the late comedian Chris Farley's Classic SNL "motivational speaker" character who warned that doing drugs would cause you to end up "living in a van down by the river". Too bad Chris Faley didn't take his own advise because a few years later he died of a cocaine overdose. Anyways, his homeless man said he even had a hole-mate who he said had turned on him and bashed him in the head, and had stolen some money from him to buy drugs. This man considered the betrayal by his longtime friend and hole-mate to be worse than his injuries or the loss of the money.

So, I asked this man. What he liked about living in a hole. I mean why not live at the shelter at least. He told be he much preferred the hole in the ground to the shelter because in the hole, he had no rules. He claimed could do what he wanted when he wanted without anyone telling him what to do. For this man, living in a hole down by the river was the ultimate freedom. This interaction really helped me understand the nature of Satan's plan.

Now is this homeless man free: No rules, no wife, no kids, no job, and no responsibilities? He was diluted into thinking he was free. But agency has nothing to do with "doing whatever you want". The real definition of agency is having the power to act and not be acted upon. In reality, my hole-living friend had no agency, because he had no power to do anything.

2Ne2:14;16 "And now, my sons,... for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.... Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. "

Korihor sums up Satan's philosophy:
Alma 30:17 "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

According to this, It is my opinion that it was not Satans plan to force us to do good. What his plan was to get rid of any rules about right and wrong. Satan's entices people to his plan now as well as then with the deception. "do as you will" which runs in opposition to Gods plan of "not as I will but as thou wilt". Satan convinces people that if they follow his plan, they can do whatever they want. In fact, this philosophy goes on to say that if there is a desire or appetite in you, that the universe has put that desire in your heart and you must devote yourself to having or taking whatever it is you desire whatever the costs. If you deny what you desire, you are setting yourself at odds with the universe. However, of you use all the strength of force and power to obtain the object of your desire, even it belongs to another, that your strength benefits the human species which is better able to survive because of your strength and fitness.

Can you imagine a world filled with people who are all trying to do whatever they want whenever they want it and taking whatever they want whenever they want it. It's pure anarchy and chaos on one hand or deception and slavery on the other. Furthermore, as you can imagine, in Satan's pyramid scheme there is only room for one person at the top of the pyramid who can do and have whatever he wants. Everyone else in the pyramid is subservient to the one at the top. The key therefore is for the person at the top to maintain their position via fear, force and deception by getting those below to accept and be pacified in their subservience and captivity.

The deception in Satan's philosophy of "do as you will" is what you want is so easily and artificially manipulated. Only God really know what we truly want and will want. Because of the veil, the fulness what we want hasn't even entered into the heart of man.

Accordingly, using illicit drugs has nothing to do with "exercising agency" but losing our agency and limiting our power and motivation to act, and subjecting ourselves to and enslaving ourselves to Satan. Many people use drugs to deal with stress or boredom. In a healthy advanced and civilized society, a free people who enjoy the rare blessing of "free time" manage their stress and boredom engaging in productive stress-relieving activities. Again, we see in this explaination how the act of self-medicating with illicit drugs directly inhibits our motivation and power to act.

The only people who are truely exercising their agency, seek to do the will of our Father in Heaven in all things. Christ summed up God's plan when he declared, "not as I will, but as thou wilt". As we fall short of doing Gods will, we accept the Savior Jesus Christ whose sacrifice promises to empower our repentance and obedience. God, Our Heavenly Father, has promised us that if we will accept His Son, and seek to do His will, that we will be empowered to do all that is necessary in this life, and we will be blessed with all the creative powers of God in the next life.

This is how agency is the power to act and not be acted upon. The agency of man is what sets is apart from animals who are totally ruled by their appetites and instincts. Humans are distinct from animals because we can feel hungry and not eat, we can feel anger and still forgive. Spiritual power over the appetites of the flesh is what the agency of man is all about.

Remember that the reason Satan's plan is a grand pyramid scheme is because Satan has no power to create. Therefore, for Satan to have power, he must steal and enslave others and subjugate them beneath him. This is why there is only room for one person at the top. But in God's plan, God not only has the power to create, but God can bestow the creative power upon others. Thetefore, in God's plan, there is infinite room at the top as all of God's children can have dominion over their own creations as God rules over His.

