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.
Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
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.)
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
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
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.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
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
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
If the man on the island does not have the right to stop the other men from looking at pornography in your site, then the society has no right to do it. You said that yourself in your original post. Do you still stand by it?
So can you as an individual on a deserted island stop the other men from looking at pornography in your sight? Or is the answer no, because you aren't the destroying angel?
So can you as an individual on a deserted island stop the other men from looking at pornography in your sight? Or is the answer no, because you aren't the destroying angel?
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
I disagree, I think that the argument is precisely the same but harder for you to rationalize. The logic is precisely the same.
Using your argument then, I have private property rights over my body. The individual in question has no right to project pornography into my domain (through my eyes). Likewise I take equal moral offense at viewing immoral behaviors such as gambling. It violates my private property right over my body to have to witness the act of gambling.
Who gets to decide what a reasonable claim is upon these supposed property rights? I would suggest God, you have no one to suggest since men have an infinite opinion on such matters. How else shall we define what is right for a society? True we can let the people decide, but as long as that is different than God's law it will never exalt as did the government of Enoch by setting God's laws as their standard, and yes banishing those who disagree. I would suggest this as the best model of government to follow. What would you suggest?
Using your argument then, I have private property rights over my body. The individual in question has no right to project pornography into my domain (through my eyes). Likewise I take equal moral offense at viewing immoral behaviors such as gambling. It violates my private property right over my body to have to witness the act of gambling.
Who gets to decide what a reasonable claim is upon these supposed property rights? I would suggest God, you have no one to suggest since men have an infinite opinion on such matters. How else shall we define what is right for a society? True we can let the people decide, but as long as that is different than God's law it will never exalt as did the government of Enoch by setting God's laws as their standard, and yes banishing those who disagree. I would suggest this as the best model of government to follow. What would you suggest?
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Your post is too long to respond to each point individually (although I will if you really want) but since there really are just two points I will address those.
The only proper form of government is a government of God's law. Now to address your point that men are not unified, that is why I keep pointing out the beauty of the U.S. Constitution as a temporal government. It starts with the lowest common denominator. It is not perfect as a representation of God's law, but it is a perfect starting point from which to exalt both man and government.
All of the scenarios gambling, mcribs, pornography are dependant upon the people to decide what to do about those vices, but THE point here is that all are wrong and that we as a society can punish those who project these ills on the people. In what manner if at all we Should punish these ills at present is an entirely different question. Clearly there are historical precedents for punishing all of these offenses by God's people.
My point is that we start with the U.S. Constitution and actually enforce it now. It does not stop us from progressing and passing new stricter laws as the people progress in unity towards Zion and the City of Enoch. That is precisely how Enoch did it.
So should government act to regulate debauchery, vice etc... yes, but we should start with the lowest common denominator possible without offending God, and progress from there. Or else we will be mighty lonely (assuming we are righteous) That is why we are instructed to pray not for judgments to come but rather pray for hearts to be softened. That way it wont be so lonely when the judgment does come.
If you are willing, this should clear up all of your questions. All of this is not me enforcing my will upon the people, nor God enforcing His will on the people, but rather the people rising together in unity towards an exalted ideal. Their is nothing satanic about that nor is there any other way to accomplish it with a group of people.
The only proper form of government is a government of God's law. Now to address your point that men are not unified, that is why I keep pointing out the beauty of the U.S. Constitution as a temporal government. It starts with the lowest common denominator. It is not perfect as a representation of God's law, but it is a perfect starting point from which to exalt both man and government.
All of the scenarios gambling, mcribs, pornography are dependant upon the people to decide what to do about those vices, but THE point here is that all are wrong and that we as a society can punish those who project these ills on the people. In what manner if at all we Should punish these ills at present is an entirely different question. Clearly there are historical precedents for punishing all of these offenses by God's people.
My point is that we start with the U.S. Constitution and actually enforce it now. It does not stop us from progressing and passing new stricter laws as the people progress in unity towards Zion and the City of Enoch. That is precisely how Enoch did it.
So should government act to regulate debauchery, vice etc... yes, but we should start with the lowest common denominator possible without offending God, and progress from there. Or else we will be mighty lonely (assuming we are righteous) That is why we are instructed to pray not for judgments to come but rather pray for hearts to be softened. That way it wont be so lonely when the judgment does come.
If you are willing, this should clear up all of your questions. All of this is not me enforcing my will upon the people, nor God enforcing His will on the people, but rather the people rising together in unity towards an exalted ideal. Their is nothing satanic about that nor is there any other way to accomplish it with a group of people.
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Hopefully, but those laws would provide for protection from the inevitable dissenters among us. Read in the book of Joshua all of the provisions that the Lord required of them. They had to kill a family for taking spoils from Jericho and losing a battle for them.
It is nice when the majority progresses to that degree, but there needs to be means to keep the progression from being sidetracked by the one Cain among us. He introduced the need for government among men (although Adam was governed from the get-go).
It is nice when the majority progresses to that degree, but there needs to be means to keep the progression from being sidetracked by the one Cain among us. He introduced the need for government among men (although Adam was governed from the get-go).
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
This thread grows faster than I could possibly keep up with. I was willing to answer the questions posted to me, but now I see they are ancient history as the debate rolls on into infinitum.
Here are a couple of my observations. The original question was "Should the government regulate debauchery, vices, Porn, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc... ". This was cause for a great deal of thought provoking discussion from others and introspection on my part.
Later, ShineOn posed the same question with a logical fallacy added. His logical fallacy argument of gambling. Next, two more or a total of three logical fallacies were placed in the middle of the posed question. (check here for a link to the use of logical fallacies and a list of them. I won't be condescending here and take the time to explain them. I will assume those interested understand the term.) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
1- The first stated that gambling injures no one outside of those gambling.
2 - The second logical fallacy was that ETB's, HVA, and others comments concerning the limitations of the federal government apply to state government and the passing of law regulating morality.
3 - The third, that it is wrong to legislate morality on a state level.
President Benson gave us "four standards for political matters" in general conference to assist us in establishing when a law is right or wrong.
