84 replies to this topic

[cinepro]

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

No- as a boy, Joseph was not under covenant to avoid wine or intoxicating spirits.

As to it's relevance, it's called an "insight into his character".

That's the question.  What insight does it give us into his character?  Why was it admirable to undergo surgery without anesthesia?

[Freedom]

The word of wisdom - abstention from alcohol, tea and coffee- set us apart from society and protects the weakest among us from harmful addictions. The word of wisdom was not a strict requirement until, I think, about 1930. When I go to a function and turn down wine or coffee, people immediately ask why and it opens up a gospel conversation. In the time of Jesus, there were not a lot of options and they did not have the aggressive advertising and abundant supply that we have today. They also did not run the risk of driving their car while drunk into a group of children. To whom much is given much is required. We live in the fullness of times and are blessed beyond any generation that came before us.

[Zakuska]

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Oh, please.  How many times have you brought up this hobby horse and feigned ignorance each time?

For the umpteenth time:
No- as a boy, Joseph was not under covenant to avoid wine or intoxicating spirits, therefore he would have committed no wrong.

Ironically, using alcohol as a makeshift anesthetic (when none other is available) would not be a violation of the Word of Wisdom today.

As to the anecdote's relevance, it's called an "insight into his character".

You might have trolled across the concept once or twice,

I wonder if they "cleansed" the wound with wiskey first?

[LDS_RM]

Pahoran, on 26 April 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Oh dear.

Doctrine and Covenants 89:
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

Since it explicitly says that it applies to our time, what "paradox" is there?

Regards,
Pahoran

As a matter of current warning, tabacco companies inthe US conspired to make cigarettes more addictive. On 60 minutes a few weeks ago a Scientist for the food industry stated several times that his job is to make prepackaged food addictive; this man was quite proud of his work.

[volgadon]

cinepro, on 26 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

That's the question.  What insight does it give us into his character?  Why was it admirable to undergo surgery without anesthesia?

Are you serious?

[Pahoran]

Zakuska, on 26 April 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

I wonder if they "cleansed" the wound with wiskey first?

Depending upon the alcohol content, it would probably have made a pretty good field antiseptic.

Regards,
Pahoran

[cinepro]

volgadon, on 26 April 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Are you serious?

Yes.  Even today, LDS commonly use "NyQuil", which has alcohol in it, for medicinal purposes.  And obviously we avail ourselves of any medically expedient drug for anesthesia under countless circumstances (even LDS children at Primary Children's Hospital).

If there were two LDS children in 2012 undergoing leg operations, and one accepted anesthesia and the other didn't, what would that tell you about their characters?

[Jaybear]

cinepro, on 26 April 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

If there were two LDS children in 2012 undergoing leg operations, and one accepted anesthesia and the other didn't, what would that tell you about their characters?

I think that would tells us more about the parents, than the children.

[volgadon]

cinepro, on 26 April 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Yes.  Even today, LDS commonly use "NyQuil", which has alcohol in it, for medicinal purposes.  And obviously we avail ourselves of any medically expedient drug for anesthesia under countless circumstances (even LDS children at Primary Children's Hospital).

If there were two LDS children in 2012 undergoing leg operations, and one accepted anesthesia and the other didn't, what would that tell you about their characters?

It would indicate a special strength of character of the one refusing anesthesia.

[Jaybear]

volgadon, on 27 April 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

It would indicate a special strength of character of the one refusing anesthesia.

Strikes me as an example of parents indulging an irrational fear, which they probably place in the child.

Edited by Jaybear, 27 April 2012 - 06:51 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

It MUST be The Millenium We agree.

[Storm Rider]

This has always been an issue for me.  Joseph received this revelation as a Word of Wisdom; not a requirement, not a judgment on righteousness, but a recommendation for the saints.  The issue I have is that there has never been a revelation to make it more than a recommendation, yet it is now used to separate into the righteous and unrighteous (or maybe not righteous enough) to enter the temple.  Without a revelation directing the Church to a certain action we are left with a policy.

The Church as always gotten into to trouble when policy is used to designate righteousness or worthiness and then used to restrict activity or participation in temple ordinances.  IF something is so important as to restrict the enjoyment of the temple blessings, why wouldn't God be the author of such?