[jonesde]

Now is this homeless man free: No rules, no wife, no kids, no job, and no responsibilities? He was diluted into thinking he was free. But agency has nothing to do with "doing whatever you want". The real definition of agency is having the power to act and not be acted upon. In reality, my hole-living friend had no agency, because he had no power to do anything.

This paragraph seems to sum up the root of your misunderstanding. You seem to think that freedom is good, and having wife, kids, a job, and responsibilities are good, so having those things must be freedom. That is simply not correct.

If you have those things, and those are the things that make you happy (for example, a "job" is your preferred way of making your way in the world), then you certainly have exercised a great deal of freedom to get them. However, now that you have them you have sacrificed a fair amount of your freedom. That isn't a bad thing, it's just how it works. We work for freedom so that we can do just those sorts of things because those things require a great deal of obligation and responsibility.

Consider that once you have a job are you free to do other things during the time you are on that job? No, you have chosen to sacrifice some freedom in exchange for something you desire more, namely the income from the job that allows you to purchase things you need or want, which provides a different sort of freedom. You are giving up some of your freedom in order to pursue other types of freedom. If you had large amounts of money in the first place, you would not have to use up freedom for the freedom to spend, ie to get other people to do things for you.

If you have a wife and family, are you free to have another wife and family? Perhaps in rare cases yes, but generally no. You have exercised that freedom and have a commitment to care for that wife and family. It is not a bad thing that you have chosen to give some of your freedom to them, that was the point of having the freedom in the first place.

Consider if you were obligated to other things, such as very long hours of work just to make ends meet, such that you simply did not have free time for a family. Because of your financial circumstance, or choice in career, you are not able to have a family... you do not have that freedom. Is that obligation of enhancing or limiting your freedom?

How can obligations and responsibilities be freedom? No, they are ways of giving up freedom, hopefully in exchange for something that is worth it. It is a shame to give up freedom for nothing worthwhile... as so many do both financially and politically in our magnificent modern world.

In truth, that homeless man was far more free than you. Is that a good thing? No, he was wasting his freedom... or at least hopefully he was choosing the route that made him most happy and perhaps he was developing talents and helping others in other ways... we are usually not in a position to judge such things in an informed manner.

[BroJones]

Let me clarify what I was saying:

1. "Satan's plan was to force us to do right" = false doctrine.
[snip]

Please consider the words of a Prophet, spoken by LDS Church President Benson in Sept. 1986:
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6985" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Principle of Agency

The first basic principle is agency. The central issue in the premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him stood for the former proposition--freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter--coercion and force. The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer's primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.

Look back in retrospect on almost six thousand years of human history! Freedom's moments have been infrequent and exceptional.

You say

"Satan's plan was to force us to do right" = false doctrine.

But President Benson stated regarding Satan's plan:
"...shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? ...Satan stood for the latter."

"force us to do right" is tantamount to -- "forced to be obedient".

I agree with President Benson and accept the Prophet's clear interpretation of the issue in the Grand Pre-mortal Council, and therefore I disagree with your statement. Don't bother disagreeing with me -- do you disagree with the Prophet?

[davedan]

Good find. Pres. Faust called Satan's plan "a plan of force". However he didn't specify what Satan was forcing us to do. So I thought I had some wiggle room there.

ELDER JAMES E. FAUST, ENSIGN “The Great Imitator” NOV. 1987 
PRESIDENT JAMES E. FAUST, ENSIGN "The Forces That Will Save Us" JAN. 2007

I'm really not wanting to disagree with LDS Leadership on this. When it says in Moses 4 that Satan claimed he could not loose a single soul and that he attempted to destroy the agency of man. It doesn't specifically say "how" he planned to do that. It doesn't even say that Satan's plan would have worked.

My supposition was that agency may have more to do with being an agent and not a slave, and acting vs not being acted upon. More about spiritual mastery over the appetites of the flesh.

I am trying to argue against a prevailing attitude that a free society should provide equal opportunity for engaging in all sin and anything that would make sin less availible or seem less enticing is bad.

I dont think it is nevessary to be truely free that we must have all sin availible before us all the time enticing us.

