Force and Agency

[John Michael Kane]

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.

And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/5.8?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The interaction between man and man must fit within the interaction between man and God....or you won't be free then either.

The early founders of America clearly understood the need for human law to not be in conflict with divine law. It was Alexander Hamilton who said, “No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to God’s laws, and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

John Adams understood the potential of righteous government when he wrote: “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obligated in conscience to temperance and frugality and industry; to justice and kindness and charity towards his fellowmen; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God. In this commonwealth, no man would impair his health with gluttony, drunkenness or lust. No man would sacrifice his precious time to cards or any other trifling and mean amusement. No man would steal or lie or in anyway defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men. And no man would blaspheme his maker or profane his worship. But a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a utopia, what a paradise this region would be.”

Every healthy society needs a common core of values based on the divine law of the Lord. This core of values should be a fundamental upon which all laws governing human conduct are based. Societies which have governed themselves by this fundamental set of values have found peace, prosperity, joy, beauty, morality and fulfillment. Societies which have thought themselves beyond these basic principles have literally destroyed themselves.

The overwhelming question in each age is why each generation must test his law, when the Lord’s performance from generation to generation has been absolutely consistent. Is this not the time to again reexamine our position? Is that which we are building in our personal lives, our families, our communities, and our nations firmly anchored to a foundation based on divine law? Is it not time again to heed the warning of Paul?

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

“For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

“And let us not be weary in well doing; for in due season we shall reap.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/05/as-a- ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that the prophets “constantly cry out against that which is intolerable in the sight of the Lord; against pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings; against vulgarity, stealing, lying, pride, and blasphemy; against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and all other abuses of the sacred power to create; against murder and all that is like unto it; against all manner of desecration.” He continued: “That such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable. … Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it” (“The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, June 1976, 4).

Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church. Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce. Like Nehor and Korihor in the Book of Mormon, they rely on sophistry to deceive and entice others to their views. They “set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Ne. 26:29).

Of such President Joseph F. Smith warned when he spoke of the “proud and self-vaunting ones, who read by the lamps of their own conceit; who interpret by rules of their own contriving; who have become a law unto themselves, and so pose as the sole judges of their own doings” (Gospel Doctrine, 381).

False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.

Regardless of which particular false doctrines they teach, false prophets and false teachers are an inevitable part of the last days. “False prophets,” according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “always arise to oppose the true prophets” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 365).

However, in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a “loyal opposition.” One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed.

“Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

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

Where do the libertarians fall in this? Do they teach and preach principles of freedom? Or are they false prophets?

[John Michael Kane]

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"...

Perhaps its in the definition of freedom, liberty, and agency? As well as understanding "force" with regard to those definitions?

[davedan]

Again, according to principle, i think possession should be decriminalized
And distribution criminalized because in the case of distribution there is a victim.

The distributor becomes an accomplice to the self-deception.

I'm this way, it would make it pretty hard for regular people to abuse drugs of we at the same time root out all the drug smuggling corruption in the CIA.

I agree with limited government should only use force in the case to stop someone from violating the liberties of another (fraud, thrift, abuse, murder)

[davedan]

THE POWER OF GODLINESS
Agency is the power to act and not be acted upon. The agency of man is what sets us 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. Again, free men do not exercise agency by choosing to sin. Free men exercise agency through the commandments of God that empower us to fast when we are hungry, to be patient when we feel hurried, to be silent when we are angry, and forgive when we are offended. Agency is the power to choose the right even when our flesh wants to choose the wrong.

[BroJones]

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...

Busy day, went to niece's wedding in the Manti Temple, etc -- catching up. The above sounds reasonable IMHO.

[davedan]

Gives me hope we can get together in a forum and hash it out, and build a bit of consensus.

[BroJones]

Again, free men do not exercise agency by choosing to sin. .

This does not ring true, DD. Lehi in 2 Nephi 2 does a wonderful exposition on moral agency, including:

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death...