1- "Is the proposal, policy, or idea being promoted right as measured by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"
2- "Is it right as measured by the Constitution of this land and the glorious principles embodied in that Constitution?"
3- "Is it right as measured by the living oracles of God?"
4- "What will be the effect on the moral and the character of the people if this or that policy is adopted?"
For me it stacks up this way.
1- The first logical fallacy is shown to be such by understanding that the Gospel of Jesus Christs teaches us that gambling is wrong. If you doubt this read Dallin Oak's remarks Ensign June 1987 on gambling which includes the churches most recent statement on the matter. I've included most of it at the end of this post.
2- The Constitution of the United States leaves the right to pass moral laws in the hands of the states. Nowhere does it in word or principle prohibit or control the states in passing moral laws. The second logical fallacy is simple. The limiting federal powers does not limit state powers. It would be wrong for the federal government to legislate morality without the consent of the states. The LDS church and first presidency actively supported prohibition and also vocally and officially opposed to end of prohibition. From this I can rest assured that the prophet of God teaches us that is is indeed right to legislate morality, even on a federal level, with state approval.
3- This is the simplest and easiest. The Prophet currently and every past prophet has asked us to support laws governing and controlling moral issues. Those laws governing moral issues include not just gambling laws, but liquor laws, pornography laws, prostitution laws. The churches position and the prophets position on these issues has never been in doubt.
4- If one understands the direct effects that laws governing these moral issues has on society in general, passing such laws has only a positive influence on the character of the people and on society in general.
From Dallin Oak's 1984 talk
Gambling is obviously an effective instrument for opposing the work of God. No wonder the prophets have opposed it vigorously.
Don’t legislate morality.” I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others.
So what does it mean when a person says, “Don’t try to legislate morality?” There is ample room for debate on the wisdom of most legislation, whether it has a moral base or not. Some legislation is unwise or undesirable because it is an excessive interference with liberty or because it will be impossible or expensive to enforce. But the mere statement that we should not legislate morality contributes nothing to reasoned public discourse.
President Benson's standards do help establish the truth on this issue.
Libertarians (which I used to consider myself) like to use the logical fallacy that we can not morally or constitutionally pass laws that restrict morality. Anarchy trumps federal and state powers.
Here is most of Dallin Oak's talk.
*******
There can be no question about the moral ramifications of gambling. As it has in the past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands opposed to gambling, including government-sponsored lotteries.
“Public lotteries are advocated as a means of relieving the burden of taxation. It has been clearly demonstrated, however, that all too often lotteries only add to the problems of the financially disadvantaged by taking money from them and giving nothing of value in return. The poor and the elderly become victims of the inducements that are held out to purchase lottery tickets on the remote chance of winning a substantial prize.” (Letter of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 26 Sept. 1986).
This statement condemns gambling from two points of view. In religious terms, it is morally wrong. In public policy terms, it is politically unwise. I will discuss both of these points of view.
First, gambling as a moral evil.
Two generations ago, the English scholar and convert to Christianity, C. S. Lewis, employed an unusual literary device to explain some truths about Christianity. He authored a book consisting of letters of instruction from a senior devil, Screwtape, to his nephew, a junior devil named Wormwood. The Screwtape Letters contains some brilliant insights into good and evil human behavior, presented more memorably than would have been possible in conventional sermons.
For example, Screwtape instructs young Wormwood how to lead his “patient” away from a Christian life very gradually by getting him accustomed to small acts or omissions.
“You will say that these are very small sins [Screwtape explains]; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. [The Enemy to Screwtape is, of course, the Lord.] It does not matter how small the sins are [Screwtape continues], provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” (The Screwtape Letters (New York: Doubleday, 1961), p. 52.)
There is something biblical in C. S. Lewis’s technique of using the wiles of Satan as a setting for teaching the truths of God. The Book of Job presents its teachings in this manner. I will employ this same technique in my discussion of why gambling is morally wrong. I will suggest how Satan and his tempters can use gambling to lead us away from actions and attitudes that our Father in Heaven has commanded us to follow.
Jesus taught us to give. He will even test our willingness to sacrifice all that we have in service to Him and to our fellowmen. Satan, the adversary, teaches men to take—forcibly if necessary, deviously if feasible, continuously if possible. Whatever encourages men to take from one another without giving value in return serves the cause of Satan.
Gambling is a game of chance that takes without giving value in return. Gambling puts money or other things of value into a pool [page 70] and then redistributes it on the basis of a roll of the dice, a spin of the wheel, or a drawing of a number. Nothing of value is produced in the process.
What does gambling do to its participants? The attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position—the essence of gambling—leads us away from the giving path of Christ and toward the taking path of the adversary. The act of taking or trying to take something from someone else without giving value in return is destructive of spiritual sensitivities.
Do these degrading effects apply to such seemingly innocent and trivial acts as buying a lottery ticket or giving political support to a state-sponsored lottery so that others can do so? What do you think? Remember Screwtape’s observation that “the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope.” As Nephi foresaw, in the last days, “there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; … there is no harm in this.” (2 Ne. 28:8.) But according to the prophets of ancient and modern times, “the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” (D&C 1:31; see also Lev. 5:17; Alma 45:16.)
More than sixty years ago, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors, the First Presidency of that day, declared:
“The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form whatever. It is opposed to any game of chance, occupation, or so-called business, which takes money from the person who may be possessed of it without giving value received in return. It is opposed to all practices the tendency of which is to … degrade or weaken the high moral standard which the members of the Church, and our community at large, have always maintained.” ( Improvement Era, Sept. 1926, p. 1100.)
A generation earlier, President Joseph F. Smith had stated:
“The Church does not approve of gambling but strongly condemns it as morally wrong, and classes also with this gambling, games of chance and lottery, of all kinds, and earnestly disapproves of any of its members engaging therein.” (Improvement Era, Aug. 1908, p. 807.)