[davedan]

Agency: Essential to the Plan of Life
ROBERT D. HALES
October 2010

Discusses how definition of ageGncy in the dictionary is inadequate

Stresses that the definition of agency more has to do with the ability to act and not be acted upon through obedience

Also choosing freedom through obedience vs captivity through disobedience.


Looking at several articles on Satans plan on LDS.org they tend to say Satan wanted to force us to obey him rather than saying Satan wanted to force us to do what was right.

[davedan]

I've tried to edit some because of the the BYU talk. Although technically, Pres Benson doesn't say "who" Satan was forcing us to be obedient to or if this was good or bad. If Satan was forcing us to obey himself. This is forcing evil and not forcing good.

What do you think? Is all force bad? Is all government bad? Is Alma 1:16-18 bad by using the fear of force to persuade people to obey?

Moses 4 never actually says it was Satans plan to use force. What it says is that it was Satans plan to destroy agency through captivity.

I agree noone should be forced to obey. However, The Book of Mormon says the fear of government force is okay to scare people into not doing bad. Once people do bad (violating liberties of others), they can be forcibly stopped from doing bad by a represents

But there is no slavery to do good . There is only gov captivity in consequence of people doing bad.

[BroJones]

I've tried to edit some because of the the BYU talk. Although technically, Pres Benson doesn't say "who" Satan was forcing us to be obedient to or if this was good or bad. If Satan was forcing us to obey himself. This is forcing evil and not forcing good.

What do you think? Is all force bad? Is all government bad? Is Alma 1:16-18 bad by using the fear of force to persuade people to obey?

Moses 4 never actually says it was Satans plan to use force. What it says is that it was Satans plan to destroy agency through captivity.


I agree noone should be forced to obey. In a sense. In heaven we were all forced to be good in a sense. There was no choice until Satan rebelled. The force wasnt bad.

The Book of Mormon says the fear of government force is okay to scare people into not doing bad.
Once people do bad, they can be forcibly stopped from doing bad.

But there is no slavery to do good . There is only gov captivity in consequence of people doing bad.

I can see you are grappling with the concept of AGENCY, davedan. But still missing some points -- still seeking some "wiggle room" as you said.
President McKay as LDS Church President noted that
"It is the purpose of the Lord that man become like him. In order for man to achieve this it was necessary for the Creator first to make him free."

■ “Free agency is the impelling source of the soul’s progress. It is the purpose of the Lord that man become like him. In order for man to achieve this it was necessary for the Creator first to make him free” (David O. McKay, in Conference Report, Apr. 1950, 32).

Thus, compulsion as proposed by Lucifer was indeed BAD, because it would prevent man from becoming like Heavenly Father. By proposing the use of FORCE, rejecting the Father's plan which was based on AGENCY and by seeking to take to himself the glory of God, Lucifer became Satan, the father of lies. I understand that even his proposed plan of compulsion so that none would be lost was itself a lie -- because to become like God (or saved) requires AGENCY, as President McKay explained (above). A war in heaven ensued, and Satan was thrust out.

Elder Talmage notes:

“We learn from the revealed word that Satan was once an angel of light, then known as Lucifer, a Son of the Morning; but his selfish ambition led him to aspire to the glory and power of the Father, to secure which he made the pernicious proposition to redeem the human family by compulsion; and, failing in this purpose, he headed an open rebellion against the Father and the Son, drawing a third of the hosts of heaven into his impious league. These rebellious spirits were expelled from heaven, and have since followed the impulses of their wicked natures by seeking to lead human souls into their own condition of darkness. They are the devil and his angels. The right of free agency, maintained and vindicated by the war in heaven, prevents the possibility of compulsion being employed in this fiendish work of degradation; but the powers of these malignant spirits to tempt and persuade are used to the utmost. . . .

“Satan exerts a mastery over the spirits that have been corrupted by his practises; he is the foremost of the angels who were thrust down, and the instigator of the ruin of those who fall in this life; he seeks to molest and hinder mankind in good efforts. . . . Yet in all these malignant doings, he can go no farther than the transgressions of the victim may enable him, or the wisdom of God may permit; and at any time he may be checked by the superior power” (Talmage, Articles of Faith, 62–63).

Davedan, I hope you are working to bring yourself into alignment with the Prophets' teachings rather than seeking "wiggle room" !
You wrote:

In heaven we were all forced to be good in a sense. There was no choice until Satan rebelled. The force wasnt bad.

