Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

That is sooo stupid. I said that IF YOU do not accept what I am saying, then there IS a contradiction and YOU must answer that, I already have time and again.

For the umteenth time since your computer must have cut out the previous countless times I stated it... YES, I do have the right absent government to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

YES, I do have the right absent government to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

YES, I do have the right absent government to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

YES, I do have the right absent government to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

YES, I do have the right absent government to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

YES, I do have the right absent government to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

And so likewise can I delegate the power to enforce that to government.

The Lord has said that gambling is wrong. Therefore the men have no right to gamble. Gambling affects me by virtue of it being wrong, ergo it is an evil influence which I do have a right to be free from. Therefore I have a right to be free from their gambling whereas they have no right to gamble. You have already made these points yourself in this thread! To speak contrary to this is moral relativism. I did not say that the Lord gave me the right to execute the men for it, nor specify the terms under which that power is given to me (at least not completely though I did get into it a little).

So which is it, are you a moral relativist or do you simply deny that their is an answer to your mystery of if/then?

edited for spelling mistakes.

[ShineOn]

YES, I do have the right absent governemnt to stop the men from gambling or playing poker.

Got it. It is clear.

The Lord has said that gambling is wrong. Therefore the men have no right to gamble.

Now this is interesting. Do men on earth have the right to do anything that is wrong? (I'm not nitpicking. This lies at the heart as to why you claim men don't have the right to play poker)

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Of course not! We have the agency and power to do wrong, we do not have the right. Thus the use of "right" in rights.

[ShineOn]

Then reconcile some things for me. How can we have the right to freedom of religion when worshipping the wrong god would be wrong? Do men have the right to worship a false god? It is protected by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. So how can this be reconciled? Does everyone have the right to worship as he pleases?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I have no right to do wrong, and you have no right to do wrong, although we have our agency and the privilege of doing right or wrong as we may choose in and of ourselves;

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, October 1922, Afternoon Session, p.73 - 74

Man is an independent being in his agency, to do right or wrong, and has the liberty of doing as he pleases; but I qualify this by saying that he has not the right to do wrong or to infringe upon the rights of another individual.

Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 9:, p.101

I have heard men say that they have a right to do wrong. In one sense, a man has such a right; and in another sense, he has no such right. We possess, in reality, very little; and that little the Lord has given us, and that is the power of choice.

Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 9:, p.115

and that when the time should come for us to exercise our full rights as American citizens, we might be able to administer the laws and govern in such a way that all should be protected, that every man of every creed, of every nation, and of every people, should enjoy his rights in our midst as perfectly as if he were in full faith with the majority of the people. Not the right to do wrong, not the right to practise iniquity, not the right to trample upon his neighbour, to intrude upon his rights, but the right to do that which may seem good in his own eyes, so long as he should not thereby interfere with the rights of others;

Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 20:, p.337 - 338

But, while you are passing thus gaily along,
Remember, dear boys, you've no right to do wrong.

Improvement Era 1902

Sterling W. Sill, The Wealth of Wisdom , p.108
We can all know that we ought to honor our parents and that we ought to obey God rather than man. No one has a right to do wrong. We are not free to conduct ourselves as we please. What we do is the business of every other person in the world. We distort our own intelligence and deceive ourselves when we sin against our own conscience. Many of our most serious sins are not written in the statute books. For example, just think what great errors we make when we sin against reason, against intuition, and against instinct. And one of our greatest sins is when we sin against knowledge.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Are you seeking to council the Lord by use of an earthly government?

The U.S. Constitution is not perfect but dang near.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

The Lord is merciful, and we are merciful, and mind you, would the founding fathers have not included this right (false or not) our church could not exist herein. It was wisdom that the Lord allowed this to be (and still does, and will into the millennium). To us is given to sustain that law at present in patience.

[ShineOn]

but I qualify this by saying that he has not the right to do wrong or to infringe upon the rights of another individual.

Hmmm.

Not the right to do wrong, not the right to practise iniquity, not the right to trample upon his neighbour, to intrude upon his rights, but the right to do that which may seem good in his own eyes, so long as he should not thereby interfere with the rights of others;

Hmmm.

Are all the quotes refering to rights as guaranteed by the Constitution? Because I still need a reconciliation of how my neighbor can worship Buddha which is wrong, but yet still have a right to do so?

[ShineOn]

Are you seeking to council the Lord by use of an earthly government?