Many other Christian leaders have branded gambling as a moral evil because it leads its participants away from the behavior and attitudes taught by Jesus Christ. A Methodist minister, the Reverend Lycurgas M. Starkey, Jr., asked this question: “Can [a Christian] honestly use his gifts in gambling when his winnings are gained at the expense of another’s losing?” He answered his question as follows:
“The good Christian’s love of neighbor will stand against every practice which hinders the growth of the human spirit toward the likeness of Christ or which breaks down the structures of justice in society. The Christian will himself refrain from gambling and from publicly endorsing it in any form, realizing that gambling is detrimental to the purpose of life as revealed in Jesus Christ.” 5
A thousand Christian and Jewish sermons testify that greed and covetousness are contrary to God’s will for his children. Gambling promotes these evils. Ten times that many sermons elaborate the Savior’s Golden Rule. Gambling, the philosophy and practice of taking, is the polar opposite of the Golden Rule.
In The Screwtape Letters the senior devil instructs his apprentice to persuade the “patient” to concentrate on his own needs and desires and to ignore the effects on others. Gambling is an ideal technique since the participant inevitably considers only his own prospects of winning. The usual news coverage reinforces that attitude. It tells only of the winners. All are encouraged to ignore the reality that the winner has been enriched at the expense of a multitude of losers. In lotteries, fewer than 1 in 1,000 wins anything. What of the effect on 999 losers?
A related technique of the adversary is to get people to focus so intently on the desirability of ends that they ignore the morality of means. Screwtape and his helpers could undercut the moral base of an entire society if they could just persuade citizens, bit by bit, to ignore or justify immoral means on the basis that the ends are good.
Like so many other sins, a state-sponsored lottery is sugar-coated with the phony sweetness of a good cause. We hear proposals to use state-sponsored gambling as a solution to financial crises in state government. These proposals invite us to focus on the desirability of additional funding and of needed relief for hard-pressed taxpayers and to [page 71] ignore the costs of gambling. There are moral costs to the participants, and, as I will point out later, there are also financial costs in this means of raising money.
Gambling tends to corrupt its participants. Its philosophy of something for nothing undermines the virtues of work, industry, thrift, and service to others. The seductive lure of a huge possible windfall for a small “investment” encourages participants to gamble with funds needed for other purposes, even the basics of food and housing. Gamblers commonly deprive themselves, they often impoverish their families, and they sometimes steal from others to finance their indulgence. We are all familiar with cases in which trusted employees have stolen from their employers, bringing tragedy upon themselves and their families. All too often this ruinous sequence is traceable to a desperate attempt to pay gambling debts or to finance further indulgence.
If Screwtape were instructing young tempters in an advanced course, which went beyond temptations for an individual patient and instructed in methods that bear on large numbers of people, he would include three influences:
First, an effective way to corrupt morals on a large scale is to persuade huge numbers of persons to try some relatively harmless behavior that will prove to be addictive to some of them. Once the potential addicts can be identified, junior tempters like Wormwood can single them out for special attention, encouraging them to continue their indulgence until they are securely hooked. For reasons we do not understand, some persons lack the control mechanism that allows them to try something and then leave it alone. Some are susceptible to addictions to tobacco, others to alcohol or other drugs, and some can be addicted to gambling. For the susceptible, what looks like a harmless experiment actually chains them to an indulgence by bonds that seem too strong to break.
If losing a portion of our will pleases the adversary—and it must, since freedom to choose is God-given—then few pastimes will please him more or serve his ends more effectively than those seemingly harmless activities that prove to be addictive to some.
Second, Screwtape’s advanced course would teach that where possible the senior tempter should magnify the impact of his work by encouraging “patients” to indulge in pastimes that are both spiritually degrading and public. This is especially effective for pastimes that can be made to appear recreational, stylish, and fun. Screwtape would cite the familiar television beer commercials as a model for this method. A quiet bet between friends, or even the surreptitious purchase of a lottery ticket, is never as useful to the adversary’s cause as gambling at casinos and racetracks. Highly visible public gambling enhances the impression of recreation and assists in recruiting new participants. Participation in this kind of gambling also increases the likelihood that the tempters will be able to expose their “patients” to other degrading influences like alcohol and prostitution, which they always seem to have in close proximity to places of public gambling.
Third, if a senior devil like Screwtape sought to weaken the productive basis of an entire society, he could not do better than to try to interest its citizens in spending their productive or leisure time in gambling. Whether occupation or pastime, gambling adds no goods or services to the productive base of the society and it contributes nothing to the physical, emotional, or social well-being of its participants.
I conclude my discussion of the moral evils of gambling with these words of Richard L. Evans:
“The spirit of gambling is a progressive thing. Usually it begins modestly; and then, like many other hazardous habits, it often grows beyond control. At best it wastes time and produces nothing. At worst it becomes a ruinous obsession and fosters false living by encouraging the futile belief that we can continually get something for nothing.” (Improvement Era, Dec. 1946, p. 793.)
Gambling is obviously an effective instrument for opposing the work of God. No wonder the prophets have opposed it vigorously.
Don’t legislate morality.” I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others.
So what does it mean when a person says, “Don’t try to legislate morality?” There is ample room for debate on the wisdom of most legislation, whether it has a moral base or not. Some legislation is unwise or undesirable because it is an excessive interference with liberty or because it will be impossible or expensive to enforce. But the mere statement that we should not legislate morality contributes nothing to reasoned public discourse.
I conclude this discussion of public policy arguments against gambling with several moral objections. Law is concerned about morality, and there are serious legal-moral objections to state lotteries. I quote five of these objections from a publication of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission:
“It is a moral issue when the state decides to derive income from an activity which is a highly regressive form of taxation that affects poor people more extensively than affluent people.
“It is a moral issue when a state decides not only to tolerate gambling but to get in the business of planning games, engaging in promotional activities … and targeting its citizens through extensive marketing analyses in the hopes of creating new gamblers. …
“It is a moral issue when a state adopts a form of gambling which in all probability will increase the extent and the amount of illegal gambling.
“It is a moral issue when a state adopts a form of gambling that will draw off large amounts of money, especially from the poor people for whom the state supposedly has a responsibility to provide assistance.