On the contrary, President Woodruff notes: "This agency has always been the heritage of man under the rule and government of God. He possessed it in the heaven of heavens before the world was,"

■ “With regard to the rights of the human family, I wish to say that God has given unto all of his children of this dispensation, as he gave unto all of his children of previous dispensations, individual agency. This agency has always been the heritage of man under the rule and government of God. He possessed it in the heaven of heavens before the world was, and the Lord maintained and defended it there against the aggression of Lucifer and those that took sides with him, to the overthrow of Lucifer and one-third part of the heavenly hosts. By virtue of this agency you and I and all mankind are made responsible beings, responsible for the course we pursue, the lives we live, the deeds we do in the body” (Wilford Woodruff, The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, 8–9).

Also,

A. Agency is the eternal right of independent choice.

1. Agency is a gift from God (see Moses 7:32 ; D&C 98:8 ; 2 Nephi 2:16 ; Helaman 14:30 ).

2. As premortal spirits we enjoyed the gift of agency (see Alma 13:3 ; D&C 29:36 ).

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctri ... -20-11.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Original_Intent]

Indeed, Dr. Jones, even as intelligences before we had spirit bodies, we had agency; it is an eternal principle. We have always had the right to choose our actions, but we do not always get to choose the consequence. These consequences are often the result of eternal laws that are as immutable as the law of gravity. We are often not punished by God so much as we are punished as a natural consequence of sin.

[jonesde]

I am trying to argue against a prevailing attitude that a free society should provide equal opportunity for engaging in all sin and anything that would make sin less availible or seem less enticing is bad.

I dont think it is nevessary to be truely free that we must have all sin availible before us all the time enticing us.

Where do you see this "prevailing attitude" that you are trying to counter? For the more libertine of libertarians that might be the case, but not an attitude I see among LDS (or even more generally Christian) libertarians.

There are many ways of making sin less available and less enticing that do not involve force. It is indeed a problem. The point of those who want liberty is that we can solve these problems in more effective ways, including ways that Christ taught. We can solve these problems more effectively by forgiveness than punishment, by teaching and building up instead of breaking people down and eliminating opportunities, by private voluntary charity instead of public forced charity, and so on.

This is why it's so hard to find support in the scriptures for violent responses. They do exist as it's necessary to respond with violence in certain cases, but outside of those limited cases there are always better options for solving the problem that will bring all involved closer to God, instead of threatening the eternal salvation of all involved (yes, on both sides of the conflict as so many current government solutions of force do).

Please understand that Christian libertarians are not (generally) trying to excuse and justify sin, in fact quite the opposite. We are trying to point out that violence itself is a sin when not justified, and in so many cases it is not justified, and beyond that even sometimes when it is justified it does more harm than good. There are simply better ways to solve these problems, and many of them come straight from the teachings of Christ.

[davedan]

The purpose of the post was inspired by someone who was using the "it was Satans plan to force" to argue in favor or drug legalization.

Notwithstanding, it being Satan's plan to force to obey. That doesn't mean force/government is bad

Government has no business forcing people to be obedient (police state), but they do have a role in forcing people to stop when they are violating the rights of others. The Book of Mormon (Alma 1:17-18) says this specifically.

Therefore, when it comes to the issue of drug legalization, using drugs should not be criminalized, but distribution of drugs should be illegal based on the Kevorkian principle.

[John Michael Kane]

Let me clarify what I was saying:

1. "Satan's plan was to force us to do right"?
2. Could a misunderstanding of this cause us to falsely believe:
A. All force is bad.
B. Since Government = force, therefore all government is bad
C. Any force destroys agency
D. Agency = "do as you will" or "do whatever you want"
E. Anything that stands in the way of choosing or doing evil is evil.
F. A free society must establish equal and unfettered acess and opportunities to sin in every way for all people.

3. Moroni 7:17 "for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him."

Satan doesn't persuade, coerce, or force anyone to do good but only to do evil. Therefore, force isn't necessarily or intrinsically evil. By extension, government isn't necessarily or intrinsically evil.

2 Ne 2:16 "man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other"

Agency depends on being enticed by good and evil. Misguided parents think that not teaching their children morals, values, religion and letting them decide for themselves when they are older is a good thing. However, since Satan doesn't take a vacation in enticing evil, if parents don't entice for good, their children are not free because they are subjected to unapposed evil enticements.