You know, you are turning more onto why I am bringing up the points I am, rather than addressing my points. To me, this is the spirit of contention. I told you before that I am interesting in the ideas and why people think the way they do. I am not interested in attributing behaviors to people. You've started to do this tonight. This has been a good discussion. I have not tried to prove anything by authority, although I've used similar statements made by authority and tried to show them true own their own merit, not because they've come by authority. I haven't accused you of anything, so I would appreciate it if you do the same.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I did not accuse you of anything it is a question. IF you are telling us that because the U.S. Constitution provides freedom of religion, that man has a right to do wrong, then you are counciling the Lord when He has spoken otherwise. You brought contention into this debate with the bit about Socrates. Remember that contention is of the devil, but to contend does not make one wrong. Look at who contended with whom in the Book of Mormon, were they "of the devil?" Or maybe there is a distinction. Regardless, lets argue the points and not get sidetracked.

The quotes were unequivocal and not restricted to being viewed through the application of men's rights by the established U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution provided for the Lord's kingdom to be restored at a later date. Could they have put in a provision that men have no right to be anything but LDS? Of course they could but should they have? Could they have? Does God immediately punish us for error? Suffice it to say that it was wisdom that it be so.

If you want to get into why it is so, we can debate that elsewhere.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Well I would love to continue, but the kids wont go to sleep without me. We have been sick and short tempered, and I apologize if that has come out. I really do not mean to attack you at all. I am sorry for putting undo attention on disagreements that had little to do with the topic at hand.

[ShineOn]

I will make a statement. Regarding rights as understood in the Constitution as those actions that men can take that God has granted that should not be curtailed by government, men do have the right to do wrong. Men have the right to worship the wrong god. They have the right to say mean things. They have the right to print false teachings in the newspaper. However, no man has the right to infringe upon the rights of others. And if he does, other men have the right to punish the offender, cause him to offer retribution, and prevent him from infringing again. The righteousness of an action, whether an action is right or wrong, does not alone determine whether a man has the right (see above definition) to do it. The determinant is whether the actions infringes on the rights of others.

For many of those quoted, I think they were not talking about rights as protected in the Constitution, but rather you have no right to do something bad and expect no recouse, no judgement, no punishment, not adverse effect.

In one sense, a man has such a right; and in another sense, he has no such right.

Agreed. In one sense, the sense that the action may be protect by the Bill of Rights, man has the right to do some things that are wrong, but yet infringe on no one elses rights (like worshipping a false god). Lots of those quotes are even qualified with statements like, "you have the right to act as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others," but then don't think that it won't come back around to you sometime, in this life or the next.

I don't have the right to prevent someone from exercising their rights, as long as they don't infringe upont the rights of others.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

I don't see the Constitution saying antyhing but the protection of encroachment upon men's rights. I couldn't see how I could support the punishment of two guys playing poker in their homes. If it involved a minor, then different story. Or if they committed some other crime that infringed on other people's right, then different story.

That's my basis. I don't appreciate being accused of counselling the Lord when I am just taking his counsel.

[ShineOn]

Regarding the punishment of evil:

We read in the Old Testament how the Mosaic Law called for stoning men who worship other gods and other offenses that seem to be of a religious nature. How can this be reconciled? How can it be that our Constitution defends the right of man to worship how he pleases yet the Mosiac Law forbids it?

I had hoped the discussion naturally went this direction but it doesn't look like it will, so I guess I'll just go there myself. It is related to this poll I believe.

The Mosaic Law was much more strict than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet the Lord approved of both. And allowing souls to exercise their agency was so important that in the pre-existence the Father allowed a third of the host of heaven to rebel. The whole point of this earth life is to see how we will use our agency. If priesthood holders exercise even the tiniest amount of unrighteous dominion over others it is amen to the priesthood of that man. So there is this extremely important line between the correct use of force to compel certain behaviors from men and the allowing of them to act freely. So why did the Lord command the Israelites to stone blasphemers, etc.? I believe the answer is that the Mosaic Law is a convenant, with some of the people on earth, not everyone. A deal was made. If the Israelites would agree to act a certain way, the Lord would give them certain blessings. This was a voluntary agreement between the Israelites and the Lord.

Joel Skousen has an interesting idea. Rather than have citizenship based on being born in the country or by having a parent that is a citizen, citizenship would rather become a covenant that individuals enter into when they are of age (see http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/principles.html). Furthermore, he has the idea that communities can convenant with each other to behave above and beyond the bare minimum of doing nothing that infringes on the rights of others. For instance, they could covenant with each other that there would be no gambling. This would still protect people's rights since they are voluntarily yielding their right to gamble, and yet government has the right to act to prevent gambling. Therein lies the reconciliation between what Bastiat, Benson, and Andersen have said and how people can enforce laws that are more strict than just whether they infringe upon the rights of others.