“It is a moral issue when a state engages in naive projections and adopts financial planning that amounts to putting a shoddy patch on a state’s long-term financial problems.” 35
To summarize: that governments would tolerate gambling is regrettable; that governments would promote gambling is reprehensible.
So what should Latter-day Saints do about gambling? They should not participate in any way, and they should encourage others, especially their family members, not to participate.
What should Latter-day Saints do about state-sponsored lotteries, present or proposed? The First Presidency answered that question in their statement last fall:
“We urge members of the Church to join with others with similar concerns in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of lotteries.” 36
If members of our Church do not oppose immoral and pernicious practices, who will? If not now, when? We can make a difference! May God help us to do so.
Here are a couple of my observations. The original question was "Should the government regulate debauchery, vices, Porn, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc... ". This was cause for a great deal of thought provoking discussion from others and introspection on my part.
Later, ShineOn posed the same question with a logical fallacy added. His logical fallacy argument of gambling. Next, two more or a total of three logical fallacies were placed in the middle of the posed question. (check here for a link to the use of logical fallacies and a list of them. I won't be condescending here and take the time to explain them. I will assume those interested understand the term.) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
1- The first stated that gambling injures no one outside of those gambling.
2 - The second logical fallacy was that ETB's, HVA, and others comments concerning the limitations of the federal government apply to state government and the passing of law regulating morality.
3 - The third, that it is wrong to legislate morality on a state level.
President Benson gave us "four standards for political matters" in general conference to assist us in establishing when a law is right or wrong.
1- "Is the proposal, policy, or idea being promoted right as measured by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"
2- "Is it right as measured by the Constitution of this land and the glorious principles embodied in that Constitution?"
3- "Is it right as measured by the living oracles of God?"
4- "What will be the effect on the moral and the character of the people if this or that policy is adopted?"
For me it stacks up this way.
1- The first logical fallacy is shown to be such by understanding that the Gospel of Jesus Christs teaches us that gambling is wrong. If you doubt this read Dallin Oak's remarks Ensign June 1987 on gambling which includes the churches most recent statement on the matter. I've included most of it at the end of this post.
2- The Constitution of the United States leaves the right to pass moral laws in the hands of the states. Nowhere does it in word or principle prohibit or control the states in passing moral laws. The second logical fallacy is simple. The limiting federal powers does not limit state powers. It would be wrong for the federal government to legislate morality without the consent of the states. The LDS church and first presidency actively supported prohibition and also vocally and officially opposed to end of prohibition. From this I can rest assured that the prophet of God teaches us that is is indeed right to legislate morality, even on a federal level, with state approval.
3- This is the simplest and easiest. The Prophet currently and every past prophet has asked us to support laws governing and controlling moral issues. Those laws governing moral issues include not just gambling laws, but liquor laws, pornography laws, prostitution laws. The churches position and the prophets position on these issues has never been in doubt.
4- If one understands the direct effects that laws governing these moral issues has on society in general, passing such laws has only a positive influence on the character of the people and on society in general.
From Dallin Oak's 1984 talk
Gambling is obviously an effective instrument for opposing the work of God. No wonder the prophets have opposed it vigorously.
Don’t legislate morality.” I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others.
So what does it mean when a person says, “Don’t try to legislate morality?” There is ample room for debate on the wisdom of most legislation, whether it has a moral base or not. Some legislation is unwise or undesirable because it is an excessive interference with liberty or because it will be impossible or expensive to enforce. But the mere statement that we should not legislate morality contributes nothing to reasoned public discourse.
President Benson's standards do help establish the truth on this issue.
Libertarians (which I used to consider myself) like to use the logical fallacy that we can not morally or constitutionally pass laws that restrict morality. Anarchy trumps federal and state powers.
Here is most of Dallin Oak's talk.
*******
There can be no question about the moral ramifications of gambling. As it has in the past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands opposed to gambling, including government-sponsored lotteries.
“Public lotteries are advocated as a means of relieving the burden of taxation. It has been clearly demonstrated, however, that all too often lotteries only add to the problems of the financially disadvantaged by taking money from them and giving nothing of value in return. The poor and the elderly become victims of the inducements that are held out to purchase lottery tickets on the remote chance of winning a substantial prize.” (Letter of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 26 Sept. 1986).
This statement condemns gambling from two points of view. In religious terms, it is morally wrong. In public policy terms, it is politically unwise. I will discuss both of these points of view.
First, gambling as a moral evil.
Two generations ago, the English scholar and convert to Christianity, C. S. Lewis, employed an unusual literary device to explain some truths about Christianity. He authored a book consisting of letters of instruction from a senior devil, Screwtape, to his nephew, a junior devil named Wormwood. The Screwtape Letters contains some brilliant insights into good and evil human behavior, presented more memorably than would have been possible in conventional sermons.
For example, Screwtape instructs young Wormwood how to lead his “patient” away from a Christian life very gradually by getting him accustomed to small acts or omissions.
“You will say that these are very small sins [Screwtape explains]; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. [The Enemy to Screwtape is, of course, the Lord.] It does not matter how small the sins are [Screwtape continues], provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” (The Screwtape Letters (New York: Doubleday, 1961), p. 52.)
There is something biblical in C. S. Lewis’s technique of using the wiles of Satan as a setting for teaching the truths of God. The Book of Job presents its teachings in this manner. I will employ this same technique in my discussion of why gambling is morally wrong. I will suggest how Satan and his tempters can use gambling to lead us away from actions and attitudes that our Father in Heaven has commanded us to follow.
Jesus taught us to give. He will even test our willingness to sacrifice all that we have in service to Him and to our fellowmen. Satan, the adversary, teaches men to take—forcibly if necessary, deviously if feasible, continuously if possible. Whatever encourages men to take from one another without giving value in return serves the cause of Satan.
Gambling is a game of chance that takes without giving value in return. Gambling puts money or other things of value into a pool [page 70] and then redistributes it on the basis of a roll of the dice, a spin of the wheel, or a drawing of a number. Nothing of value is produced in the process.