With this in mind. The Righteous don't need to do Satan's work for him. We don't need to help Satan out making sin accessible and inticing. If we are on Gods side, there is nothing wrong with making a society were righteousness is enticing and accessible and sin is not inticing and not accessible. Let Satan and his followers do their work, and let us do our work by making sin unenticing and not easily accessible. Furthermore, 2Nephi 2:16 Doesn't say you have to be equally enticed by good and evil. So, there is nothing wrong with Gods people making righteousness much more enticing and evil much less accessible and much less inviting.

Alma 1:17-18 "Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief. And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death."

Religion/Priesthood = Persuasion and Love. Government = Fear and Force. While there is no place for coercive force in religion, there is a righteous role of government and force in maintaining a free and righteous society. Many LDS mistakenly believe that there is no place for government/force in a perfect Zion or Millennial society. In reality, republican limited government operated in the Bible during the times of the Judges. In the Book of Mormon, Alma recognized a need for a separation of church and state when he gave up the Chief Judge seat in order to devote his energies to his religious ministry. In the Millennium, there are 2 capitals: Zion and Jerusalem. Zion will be the religious capital and Jerusalem will be the capital of government. A perfect society is not a theocracy.

Constitution = self government. I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. In a free society, the force of government is only necessary when religious persuasion fails. Therefore, religion has an indespensible role in a constitutional government to teach righteousness, discourage evil, and call the people to repentance. There is also an indispensable place for disfellowshipping and excommunication.

Furthermore, according to the Book of Mormon, government created fear of the threat of force was also important to a free society. When citizens violate the liberties of others, the government has the duty to forcibly punish and rehabilitate the offender.

What is the role of government for those who choose to use drugs? Illicit drugs used to get "high" harm the survival of the species. Humans have been designed with a physiologic and psychological reward system to reward productive behavior. If a person finds and uses a chemical that artifically stimulates the reward centers without paying the price of productive behavior, they are lying and cheating to themselves and they have stolen the "high" without earning it.

Imagine a person who climbs a mountain. When he gets to the top, he enjoys the rush that goes along with achieving his goal of reaching the summit. Now imagine that that same person can sit on the sofa at the base of the mountain and smoke or inject some chemical and experience the same psychologic and physiologic rush of chemicals? How much more likely is that individual to climb the mountain if he can get the same reward sitting on his couch? In this way, widespread use of illicit drugs decreases the fitness and productiveness of the human species independent of its potential direct and indirect health effects.

Now, it is true that this individuals choice to use illicit drugs is not violating the liberties of others. Therefore, there is no role for government fear or force against the drug abuser. Religion has a role to encourage repentance, and voluntary rehabilitation. Religion can disfellowship and excommunicate.

However, the Distrubution of illicit drugs is another matter. While the drug user is lying, cheating, stealing, and abusing himself; he is doing it to himself. However, when someone engages in the distribution of illicit drugs to the drug abuser, the distributor become as enabler, facilitator, and accomplice in a lie, fraud, thrift, and abuse. Distributing drugs is more than just an issue of private contracting and informed consent. Therefore, the government can and should exercise prosecutory force against illicit drug distributors. This principle is exactly why Physician assisted suicide is illegal and immoral. The government doesn't prosecute a person for attempted suicide, but the will prosecute a physician for being an accomplice to suicide. I call this the Dr. Kevorkian principle.

That said, there remains a potential acceptible use and role for drug distribution for medical purposes of relieving suffering. Prov 31:6-7 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.". That said, any drug according to the Word of Wisdom should be used with "judgement and skill". Also, those worthy of the temple were never to partake. (Lev 10:9).

This is my understanding to question #1 -

Thus, if our separation from God and our physical death were permanent, moral agency would mean nothing. Yes, we would be free to make choices, but what would be the point? The end result would always be the same no matter what our actions: death with no hope of resurrection and no hope of heaven. As good or as bad as we might choose to be, we would all end up “angels to a devil.”

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

After Heavenly Father presented His plan, Lucifer stepped forward, saying, “Send me, … and I will redeem all mankind, that [not even] one soul shall … be lost … ; wherefore give me thine honor.” 5 This plan was rejected by our Father, for it would have denied us our agency. Indeed, it was a plan of rebellion.