There is something incomplete about how the statement by Bastiat is understood. I agree with him: the government cannot enforce what the individuals has no right to do. However, what right do I have to tax anyone? What right do I have to take a census? What right do I have to make a law that is binding on anyone else? It is the fact that you give some things up for citizenship. You allow yourself to be subject to the law. You allow the government to tax you. You allow the government to count the number of people in your house. But, you have only allowed yourself to be subject to what is in the Constitution. That is the agreement. I do not have a God-given right to stop two of my neighbors from gambling, and they have not given up their right to gamble. And since they are not infringing on anyone else's rights, they are free to gamble.

If there was a group of people that wanted to form a society free from gambling, does that mean they could never do it because they have no right to stop people? Not necessarily. If the people created a covenant, a compact, in which they voluntarily agreed to be punished if they gambled, then government would have the right to act, the just power, to punish and yet everyone would be protected in their rights. This is what the Pilgrims on the Mayflower did. It is what the Nephites with King Benjamin did. It is what the Israelites did. But that is not what Americans did in 1789, and it is not what they are doing today. We cannot punish behaviors that do not infringe upon the rights of others. We must default into using a system that only protects the rights of men, and leaves all other behaviors alone. Wrong, yet legally protected, actions will still reap the natural consequences and bring down God's judgement, but those types of actions man does not have the right to punish, unless they infringe upon the rights of others or the individuals have all already voluntarily convenanted not to engage in the wrong behavior.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Rights originate at God (for our intents and purposes). They are His acknowledgment of ways in which we may act without wrong, without stepping on anyone else's toes. If God gives us a "right" to gamble He will never be able to punish us for gambling.

He did not simply invent a mechanism to be used here among men and discarded at the veil. He also gave men the ability to covenant one with another to protect each other's rights by power, this is government by definition. When people become citizens they swear an oath (or take the covenant to uphold the Constitution).

The argument has taken interesting turns (read like a police chase through downtown LA). I do not believe (nor have ever said contrary) that men have the right to punish men gambling in their house absent minors or exposure to the general public. Their right to be free in their person from illegal search and seizure etc... supercedes the right of society to be free from that evil influence. That is a trade off that men have made in order to better protect their rights.

Men do not have the right to do wrong, they cannot. Men do have a right to be free from evil influence and may form government to support that right. In so doing men (being imperfect) oft times do ere. The Constitution of the United States is as close (I believe) to being a perfect covenant or government for men here below as can be taken (with a few exceptions, a few bad amendments).

We know that the Constitution will be saved even though the government is thrown down. The Constitution is our covenant. The government (certain men in office) has failed to keep the covenant. Those guilty will be removed from their place. We will try again.

The Law of Moses was just another government, just another covenant between people to protect one another's rights.

The Mosaic law was not perfect, and in fact was a lower law. It was adapted to the capacity of the people (as is the U.S. Constitution as noted).

I believe that if you could just understand the nature of our rights, in respect to agency and power, you would understand.

I believe that because you view gambling as harmless to society and because you personally cannot see the harm in it, that you justify man in his sins and go so far as to say that he has a right to it. I believe that this is absolute moral relativism. We can not argue the point any longer as we fundamentally see it differently. You mince terms but see only that I do, and likewise we cannot proceed. Further you bitterly cling to perceived slights and overlook your own which keeps the spirit of contention here.

Wherein is it the Lords council that a man has the right to do wrong? Power yes, agency yes, ability yes, but never has he possessed, and never will he posses that right. You could prove that to yourself if you were willing to try the seed, rather than stubbornly cling to your philosophy and defend it with what to me seem strange contortions.

For the sake of the board I am finished on this subject. I believe that their is sufficient information herein for anyone to form an educated opinion on the subject, and I believe that God will reward seekers of truth with that wisdom to overlook our folly herein and find the truth.

I want you to know ShineOn that I have no hard feelings, and harbor no ill will. I will be sorry if I have caused you any annoyance or discomfort etc... to any degree unwarranted. I have only acted in defense of what I see as true principle. I do not believe that I have personally attacked you, except in specific ways which I believe were and are keeping us from having a civil debate. I will never cease to call someone out when I believe they are acting improperly. I do so not to tear down the individual, but rather to correct the wrong (which is the only way to progress) that is something that I cannot apologize for. I do not believe that I have strayed from that.

[ChelC]

I'm throwing a bucket of water on you two. You will never agree, and that pearl is not getting made so far as I can tell.

I think it's caused us all to think though, and I look forward to more discussions like this, but I think we need to know when to end it.

[creator]

the federal govenrnment may not, state or local govenrnment may, depending on their own constitution.

the ablity to pass laws pertaining to debauchery are not enumerated in the constituion so they are "reserved to the states".

This is how Cleon Skousen explained it as well. The Federal government is completely limited to the powers given to it in the Constitution.

State and Local governments can regulate debauchery/vices if the majority agrees.