What does gambling do to its participants? The attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position—the essence of gambling—leads us away from the giving path of Christ and toward the taking path of the adversary. The act of taking or trying to take something from someone else without giving value in return is destructive of spiritual sensitivities.
Do these degrading effects apply to such seemingly innocent and trivial acts as buying a lottery ticket or giving political support to a state-sponsored lottery so that others can do so? What do you think? Remember Screwtape’s observation that “the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope.” As Nephi foresaw, in the last days, “there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; … there is no harm in this.” (2 Ne. 28:8.) But according to the prophets of ancient and modern times, “the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” (D&C 1:31; see also Lev. 5:17; Alma 45:16.)
More than sixty years ago, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors, the First Presidency of that day, declared:
“The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form whatever. It is opposed to any game of chance, occupation, or so-called business, which takes money from the person who may be possessed of it without giving value received in return. It is opposed to all practices the tendency of which is to … degrade or weaken the high moral standard which the members of the Church, and our community at large, have always maintained.” ( Improvement Era, Sept. 1926, p. 1100.)
A generation earlier, President Joseph F. Smith had stated:
“The Church does not approve of gambling but strongly condemns it as morally wrong, and classes also with this gambling, games of chance and lottery, of all kinds, and earnestly disapproves of any of its members engaging therein.” (Improvement Era, Aug. 1908, p. 807.)
Many other Christian leaders have branded gambling as a moral evil because it leads its participants away from the behavior and attitudes taught by Jesus Christ. A Methodist minister, the Reverend Lycurgas M. Starkey, Jr., asked this question: “Can [a Christian] honestly use his gifts in gambling when his winnings are gained at the expense of another’s losing?” He answered his question as follows:
“The good Christian’s love of neighbor will stand against every practice which hinders the growth of the human spirit toward the likeness of Christ or which breaks down the structures of justice in society. The Christian will himself refrain from gambling and from publicly endorsing it in any form, realizing that gambling is detrimental to the purpose of life as revealed in Jesus Christ.” 5
A thousand Christian and Jewish sermons testify that greed and covetousness are contrary to God’s will for his children. Gambling promotes these evils. Ten times that many sermons elaborate the Savior’s Golden Rule. Gambling, the philosophy and practice of taking, is the polar opposite of the Golden Rule.
In The Screwtape Letters the senior devil instructs his apprentice to persuade the “patient” to concentrate on his own needs and desires and to ignore the effects on others. Gambling is an ideal technique since the participant inevitably considers only his own prospects of winning. The usual news coverage reinforces that attitude. It tells only of the winners. All are encouraged to ignore the reality that the winner has been enriched at the expense of a multitude of losers. In lotteries, fewer than 1 in 1,000 wins anything. What of the effect on 999 losers?
A related technique of the adversary is to get people to focus so intently on the desirability of ends that they ignore the morality of means. Screwtape and his helpers could undercut the moral base of an entire society if they could just persuade citizens, bit by bit, to ignore or justify immoral means on the basis that the ends are good.
Like so many other sins, a state-sponsored lottery is sugar-coated with the phony sweetness of a good cause. We hear proposals to use state-sponsored gambling as a solution to financial crises in state government. These proposals invite us to focus on the desirability of additional funding and of needed relief for hard-pressed taxpayers and to [page 71] ignore the costs of gambling. There are moral costs to the participants, and, as I will point out later, there are also financial costs in this means of raising money.
Gambling tends to corrupt its participants. Its philosophy of something for nothing undermines the virtues of work, industry, thrift, and service to others. The seductive lure of a huge possible windfall for a small “investment” encourages participants to gamble with funds needed for other purposes, even the basics of food and housing. Gamblers commonly deprive themselves, they often impoverish their families, and they sometimes steal from others to finance their indulgence. We are all familiar with cases in which trusted employees have stolen from their employers, bringing tragedy upon themselves and their families. All too often this ruinous sequence is traceable to a desperate attempt to pay gambling debts or to finance further indulgence.
If Screwtape were instructing young tempters in an advanced course, which went beyond temptations for an individual patient and instructed in methods that bear on large numbers of people, he would include three influences:
First, an effective way to corrupt morals on a large scale is to persuade huge numbers of persons to try some relatively harmless behavior that will prove to be addictive to some of them. Once the potential addicts can be identified, junior tempters like Wormwood can single them out for special attention, encouraging them to continue their indulgence until they are securely hooked. For reasons we do not understand, some persons lack the control mechanism that allows them to try something and then leave it alone. Some are susceptible to addictions to tobacco, others to alcohol or other drugs, and some can be addicted to gambling. For the susceptible, what looks like a harmless experiment actually chains them to an indulgence by bonds that seem too strong to break.
If losing a portion of our will pleases the adversary—and it must, since freedom to choose is God-given—then few pastimes will please him more or serve his ends more effectively than those seemingly harmless activities that prove to be addictive to some.
Second, Screwtape’s advanced course would teach that where possible the senior tempter should magnify the impact of his work by encouraging “patients” to indulge in pastimes that are both spiritually degrading and public. This is especially effective for pastimes that can be made to appear recreational, stylish, and fun. Screwtape would cite the familiar television beer commercials as a model for this method. A quiet bet between friends, or even the surreptitious purchase of a lottery ticket, is never as useful to the adversary’s cause as gambling at casinos and racetracks. Highly visible public gambling enhances the impression of recreation and assists in recruiting new participants. Participation in this kind of gambling also increases the likelihood that the tempters will be able to expose their “patients” to other degrading influences like alcohol and prostitution, which they always seem to have in close proximity to places of public gambling.
Third, if a senior devil like Screwtape sought to weaken the productive basis of an entire society, he could not do better than to try to interest its citizens in spending their productive or leisure time in gambling. Whether occupation or pastime, gambling adds no goods or services to the productive base of the society and it contributes nothing to the physical, emotional, or social well-being of its participants.
I conclude my discussion of the moral evils of gambling with these words of Richard L. Evans:
“The spirit of gambling is a progressive thing. Usually it begins modestly; and then, like many other hazardous habits, it often grows beyond control. At best it wastes time and produces nothing. At worst it becomes a ruinous obsession and fosters false living by encouraging the futile belief that we can continually get something for nothing.” (Improvement Era, Dec. 1946, p. 793.)