Then Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father’s “Beloved and Chosen [Son] from the beginning,” exercised His agency to say, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” 6 He would be our Savior—the Savior of the world.

Because of Lucifer’s rebellion, a great spiritual conflict ensued. Each of Heavenly Father’s children had the opportunity to exercise the agency Heavenly Father had given him or her. We chose to have faith in the Savior Jesus Christ—to come unto Him, follow Him, and accept the plan Heavenly Father presented for our sakes. But a third of Heavenly Father’s children did not have faith to follow the Savior and chose to follow Lucifer, or Satan, instead. 7

And God said, “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, … I caused that he should be cast down.” 8 Those who followed Satan lost the opportunity to receive a mortal body, live on earth, and progress. Because of the way they used their agency, they lost their agency.

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

Was the plan to force us to do right? Or permanently separate us from the Father such that we would all be doomed and satan would have the power of the Father over us?

What is the separator between satan and Heavenly Father that polarizes them?

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.”

We recognize the gift of agency as a central aspect of the plan of salvation proposed by the Father in the great premortal council, and that “there was war in heaven” (Revelation 12:7) to defend and preserve it. The Lord revealed to Moses:

“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

“And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice” (Moses 4:3–4).

Satan has not ceased his efforts “to destroy the agency of man.” He promotes conduct and choices that limit our freedom to choose by replacing the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination (see D&C 29:40; 93:38–39). Yielding to his temptations leads to a narrower and narrower range of choices until none remains and to addictions that leave us powerless to resist. While Satan cannot actually destroy law and truth, he accomplishes the same result in the lives of those who heed him by convincing them that whatever they think is right is right and that there is no ultimate truth—every man is his own god, and there is no sin.

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

A knowledge of law and the opportunity to choose obedience provides us with agency -

And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

All kingdoms have a law given;

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of laws....

For many years as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I had responsibility for East Germany, also known as the German Democratic Republic. In this assignment, my knowledge of the Articles of Faith was most helpful. On each of my visits throughout the 20 years I supervised this area, I always reminded our members in that area of the twelfth article of faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

Our meetings behind what was known as the Iron Curtain were always monitored by the communist government there. In the early 1980s, when we sought approval from the government officials to build a temple there, and later when we asked permission for young men and women from that area to serve missions throughout the world and for others to come into their country to serve missions, they listened and then said, “Elder Monson, we’ve watched you for 20 years, and we’ve learned we can trust you and your Church because you and your Church teach your members to obey the laws of the land.”

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/06/exam ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Saints knew that the Lord had told them to be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” That commandment, revealed then, is true now of our members in every nation. We are to be law-abiding, worthy citizens.

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

I highly recommend reading that whole talk as it will give much perspective into how the latter day Saints will become the staff upon which the Constitution will be saved. Also ironic that it is labeled - The Test.

Brothers and sisters, we teach all of our people to be loyal. “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.) Be loyal and true.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land.

Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#21" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land.
And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.
And I will fortify this land against all other nations.
And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.
For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words.
Wherefore, for this cause, that my covenants may be fulfilled which I have made unto the children of men, that I will do unto them while they are in the flesh, I must needs destroy the secret works of darkness, and of murders, and of abominations.
Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10.10?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[John Michael Kane]

Now is this homeless man free: No rules, no wife, no kids, no job, and no responsibilities? He was diluted into thinking he was free. But agency has nothing to do with "doing whatever you want". The real definition of agency is having the power to act and not be acted upon. In reality, my hole-living friend had no agency, because he had no power to do anything.

This paragraph seems to sum up the root of your misunderstanding. You seem to think that freedom is good, and having wife, kids, a job, and responsibilities are good, so having those things must be freedom. That is simply not correct.

If you have those things, and those are the things that make you happy (for example, a "job" is your preferred way of making your way in the world), then you certainly have exercised a great deal of freedom to get them. However, now that you have them you have sacrificed a fair amount of your freedom. That isn't a bad thing, it's just how it works. We work for freedom so that we can do just those sorts of things because those things require a great deal of obligation and responsibility.