The Prophet Lehi explains that man CAN choose "captivity and death", exercising his moral agency; but he urges us to choose "liberty and eternal life" instead.
Likewise, in 2 Nephi 10;

23 Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

So yes, man can choose to sin, or "choose the right when the choice is placed before you."

[davedan]

That you for pointing this out. I just was think in terms of; Yes, a person is "using" his agency to sin. However, Exercising means strengthen something. He is also losing it. When you sin, you weaken your agency. When you obey, you strengthen your agency. I prefer to say that you best exercise your agency by obedience. Being clear on this point could help others not misunderstand. I don't think the "cheer up" part was directed at the choosing death part. I think that the "cheer up" was pointed at the choosing life part. Death is the default setting. Choosing life was the new option that produced the choice.

That's what I meant by a truely "freeman" who wished to remain free would not "exercise" his agency by choosing sin.

If Satan was going to force us to be good. I guess we should be grateful for the option to sin. However, the scriptures never say this specifically. They say: 1. Satan sought to destroy the agency of man 2. Satan never persuades to do good.

So, if good was the default setting, we should be grateful for sin
If death is the default setting, we should be grateful for the commandments and the atonement

Which do you think was the default setting? Which new option should cause us to "cheer up".

I'm perfectly fine with saying it how it's aways been said and should be said.

Before the Fall, for Adam and Eve, Life in the garden was the default setting, and sin was the option that gave them a choice. So, I would say that Adam and Eve were thankful for sin. For us, after the Fall, death is the default choice. And commandments and the Atonement give us the choice.

Again, I'm willing to be equally thankful for both. But this I know, choosing sin weakens agency and doesnt exercize or strengthen it in the least.

[davedan]

When we properly exercise our agency and Satan is Forcibly bound in the Millennium, and our children grow up without sin unto salvation; will they be less free?  Will they have less reason to be cheerful?

[ChelC]

When we properly exercise our agency and Satan is Forcibly bound in the Millennium, and our children grow up without sin unto salvation; will they be less free?  Will they have less reason to be cheerful?

Thank you for this. They will certainly be more free.

I think people associate a lot of things with liberty that do not belong. Liberty, especially in US culture, has come to mean freedom from responsibility. Graduation, a full tank of gas, payday, the weekend, moving away from home, divorce, living with someone outside the marriage covenant, etc. I think that because of the culture people sometimes forget what liberty really is.

Liberty is tied to obedience and there is no way around that. Fulfilling responsibilities safeguards liberty. The scriptures warn us about how upside things will be in the last days and we see that now. Religion, marriage, work, and responsibility are seen as a ball and chain. Many of us make horrible choices because of it and hardly recognize how the chains entangled us.

Those counterfeit "liberties" rob children of two parent homes. They rob families of stability. They destroy.

Is not peace liberty? Are not blessings predicated upon obedience to specific laws? Let's not sell Satan's counterfeit by pretending otherwise.

[jonesde]

I think people associate a lot of things with liberty that do not belong. Liberty, especially in US culture, has come to mean freedom from responsibility.

I think you're right about this. People so often want liberty without responsibility.

This is actually a pretty common theme I've seen (or heard) in liberty-positive books, blogs, and podcasts. One of the biggest problems most libertarians (even those who don't like that label) have with government is that it divorces responsibility from power for those involved. In other words, they can do great harm to others in their official government duties (or less official ones) and they have no legal liability nor do they feel responsible because they are just operating in an organization that spreads out the culpability.

Those who make laws blame problems on those who enforce and judge laws, those who enforce laws blame it on those who make them (and sometimes on those who judge them), and those who judge laws also generally blame it on those who make them (and sometimes on those who enforce them).

As for the social issues of not wanting to take on responsibilities, that is a big deal too. Unfortunately government policies and practices make this far more difficult too. If you want to earn enough to take care of a family you are taxed far more than those who choose a simple single life. If you get married under the law, the government defined what that marriage is and means, and they can go after either spouse or help one spouse go after another... and including the property of either/both. If you have children the government will use them to pressure you into doing various things and complying with many different laws and policies. It is shameful, but governments so often use children as an excuse to destroy liberty, increase taxes, separate children from parents, and any other thing that gives the state more power and more excuses to tax and spend.