Gambling is obviously an effective instrument for opposing the work of God. No wonder the prophets have opposed it vigorously.
Don’t legislate morality.” I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others.
So what does it mean when a person says, “Don’t try to legislate morality?” There is ample room for debate on the wisdom of most legislation, whether it has a moral base or not. Some legislation is unwise or undesirable because it is an excessive interference with liberty or because it will be impossible or expensive to enforce. But the mere statement that we should not legislate morality contributes nothing to reasoned public discourse.
I conclude this discussion of public policy arguments against gambling with several moral objections. Law is concerned about morality, and there are serious legal-moral objections to state lotteries. I quote five of these objections from a publication of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission:
“It is a moral issue when the state decides to derive income from an activity which is a highly regressive form of taxation that affects poor people more extensively than affluent people.
“It is a moral issue when a state decides not only to tolerate gambling but to get in the business of planning games, engaging in promotional activities … and targeting its citizens through extensive marketing analyses in the hopes of creating new gamblers. …
“It is a moral issue when a state adopts a form of gambling which in all probability will increase the extent and the amount of illegal gambling.
“It is a moral issue when a state adopts a form of gambling that will draw off large amounts of money, especially from the poor people for whom the state supposedly has a responsibility to provide assistance.
“It is a moral issue when a state engages in naive projections and adopts financial planning that amounts to putting a shoddy patch on a state’s long-term financial problems.” 35
To summarize: that governments would tolerate gambling is regrettable; that governments would promote gambling is reprehensible.
So what should Latter-day Saints do about gambling? They should not participate in any way, and they should encourage others, especially their family members, not to participate.
What should Latter-day Saints do about state-sponsored lotteries, present or proposed? The First Presidency answered that question in their statement last fall:
“We urge members of the Church to join with others with similar concerns in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of lotteries.” 36
If members of our Church do not oppose immoral and pernicious practices, who will? If not now, when? We can make a difference! May God help us to do so.
Last edited by WhisperFox on January 31st, 2007, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ChelC
- The Law
- Posts: 5982
- Location: Utah
Interesting... I suppose that our least common denominator (among the majority of law abiding citizens) is a pretty good indicator of where we are as a people in our righteousness. I think right now that least common denominator is pretty low (or high I guess if the simpler truth, or the lower number is the goal).
I think you hit the nail on the head for me there Jeremy. Just as we have lower and higher laws in the gospel, the constitution is a lower law, yet still right. The ten commandments are lower laws but still right... as we honor them and seek for more, we gain more... same diff. The ten commandments are correct, but not complete... the constitution is correct, but not complete... until we have the complete law there will always be things which seem a little foggy or at least hard to implement.
My point with bringing up the money changers is that Christ angrily threw them out of the temple. They were offending the temple and Heavenly Father by their actions. Christ was simply passing through this town, it wasn't like he was a landowner throwing people off his property. As far as I know there was no law keeping them out, save the Lord's law, which trumps man, and gives him the authority to forcefully remove them. Thoughts?
I think you hit the nail on the head for me there Jeremy. Just as we have lower and higher laws in the gospel, the constitution is a lower law, yet still right. The ten commandments are lower laws but still right... as we honor them and seek for more, we gain more... same diff. The ten commandments are correct, but not complete... the constitution is correct, but not complete... until we have the complete law there will always be things which seem a little foggy or at least hard to implement.
My point with bringing up the money changers is that Christ angrily threw them out of the temple. They were offending the temple and Heavenly Father by their actions. Christ was simply passing through this town, it wasn't like he was a landowner throwing people off his property. As far as I know there was no law keeping them out, save the Lord's law, which trumps man, and gives him the authority to forcefully remove them. Thoughts?
-
ChelC
- The Law
- Posts: 5982
- Location: Utah
Whisperfox, I like the Dallin Oaks quote. Of course! Laws are based on morality (and should not have to be limited to when we are detroying others). If we don't have the right to commit murder, we don't have the right to commit suicide.
Homosexuals, whether consentual or not, are engaging in activity which is harmful to one another, one has no right to defile the other whether they agree to or not, and even if they keep this activity to themselves, they are defiling one another. Any man who views pornography is violating the woman in the pictures, whether she posed for it or not, and likewise, she violates him.
Homosexuals, whether consentual or not, are engaging in activity which is harmful to one another, one has no right to defile the other whether they agree to or not, and even if they keep this activity to themselves, they are defiling one another. Any man who views pornography is violating the woman in the pictures, whether she posed for it or not, and likewise, she violates him.
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
All truth is part of one whole. Truth is not subjective. During the millennium we will see a restitution of all things (including animal sacrifice which is what the "outer" temples will be for), therefore we will progress from grace to grace, from truth to truth, from one lower law to the next higher law.
We define that law by the voice of the people and their chosen representatives, and it changes. Thus the law (and line) ultimately should be and will be God's law as interpreted by the Lord Himself who will sit at the head of government at that time. Until then we do the best we can starting with what we have. That is where the line is, should be, and will be.
As far as Nephi, he was acting on a little known provisional right of the people to not dwindle in unbelief, which law trumps the right to life of one man. I honestly do not fully understand the principle behind it at this time, but since it is not part of the debate at present I don't need to. But it does illustrate that property rights (as you define them) are violable for the greater good (The Lord of course being the final arbiter of such things and hence I yield to my imperfect understanding of God's laws.)
We define that law by the voice of the people and their chosen representatives, and it changes. Thus the law (and line) ultimately should be and will be God's law as interpreted by the Lord Himself who will sit at the head of government at that time. Until then we do the best we can starting with what we have. That is where the line is, should be, and will be.
As far as Nephi, he was acting on a little known provisional right of the people to not dwindle in unbelief, which law trumps the right to life of one man. I honestly do not fully understand the principle behind it at this time, but since it is not part of the debate at present I don't need to. But it does illustrate that property rights (as you define them) are violable for the greater good (The Lord of course being the final arbiter of such things and hence I yield to my imperfect understanding of God's laws.)