Consider that once you have a job are you free to do other things during the time you are on that job? No, you have chosen to sacrifice some freedom in exchange for something you desire more, namely the income from the job that allows you to purchase things you need or want, which provides a different sort of freedom. You are giving up some of your freedom in order to pursue other types of freedom. If you had large amounts of money in the first place, you would not have to use up freedom for the freedom to spend, ie to get other people to do things for you.

If you have a wife and family, are you free to have another wife and family? Perhaps in rare cases yes, but generally no. You have exercised that freedom and have a commitment to care for that wife and family. It is not a bad thing that you have chosen to give some of your freedom to them, that was the point of having the freedom in the first place.

Consider if you were obligated to other things, such as very long hours of work just to make ends meet, such that you simply did not have free time for a family. Because of your financial circumstance, or choice in career, you are not able to have a family... you do not have that freedom. Is that obligation of enhancing or limiting your freedom?

How can obligations and responsibilities be freedom? No, they are ways of giving up freedom, hopefully in exchange for something that is worth it. It is a shame to give up freedom for nothing worthwhile... as so many do both financially and politically in our magnificent modern world.

In truth, that homeless man was far more free than you. Is that a good thing? No, he was wasting his freedom... or at least hopefully he was choosing the route that made him most happy and perhaps he was developing talents and helping others in other ways... we are usually not in a position to judge such things in an informed manner.

The misunderstanding here is the definition of freedom. I define Freedom as being free of the chains of the adversary - satan. Obligations and responsibilities like wife and children actually do make me free because I'm being obedient to the commandments of God.

Satan has not ceased his efforts “to destroy the agency of man.” He promotes conduct and choices that limit our freedom to choose by replacing the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination (see D&C 29:40; 93:38–39). Yielding to his temptations leads to a narrower and narrower range of choices until none remains and to addictions that leave us powerless to resist. While Satan cannot actually destroy law and truth, he accomplishes the same result in the lives of those who heed him by convincing them that whatever they think is right is right and that there is no ultimate truth—every man is his own god, and there is no sin.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?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;

[davedan]

Ok, thanks Dr.Jones for helping me align myself with the prophets. I appreciate the info that we have aways had agency.

Let me tell you why I am grappling with this:

#1 I just spent an evening listening to a young man who I am assigned to home teach. He is not active in the church. I took him out to dinner and he was boasting how he had used his Libertarian philosophy to convince his teacher in High School that drugs should be legal.

I know from this young man's mother he uses marijuana and he has no plans to be active in the church and no plans for a mission.

[davedan]

Here is where I am aligned with the prophets:


I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as that the State of Utah voted for the repeal of Prohibition.
- President Heber J. Grant, Conference, Oct. 1934

From this very stand he pleaded with us not to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He didn't speak as Heber J. Grant, the man, he spoke as the President of the Church and the representative of our Heavenly Father. And yet in a state where we could have retained what we had, there were enough Latter-day Saints . . . who paid no attention to what the Lord wanted . . .and what is the result? Such delinquency as we have never known. . . .
- George Albert Smith, Conference, Oct 1943

One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, "We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet."
- The Teachings of Spencer. W. Kimball

[jonesde]

The misunderstanding here is the definition of freedom. I define Freedom as being free of the chains of the adversary - satan. Obligations and responsibilities like wife and children actually do make me free because I'm being obedient to the commandments of God.

Based on your other posts I can see how you could believe in this confused definition of freedom. It is because you do not distinguish between interaction between man and God versus interaction between man and man.

You are a man, you are not (yet) a god, and certainly not the God who is the spiritual father of us all. Government is made up of men, not of gods.

[Original_Intent]

Here is where I am aligned with the prophets:


I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as that the State of Utah voted for the repeal of Prohibition.
- President Heber J. Grant, Conference, Oct. 1934

From this very stand he pleaded with us not to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He didn't speak as Heber J. Grant, the man, he spoke as the President of the Church and the representative of our Heavenly Father. And yet in a state where we could have retained what we had, there were enough Latter-day Saints . . . who paid no attention to what the Lord wanted . . .and what is the result? Such delinquency as we have never known. . . .
- George Albert Smith, Conference, Oct 1943

One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, "We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet."
- The Teachings of Spencer. W. Kimball

Hmmm, looks like I need to re-examine my position on this as well. I was aware of the first statement, but am grateful for the further clarification from the second two quotes provided. This is one of those situations where there APPEARS to be a conflict in principles- since there cannot be, I need to study further and seek further guidance to my understanding. I also will have to look at the exact law on prohibition, that may be the issue, that I do not understand prohibition.