It's interesting looking more at people into liberty or freedom movements. Some are single and libertine, and other singles are straight laced and pursuing marriage and other responsibilities. Some are married with children. Some live in cities, others live on farms, and even some in survivalist communities or shared property communes. Some are devoutly religious across a wide spectrum of religions, others go with pseudo-religions like the Quakers, and others are atheists. Just about every manner of person is found among the people interested in this.

You can imagine with so many people from so many backgrounds and so many different lifestyles that there is a lot of disagreement. And yet, they have all realized that if they want freedom they must allow it for others, even if it is not something they agree with, as long as the rights of others are not violated.

I think the way the Free State Project puts it, and I think this is very compatible with D&C 134:2,etc teachings: "the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property".

As people learn and think more about it they eventually realize that whatever their desired lifestyle, it is so often government that separates responsibility from liberty and so to have liberty we must be willing to accept responsibility.

[Original_Intent]

When we properly exercise our agency and Satan is Forcibly bound in the Millennium, and our children grow up without sin unto salvation; will they be less free?  Will they have less reason to be cheerful?

Why inject the word 'forcibly'? How will Satan be bound? Will Zion be a police state? Wickedness certainly will not be present there, will it be by a multitude of laws, or will it be because families teach their children sound principles, and that they willingly choose good over evil?

I do not believe that sin will be "allowed" in Zion, and yet I also believe it will not be a police state. But consequences for sin will be carried out upon principles of righteousness, and not by the corrupt. To give government that kind of power, which could and certainly would be abused would be a mistake. Zion will certainly have the highest standards of righteousness, but for Zion to be established we first need to become, as individuals, a Zion people. Zion will not have prostitutes, but I don;t think it will be due to fear of punishment, it will be because they would have no clientele, and in fact they themselves would be lovingly taught correct principles. The same with drug use - in a Zion society I think that men will seek the proper use of every herb provided by God, and without seeking to build up Babylonish pharmaceutical companies, learn to use all substances for the proper benefit of man. There will be agency, but another aspect of agency is having access to the truth - the truth will set you free. It is largely due to misinformation and deception that many are led to abuse drugs, or sin in any other way. If someone offered you meth, would it be fear of the legal consequences, or the fact that you would never want to do that to your body that would keep you from taking it? Hopefully, the latter, and you would not accept it even if there were no legal consequences. It is educating everyone to that standard that will allow Zion to be established, not by more laws and more police enforcement.

[AGStacker]

I am not very aligned with davedan here. What I noticed concerning agency among LDS youth, most youth whose lives were heavily controlled by their parents tended to rebel more whereas those whose parents allowed them more unrestricted agency were more obedient. This was absolutely contingent on the righteousness of the parent and the love shown from parent to child.

I saw this in my own childhood. My parents loved me but I was never forced to go to Church or participate in any Church activity. Rather I knew it was good for me and the right thing to do.

What better way to learn agency than through trial and error. The problem is today the youth take part in all types of sin and are devoid of integrity. discipline and virtue and because they are so desensitized and brainwashed believe it is normal. This is why unhappiness is so prevalent. Someone who isn't deceived knows how bad they feel when they sin and because of their agency would choose to do the right thing.

"Sins be upon their parent heads" comes to mind.

[Jason]

I am not very aligned with davedan here. What I noticed concerning agency among LDS youth, most youth whose lives were heavily controlled by their parents tended to rebel more whereas those whose parents allowed them more unrestricted agency were more obedient. This was absolutely contingent on the righteousness of the parent and the love shown from parent to child.

I saw this in my own childhood. My parents loved me but I was never forced to go to Church or participate in any Church activity. Rather I knew it was good for me and the right thing to do.