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
3%. I did answer the question.
I gave you ETB's formula for drawing the law yourself on each issue. You are capable of using the formula and answering the questions to the best of your ability. We may not draw the line in the same place, generally because we have each paid a different price in researching the writings of the latter-day prophets and founding fathers. If we each use ETB's formula we should arrive close to the same place.
This system works for me and was intended by ETB to answer your questions. This is his formula, again, since you must have missed it buried in my last post.
1- "Is the proposal, policy, or idea being promoted right as measured by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"
2- "Is it right as measured by the Constitution of this land and the glorious principles embodied in that Constitution?"
3- "Is it right as measured by the living oracles of God?"
4- "What will be the effect on the moral and the character of the people if this or that policy is adopted?"
If you'd like to read the whole ETB talk or any of the others, let me know, but these are the correct principles. If you want the Lord to give you an exact answer, you are living in the wrong dispensation. He did that for Moses and the Children of Israel, but He expects us to live the higher law and think for ourselves.
I gave you ETB's formula for drawing the law yourself on each issue. You are capable of using the formula and answering the questions to the best of your ability. We may not draw the line in the same place, generally because we have each paid a different price in researching the writings of the latter-day prophets and founding fathers. If we each use ETB's formula we should arrive close to the same place.
This system works for me and was intended by ETB to answer your questions. This is his formula, again, since you must have missed it buried in my last post.
1- "Is the proposal, policy, or idea being promoted right as measured by the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"
2- "Is it right as measured by the Constitution of this land and the glorious principles embodied in that Constitution?"
3- "Is it right as measured by the living oracles of God?"
4- "What will be the effect on the moral and the character of the people if this or that policy is adopted?"
If you'd like to read the whole ETB talk or any of the others, let me know, but these are the correct principles. If you want the Lord to give you an exact answer, you are living in the wrong dispensation. He did that for Moses and the Children of Israel, but He expects us to live the higher law and think for ourselves.
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
As far as Nephi goes, most of the commandments we have are "conditional commandments", meaning, they change as circumstances change. We tend to think of all commandments as being cast in stone. Most are not, and exceptions based on righteous revelations can be found for most commandments. Those exceptions don't change the current conditional commandments that we are called to live.
Abraham was called to have more than one wife. The Nephites in Nephi's days were commanded to have only one. My great-grandfather was commanded to have more than one wife. I am commanded to have only one. All were legitimate commandments. My grandfathers commandment violated a federal law. It was still a commandment.
Nephi's conditional commandment was to murder Laban helpless and in cold blood. I've never received such a commandment so "Thou shalt not kill (better translation 'murder') applies to me.
Abraham was called to have more than one wife. The Nephites in Nephi's days were commanded to have only one. My great-grandfather was commanded to have more than one wife. I am commanded to have only one. All were legitimate commandments. My grandfathers commandment violated a federal law. It was still a commandment.
Nephi's conditional commandment was to murder Laban helpless and in cold blood. I've never received such a commandment so "Thou shalt not kill (better translation 'murder') applies to me.
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660192012,00.html
HB104 by Rep. Steven Sandstrom, R-Orem, would stop games of chance, even if nothing of real value is at stake, in the state licensed establishments.
The statement by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reads: "We believe that this bill as currently drafted helps ensure Utah's status as a state that neither permits, recognizes, nor tolerates any form of legalized gambling."
-
Swmorgan77
- captain of 100
- Posts: 518
- Location: Bluffdale, UT
- Contact:
I think that it should, according to the voice of the people and with respect to life, liberty and property.
It should be undertaken at the most local, and thereby most accountable level of government possible. Federal programs and measures to regulate vices inevitably not only BALLOOON the supposed "problem" but serve as pretext for Federal control through funding and regulation of local law enforcement.
It should be undertaken at the most local, and thereby most accountable level of government possible. Federal programs and measures to regulate vices inevitably not only BALLOOON the supposed "problem" but serve as pretext for Federal control through funding and regulation of local law enforcement.
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
-
Teancum-Old
- captain of 100
- Posts: 420
- Location: San Diego, CA
I have read through 5 pages of this debate and have yet to find non-LDS evidence that shows how a group of people can give power to a government to legislate vice.
Now, from the poll I can tell that most of us agree that government can be given the power to legislate vice (I agree). But I have not yet been convinced of this without using the words of the Prophets, Skousen and Andersen. While many of us LDS would be fine legislating vice (just look at Utah and Church History), how can we help non-LDS folks to agree with our viewpoint? I would personally like to see quotes from the Founders, Locke, Blackstone, and others to debate a position on this topic. We are all Consitution loving LDS folks here, therefore I believe that we are merely preaching to the choir by limiting our quotes to the Prophets, Skousen and Andersen. That is how I see it.
Now, from the poll I can tell that most of us agree that government can be given the power to legislate vice (I agree). But I have not yet been convinced of this without using the words of the Prophets, Skousen and Andersen. While many of us LDS would be fine legislating vice (just look at Utah and Church History), how can we help non-LDS folks to agree with our viewpoint? I would personally like to see quotes from the Founders, Locke, Blackstone, and others to debate a position on this topic. We are all Consitution loving LDS folks here, therefore I believe that we are merely preaching to the choir by limiting our quotes to the Prophets, Skousen and Andersen. That is how I see it.
-
ChelC
- The Law
- Posts: 5982
- Location: Utah
William Blackstone:
"Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, they then become by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them..."
"Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, they then become by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them..."
-
CHH
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2491
- Location: Nevada
How long we were forget and reject the words of the Declaration of Independence in these debates?
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence
We can establish government, on a State and local level, on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So if we want people to be able to walk around town naked while smoking crack or with their crack smoking while they dance off to a gambling hall house of prostitution while drunk driving, they can. If they want to make those things unlawful they have such powers, according to the Declaration of Independence. It falls under the right of freedom of association and therefore the right not to associate. It falls under the right to CONTROL property. It comes under the freedom to PRACTICE one's religion.