[Original_Intent]

Well so much for that - manufacture, transport, sale, import and export were completely banned. Hmm, nothing in the amendment about possession or drinking...I guess pouring a glass could be considered "transport"...

[davedan]

■ “With regard to the rights of the human family, I wish to say that God has given unto all of his children of this dispensation, as he gave unto all of his children of previous dispensations, individual agency. This agency has always been the heritage of man under the rule and government of God. He possessed it in the heaven of heavens before the world was, and the Lord maintained and defended it there against the aggression of Lucifer and those that took sides with him, to the overthrow of Lucifer and one-third part of the heavenly hosts. By virtue of this agency you and I and all mankind are made responsible beings, responsible for the course we pursue, the lives we live, the deeds we do in the body” (Wilford Woodruff, The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, 8–9).

"agency has always been the heritage of man under the rule and government of God. "

This seems to say to me that man has always had agency because we have always had rules and commandments and we have always been free to break those commandments. But we are not fee as Datan was not free to forcibly prosecuted for violating those commandments.

Satan was forcibly cast out of heaven in consequence of breaking the commandments of God.

[jonesde]

Here is where I am aligned with the prophets:


I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as that the State of Utah voted for the repeal of Prohibition.
- President Heber J. Grant, Conference, Oct. 1934

From this very stand he pleaded with us not to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He didn't speak as Heber J. Grant, the man, he spoke as the President of the Church and the representative of our Heavenly Father. And yet in a state where we could have retained what we had, there were enough Latter-day Saints . . . who paid no attention to what the Lord wanted . . .and what is the result? Such delinquency as we have never known. . . .
- George Albert Smith, Conference, Oct 1943

One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, "We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet."
- The Teachings of Spencer. W. Kimball

These are a specific case of specific laws about a specific substance, and even specifically about the state of Utah which is predominantly LDS. Please consider the context, and that perhaps this does not apply to every substance that government, pharma companies, security product companies, law enforcement agencies, and so on want to prohibit in for purposes of income without producing anything people would purchase voluntarily.

Why do prophets counsel us today to avoid illegal substances? Is it because the substances themselves are dangerous? For some of them, certainly. However, the more important reason for many substances could possibly be that by doing so we put ourselves in the hands of those who seek to imprison us and take our property for their gain.

For you davedan, what is it that concerns you most about people using currently illegal drugs, or about people producing and distributing illegal drugs?

[davedan]

Well so much for that - manufacture, transport, sale, import and export were completely banned. Hmm, nothing in the amendment about possession or drinking...I guess pouring a glass could be considered "transport"...

I think there is no disagreement in what the prophets are saying.

Using drugs should not be criminalized. Distribution of illicit drugs should be criminalized. While government has no business enforcing what they think we should do (police state), It's perfectly just for them to prosecute and forcibly stop people who violate the liberties of others (Alma 1:17-18).

Accordingly, drug use should not be criminalized, drug Distrubution should be criminalized per the Kevorkian principle.

[davedan]

"For you davedan, what is it that concerns you most about people using currently illegal drugs, or about people producing and distributing illegal drugs?"

1. There is a libertarian movement to legalize drugs. My LDS libertarian home teachee is telling me using marijuana is exercising his agency.
2. God doesn't approve of using substances to "get high"
3. The Physiologic and psychological high is meant to be a reward for productive behavior.
4. People who use illicit substances to "get high" are cheating themselves. If a person is stressed or has boredom, they should engage in a productive behavior and not use a chemical.
5. For the sick and afflicted, certain drugs can be used to relieve suffering when used with "widom and judgement".
6. Drug use doesn't violate the liberties of others on its own and should not be criminalized.
7. Illicit Drug Distrubution should be criminalized based on the Kevorkian principle.
8. If a cancer or AIDS patient needs appetite help there should be naturally derived appetite medications that are proven safe and affective and quality controlled. Private industry could do this on its own.
9. The Prophets opposed the legalization of Alcohol and I believe this opposition applies to Marijuana.