What better way to learn agency than through trial and error. The problem is today the youth take part in all types of sin and are devoid of integrity. discipline and virtue and because they are so desensitized and brainwashed believe it is normal. This is why unhappiness is so prevalent. Someone who isn't deceived knows how bad they feel when they sin and because of their agency would choose to do the right thing.

"Sins be upon their parent heads" comes to mind.

My experience is exactly the opposite. In families where there is a strict standard of acceptable behavior and associated punishment for disobedience I have seen better results. Especially where the father fulfills his role as disciplinarian and doesn't shift it over to the wife.

The results are amazingly different from the parents who let everything go. I see parents who want their child to feel free to explore and yet they try to protect them from the consequences of their actions. The child does whatever it wants and the parents don't discipline. My sister's one year old that smacks her in the face when she tells her no. She is allowed to do it repeatedly without consequence because my sister doesn't want to restrain or break her spirit. Then society must deal with these children. The response is typically to medicate them until they get old enough to be locked up.

There is a vast difference between my wife's parents who drew a hard line in the sand and my parents who eventually let their children walk all over them.

On one side there are 9 temple marriages and 40 grandchildren with 4 more on the way. On the other side there has been excommunication, divorce, separation, employment difficulties, and periods of inactivity in the church. Not all bad as 3 out of 5 returned missionaries and 5 out of 5 temple marriages but each has strayed at times with divorce, excommunication, separation, and inactivity as well as the temple marriage coming later after the legal union.

One family had a strong culture with clear expectations and corresponding discipline. The other not so much. Perhaps its just the lucky choice of spirits....or maybe there's more to it than that.

[AGStacker]

I am not very aligned with davedan here. What I noticed concerning agency among LDS youth, most youth whose lives were heavily controlled by their parents tended to rebel more whereas those whose parents allowed them more unrestricted agency were more obedient. This was absolutely contingent on the righteousness of the parent and the love shown from parent to child.

I saw this in my own childhood. My parents loved me but I was never forced to go to Church or participate in any Church activity. Rather I knew it was good for me and the right thing to do.

What better way to learn agency than through trial and error. The problem is today the youth take part in all types of sin and are devoid of integrity. discipline and virtue and because they are so desensitized and brainwashed believe it is normal. This is why unhappiness is so prevalent. Someone who isn't deceived knows how bad they feel when they sin and because of their agency would choose to do the right thing.

"Sins be upon their parent heads" comes to mind.

My experience is exactly the opposite. In families where there is a strict standard of acceptable behavior and associated punishment for disobedience I have seen better results. Especially where the father fulfills his role as disciplinarian and doesn't shift it over to the wife.

Maybe I should have been more specific. My parents taught me to work very hard and I also had a lot of chores to do. What my parents wouldn't do is micromanage everything I did on my free time. They respected my agency and had faith in my ability to make right decisions. If I ever made a bad one my parents talked to me quite a bit.

The results are amazingly different from the parents who let everything go. I see parents who want their child to feel free to explore and yet they try to protect them from the consequences of their actions. The child does whatever it wants and the parents don't discipline. My sister's one year old that smacks her in the face when she tells her no. She is allowed to do it repeatedly without consequence because my sister doesn't want to restrain or break her spirit. Then society must deal with these children. The response is typically to medicate them until they get old enough to be locked up.

This wasn't how I was raised at all.

There is a vast difference between my wife's parents who drew a hard line in the sand and my parents who eventually let their children walk all over them.

On one side there are 9 temple marriages and 40 grandchildren with 4 more on the way. On the other side there has been excommunication, divorce, separation, employment difficulties, and periods of inactivity in the church. Not all bad as 3 out of 5 returned missionaries and 5 out of 5 temple marriages but each has strayed at times with divorce, excommunication, separation, and inactivity as well as the temple marriage coming later after the legal union.

One family had a strong culture with clear expectations and corresponding discipline. The other not so much. Perhaps its just the lucky choice of spirits....or maybe there's more to it than that.