Some people believe that freedom is license to do anything instead of the the result of correct choices. The countries and people supported by God have laws that restrict evil. The Church supported prohibition. The members did not. The church supports laws against houses of prostitution yet members go there. One such house outside Utah had one side for members and another for none members.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." Washington
Under the powers of freedom to associate come the power to REMOVE those people that We the People do not want to associate with. Right or wrong we have such power. It is a God given power. It is an unalienable right. We CAN delegate that right. It is under that power we have the right to pass legislation to stop a man from marrying another man or his 6 year old niece. BUT ONLY on the State level. Such a law on the Federal level would be more destructive of the family unit than Income tax has been AND YET MOST MEMBERS SUPPORTED IT like the uneducated in freedom fools they are.
AND NO! The church DID NOT support that federal amendment but told members only to tell their representatives how the MEMBER felt. Brilliant on the leaderships end. They supported family values without supporting a bad law. They knew it would not pass and so they handled it with political brilliance such as I have seldom seen. Why it was as if they were inspired by God Himself. But then they were! LOL I love it yet today. BRILLIANT! Thank God for a living Prophet!
If a group of people, that own the land by association (a county a state etc.) through the right to contact, do not want a naked drug addict among them then they can remove or penalize such a man.
The FEDERAL government cannot do this within the States. The States can have State religions and in 1777 AD 11 of the 13 DID!
The Federal Government has violated the Constitution for 100 years. The States and We the People have not only allowed it but encouraged it. The vast majority of Mormons are the WORST of those that have helped the Fascists. Just as those that knew the gospel and rejected it in the Book of Mormon became the most evil of men, history repeats. Mormons sell their birthrights and the liberty of their children for false safety and have become Gadianton robbers in act and in their hearts. They are Marked by the Beast with the SSN and Driver's licenses and they would be chipped in the blinking of an Eye if they thought it would violate the 12th article of Faith to refuse. They have become seduced into the plans of Gadianton and now worship, not at the feet of Christ but, at the alter of Marx.
Hel. 6: 38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.
They pray to the anti-Christ god of Social Security to save them and call evil good and good evil.
Isa. 5: 20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
They have sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/18.1/
The have gone over to the Great and spacious building and laugh at those few that refuse the Mark and that will not bow down to the established Civil religion of Communism that has been established in the USA.
LDS.org
They worship at the feet of Marx and trample the Holy One under their feet. They REJECT liberty and voluntarily vote for men like the Fascist Romney and reject men of liberty like Ron Paul. They CHEER at BYU for Chenney and desire and support the resignation of men like Dr. Jones. They are nearly ripe. Hel. 6: 38 is where we are today. We are soon to see the blood and chains Benson said would come. And it SHALL be deep and the chains shall be heavy because of the slothfulness of the members.
Then will come the time to reestablish a broken government. It is the only hope for liberty I have left.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence
We can establish government, on a State and local level, on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So if we want people to be able to walk around town naked while smoking crack or with their crack smoking while they dance off to a gambling hall house of prostitution while drunk driving, they can. If they want to make those things unlawful they have such powers, according to the Declaration of Independence. It falls under the right of freedom of association and therefore the right not to associate. It falls under the right to CONTROL property. It comes under the freedom to PRACTICE one's religion.
Some people believe that freedom is license to do anything instead of the the result of correct choices. The countries and people supported by God have laws that restrict evil. The Church supported prohibition. The members did not. The church supports laws against houses of prostitution yet members go there. One such house outside Utah had one side for members and another for none members.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." Washington
Under the powers of freedom to associate come the power to REMOVE those people that We the People do not want to associate with. Right or wrong we have such power. It is a God given power. It is an unalienable right. We CAN delegate that right. It is under that power we have the right to pass legislation to stop a man from marrying another man or his 6 year old niece. BUT ONLY on the State level. Such a law on the Federal level would be more destructive of the family unit than Income tax has been AND YET MOST MEMBERS SUPPORTED IT like the uneducated in freedom fools they are.
AND NO! The church DID NOT support that federal amendment but told members only to tell their representatives how the MEMBER felt. Brilliant on the leaderships end. They supported family values without supporting a bad law. They knew it would not pass and so they handled it with political brilliance such as I have seldom seen. Why it was as if they were inspired by God Himself. But then they were! LOL I love it yet today. BRILLIANT! Thank God for a living Prophet!
If a group of people, that own the land by association (a county a state etc.) through the right to contact, do not want a naked drug addict among them then they can remove or penalize such a man.
The FEDERAL government cannot do this within the States. The States can have State religions and in 1777 AD 11 of the 13 DID!
The Federal Government has violated the Constitution for 100 years. The States and We the People have not only allowed it but encouraged it. The vast majority of Mormons are the WORST of those that have helped the Fascists. Just as those that knew the gospel and rejected it in the Book of Mormon became the most evil of men, history repeats. Mormons sell their birthrights and the liberty of their children for false safety and have become Gadianton robbers in act and in their hearts. They are Marked by the Beast with the SSN and Driver's licenses and they would be chipped in the blinking of an Eye if they thought it would violate the 12th article of Faith to refuse. They have become seduced into the plans of Gadianton and now worship, not at the feet of Christ but, at the alter of Marx.
Hel. 6: 38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.
They pray to the anti-Christ god of Social Security to save them and call evil good and good evil.
Isa. 5: 20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
They have sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/18.1/
The have gone over to the Great and spacious building and laugh at those few that refuse the Mark and that will not bow down to the established Civil religion of Communism that has been established in the USA.
LDS.org
They worship at the feet of Marx and trample the Holy One under their feet. They REJECT liberty and voluntarily vote for men like the Fascist Romney and reject men of liberty like Ron Paul. They CHEER at BYU for Chenney and desire and support the resignation of men like Dr. Jones. They are nearly ripe. Hel. 6: 38 is where we are today. We are soon to see the blood and chains Benson said would come. And it SHALL be deep and the chains shall be heavy because of the slothfulness of the members.
Then will come the time to reestablish a broken government. It is the only hope for liberty I have left.