[WhisperFox]

Wow, a simple correct answer. But that takes the fun out of an extended debate.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I would suggest that first, Brian's initial summation ended any debate for me, I was an immediate convert. But the debate raged because we debated the concept wheras this synopsis is only in the context of what is constitutional (which is really clear). Something tells me though that the debate would have raged anyways on the principle.

I actually wish that we had a hundred more ShineOns on here. (not that I would last very long) Most seem entirely unwilling to argue the philosophical points to their bare roots. Clearly ShineOn has done the homework required to understand the true nature of the argument. Most others are playing tennis with a multiplicity of scenarios to which all have a different (il)logical conclusion.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

But that takes the fun out of an extended debate.

That's not condescension is it WhisperFox?

[WhisperFox]

I meant it to be funny, and perhaps a little condescending.

Sorry.

I guess from my position, time is too valuable and there are too many other issues I'd like to learn, than to spend a great deal of time debating the philosophical pro's and con's to an idea, when the truth is laid out plainly. Obviously to others the quest or discussion is a worthwhile pursuit.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Thanks for the honesty WhisperFox!!! I don't mind the condescension as long as you will own up to it. Good on you.

The problem I have with your train of thought here 3% is first that you presented a set of circumstances to frame the debate that do not fit around the debate that occurred before all of your stipulations. I pointed out many times the problem that men have administering God's law, and that is why the Constitution is so perfect a human instrument and will prevail hereafter. I think that all of your arguments in this context are good. And I agree with them. (you still have not drawn a line in the sand)

That said, the phrase that you keep using (the desert isle gambling one) depends upon several circumstances and your argument falls on its face under the knowledge that men have the right to be free from evil influence (we can cast out satan, the celestial kingdom even existing is an acknowledgment of this, we have no right to do wrong, we do have a right to virtue). The soundness of enforcing that right as a governmental question is moot in this argument as is land ownership, private property rights etc...

Your own argument makes the case strongly that God's law trumps man's law up to and including murder, thus God will never condemn us for adhering to His law (which explains a lot in the Old Testament!!!). It is therein that I am justified in defending my virtue on the island (although I would in all likelihood never act to do so probably more because of how beaten down we have all become by evil influences, and therefore my virtue is already painfully lacking !!!).

It is not as you alluded a very good system of government in it's fullness however owing to the many differing religions and philosophies among us. Therein comes the beauty of the line drawn by the founding fathers.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Let me ask you 3%: In the Nephi argument, wherein was Nephi justified in killing Laban?

Remember that God cannot violate His own laws, nor do they bend to suit His will. So your answer must be in this context!

There is no question that Nephi's life was out of immediate danger and so using self-defense as an argument will fall flat.

Private property rights surely do not justify him as we believe in being subject to law and government so even if they might have been rightfully his, that argument does not hold as he made no known appeal to government for redress.

So by which of God's laws was Nephi justified? (don't take the easy out here and say that he had to obey the Lord, that is the wrong answer. Or else we must then answer by what law was the Lord justified in doing so! I for one would rather keep it on this level for now.)

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

One more for you 3%:

What in your argument would stop me from putting up a pornographic billboard on my own property?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

EVERYTHING that I am talking about concerns the set up and running of an earthly GOVERNMENT as apposed to becoming a covenant people like the city of Enoch. I think your approach takes the "eternal" perspective and therefore justifies the covenant approach. I still disagree that you have a right to do anything other than testify though, as you are not (that i am aware of) authorized to act as the destroying angel

I just want to address one point and that is that the city of Enoch got that way by a progression towards righteousness and government responded. The Celestial Kingdom is no more free from government than we are, it is however free of opposing viewpoints and thus has the unity of purpose etc... to enable government to support ALL of God's laws. The city of Enoch was not free from government, rather they and their government progressed together in unity until they attained that same heavenly unity.

Did the Lord hold Israel responsible for the religious liberty of the Canaanites? We see in this an interesting lesson for government especially when coupled with what we have been told, "I will give you grace in their eyes...I will soften the hearts of the people, as I did pharaoh...and after these lands are purchased, I will hold the armies of Israel guiltless...throwing down the towers of mine enemies ...scattering their watchmen...avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation." So lest you thought that those days are long past, the Lord told Joseph Smith to be nice to your enemies until you become "very great," and then stick it to them.

That summarizes it for me. While we are "in the way," with our enemies, we should "agree with thine adversary." But when we become very great, we are to stand for God's law to the throwing down of their supposed religious liberties.

Man only has the right to worship the One True God. The Lord will justify us in sustaining God's laws. Nevertheless it is wisdom that we should not do so, not even talk of doing so, until we become very great.

When arguing principle God's law will always triumph, when arguing practice, God's law should always triumph.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

So by this last argument, we as a society certainly can stop gambling in public.