There is definitely more to it than that. I am just saying that once parents see how their children use agency they should be able to determine if they should be granted more. Heavenly Father allows those who exercise agency correctly to hold more and more positions of trust.

[davedan]

Yes, I used "forcibly bound" on purpose. There is a proper use of force, especially against Satan.


Good comments everyone. Let me just clarify something. In a way, I have some Libertarian leanings when it comes to the proper use of force by limited government.

Let me share a story:

When I was in residency training. A medical student was assigned to be in the ER for a 4th-year medical clerkship. To verify that the students are present, they were required to give a brief and simple eval sheet to one of the attending physicians to fill out, sign and drop in a box that sits in a conspicuous place in the physician work area. Well, this particular medical student decided to have an extra month of vacation and never showed up for the entire month. When it came evaluation review and grade time, this student didn't have any evals in the box and none of the attending physician remembered having seen this student in the department. When this student was confronted on this issue, the student claimed he was there but that none of the attending physicians had fulfilled their responsibility of filling out the evaluation slip.

Now, I'm not sure what happened to this student. Somewhere along the way "making an example" of someone became a bad thing. However, instead of punishing the perpetrator of the crime, the department decided to punish everyone in the name of prevention. So, what the department did was institute a very tedious and painful, computerized, daily log. Now the attendings had to sign off on each student what procedures and what skills the students had learned that day. I'm not against measuring learning, but the increase in tedious red tape in the name of prevention, I agree was an abuse of force.

Instituting laws and regulation for the crimes of others in the name of "regulation" and keeping the public safe is a misuse of constitutional government force.

I agree with Libertarians and Alma 1:17-18 that the government should prevent its citicens from violating the rights of others only by punishing the criminal. The punishment should fit the crime. Prisons should be rehabilitation and skill training centers.

Today, it seems when people and business violate the liberties of others; in an attempt to prevent and protect the public, instead of investigating and punishing the perpetrators; draconian regulations are put in place. These draconian regulations dont really protect but are used to stifle small business because too-big-to-fail big business get waivers or own the patents and licensing on the more restricted production process and machinery.

Accordingly, I also believe that the government should only intervene with force when there is a victim. So, like I said before, marajuana possession should not be criminalized, but drug Distrubution can be prosecuted. Recreational drug abuse is a lie, a fraud, and a theft of a "high" the person did not earn. It is self abuse that makes people weak and steals their motivation. However, recreational drug distributors become an accomplice to the self-abuse and can be prosecuted via the Kevorkian principle.

[John Michael Kane]

I am just saying that once parents see how their children use agency they should be able to determine if they should be granted more. Heavenly Father allows those who exercise agency correctly to hold more and more positions of trust.

Like not letting your one year old use sharp knives versus the 12 year old? The rules change as knowledge and obedience progress?

Could it be summarized that those who use their agency to be obedient to God's laws find themselves obtaining more and more agency to the point that they operate in complete freedom while obedient to universal laws (a God)?

Or on the flip side, those who misuse their agency and choose not to be obedient to laws lose their agency? Society places them in caged cells? They are bound to the chemical needs and habits of their bodies? The devil dictates what they can and can't do? They completely lose their agency? In that progression is force used to take away their agency for disobedient and disruptive behaviors/actions? The further they progress in wickedness is not more force required which results in a greater loss of agency (liberty/freedom)?

[jonesde]

Or on the flip side, those who misuse their agency and choose not to be obedient to laws lose their agency? Society places them in caged cells?

Now there's a statement representative of the statist attitude. "Society" puts people in cages... as if it is some given force of nature and not the choice of those who do the caging. Those who do it will be judged for their actions in doing so. Those who do so and care about their salvation should carefully consider the morality of each case they are involved with.

[Jason]

Or on the flip side, those who misuse their agency and choose not to be obedient to laws lose their agency? Society places them in caged cells?

Now there's a statement representative of the statist attitude. "Society" puts people in cages... as if it is some given force of nature and not the choice of those who do the caging. Those who do it will be judged for their actions in doing so. Those who do so and care about their salvation should carefully consider the morality of each case they are involved with.

A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a representative government, yes the collective political will of the people (society) makes rules/laws. When they are sufficiently violated then yes people (society) puts the law breakers in cages for various lengths of time. Sometimes mistakes are made. Realities of an imperfect people trying to co-exist with each other in relative peace and prosperity.

Of course we've reached the point where people have become a law unto themselves so its not working too hot with myriad breakdowns in law and order as well as oppression of innocent people (or letting guilty go free - no justice). And a decline down the spiral of creating more rules and laws for a people not willing to abide them.

But the solution, imo, isn't to attack the political tool (government) as long as the right to vote remains in place. Thus we ought to be focused on preaching repentance and taking back the tool rather than waiting/preparing for collapse so that we can put in place our own might makes right version. To each their own on it though....

[davedan]

I think we agree the State should only get involved to stop someone in the act or punish someone who has violate the liberties of others. The punishment according to Alma 1:17-18 should makes others fear to engage in the same liberty-violating behaviors. there should be a victim.

The State should not punish the whole society by instituting a bunch of regulations on the society as a whole in the name of prevention. In the Book of Mormon, fear of consequence was the the deterrent.

[Jason]

I think we agree the State should only get involved to stop someone in the act or punish someone who has violate the liberties of others. The punishment according to Alma 1:17-18 should makes others fear to engage in the same liberty-violating behaviors. there should be a victim.

The State should not punish the whole society by instituting a bunch of regulations on the society as a whole in the name of prevention. In the Book of Mormon, fear of consequence was the the deterrent.

Are you sure you want to stick with that understanding?

By the time Elder Heber J. Grant became Church President in 1918, America was in a reform crusade called Prohibition. One year earlier, in December 1917, the U.S. Congress had approved an amendment to the Constitution making the production and sale of alcohol illegal; the states ratified the amendment in January 1919. President Grant, a Word of Wisdom advocate, called Prohibition “the greatest financial and moral blessing that has ever come to humanity.” 10 But Prohibition failed to end the alcohol trade, driving it underground instead.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/07/i-hav ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[davedan]

I think we could still preserve prohibition by making recreational drug distribution illegal.

The distributor becomes an accomplice to abuse. So there is a victim.

What I am saying is. I see a way where the Libertarians and the Prophets can agree.

Of course, if I lived back in 1933. I would have voted to uphold prohibition.

[Jason]

I think we could still preserve prohibition by making recreational drug distribution illegal.

The distributor becomes an accomplice to abuse. So there is a victim.

What I am saying is. I see a way where the Libertarians and the Prophets can agree.

Of course, if I lived back in 1933. I would have voted to uphold prohibition.

The argument then is no different than the argument today.

From the time of prohibition the Church has opposed every law that made liquor easier for anyone to use at any age. The Church leaders opposed the repeal of prohibition, they have spoken against laws that would permit liquor by the drink, and they have discouraged action that would allow the sale of liquor to minors.

The logic of their arguments, which I fully support, is simple. The Lord has said that liquor is not good for man and that it is to be avoided.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/07/i-hav ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes down to a choice between God and the devil. The devil would have you believe you are acting correctly (libertarianism) all while you craft your chains. 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. Granted its tricky at times but it is a war between God and the devil. Eventually everyone will have to choose a side.

[davedan]

Liquor by the drink = distribution
Sale of liquor to minors = distribution
Prohibition (18th Amendnent) = distribution

18th Ammendment Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

It is not helpful to hold the position that there is a disagreement between the prophets and libertarian principles when there is none. there doesnt have to be a disagreement. No one has to sacrifice their Constitutional principles to follow the prophets. Read the text of the 18th Amendment. It is focused on prohibiting the export, manufacture, transportation, importation and sale. None of the text says that individual use of liquor is illegal.

God and the prophets are on the side of Freedom. Satan fools us into thinking there is a debate when there is nothing to debate.

[Amonhi]

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)