At times in my life I have been able to content myself with, "This is what the prophet asks of us today."  It is strictly a temporary policy that will be done away with when Jesus returns.  However, when I read the words of Jesus about not being what goes in the mouth that is a problem, the round of problems and chaffing begins anew.  It is something that just stays in my craw and I have never been able to get it out.

If it is not by revelation, then don't speak, don't create a policy, don't create a new rule.  Stick to revelation and all will be well in Zion.

[Zakuska]

Storm Rider, on 27 April 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

This has always been an issue for me.  Joseph received this revelation as a Word of Wisdom; not a requirement, not a judgment on righteousness, but a recommendation for the saints.  The issue I have is that there has never been a revelation to make it more than a recommendation, yet it is now used to separate into the righteous and unrighteous (or maybe not righteous enough) to enter the temple.  Without a revelation directing the Church to a certain action we are left with a policy.

The Church as always gotten into to trouble when policy is used to designate righteousness or worthiness and then used to restrict activity or participation in temple ordinances.  IF something is so important as to restrict the enjoyment of the temple blessings, why wouldn't God be the author of such?

Which is intresting... Especially with all the Spittoons in the Salt Lake Temple.

http://family.websho...029521605abHuwf

By todays Standards J.Golden Kimball wouldn't be able to attend the temple.

Quote

At times in my life I have been able to content myself with, "This is what the prophet asks of us today." It is strictly a temporary policy that will be done away with when Jesus returns. However, when I read the words of Jesus about not being what goes in the mouth that is a problem, the round of problems and chaffing begins anew. It is something that just stays in my craw and I have never been able to get it out.

If it is not by revelation, then don't speak, don't create a policy, don't create a new rule. Stick to revelation and all will be well in Zion.

Paul sure seemed to make his own "policies" as well.

Edited by Zakuska, 27 April 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[calmoriah]

Storm Rider, on 27 April 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

This has always been an issue for me.  Joseph received this revelation as a Word of Wisdom; not a requirement, not a judgment on righteousness, but a recommendation for the saints..... Without a revelation directing the Church to a certain action we are left with a policy.

Is it not possible that Pres. Grant received a revelation that it would be wise for the Church to be moved from viewing the WoW as a personal choice to a requirement?

Quote

The Church as always gotten into to trouble when policy is used to designate righteousness or worthiness and then used to restrict activity or participation in temple ordinances.  

CFR please

[Storm Rider]

calmoriah, on 27 April 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Is it not possible that Pres. Grant received a revelation that it would be wise for the Church to be moved from viewing the WoW as a personal choice to a requirement?
CFR please

I really don't like talking about this topic; I have personally issues with it and I don't like to be a source that may affect others wrongly.  To all readers, please remember that I am only human and this is a personal problem and nothing more.

Had Grant received a revelation then I suspect he would have announced as such; however, the way it was handled was to hearken back to the actions of an earlier apostle that committed the saints to live the standards of the WofW.  In effect, he created policy out of whole cloth.  When a revelation is received it is announced as such and the Brethren have never been shy about declaring a revelation.

As far as the CFR goes, I would submit the priesthood ban as example number one.  No revelation just a policy that was created and had the misfortune to be carried down through the decades until a revelation was required to reverse it.

The P. ban and the WofW are the two most significant areas where the Church has created policy and both have negatively impacted the lives of individuals i.e. they have prevented individuals from entering the temple to receive the ordinances of exaltation.  For me personally, this comes very, very close to unrighteous dominion.

About 25 years ago I remember teaching adult SS class where the class felt that disobeying the WofW was more heinous than breaking the law of chastity.  I was so dumbfounded and at that point to the present I have had an issue with the way the Church taught the WofW, the way that it has been used to denote righteousness, and its impact on the lives of members.  Please, I am not saying there have not been benefits, nor am I saying that that alcohol has not damaged the lives of thousands, millions of people, so please don't run out the plethora of examples of all the bad that alcohol as done to humanity.  I am focusing solely using a policy to restrict attending the temple.  It is a brick wall and no amount of research has every allowed me to call it anything but a policy.

Probably the worst thing about it, if it was really a revelation we should find a new section in the D&C to change the words of the 89th section.  All I have to do is read the 89th section and I get angry at the way it is handled today.

This is one my many weaknesses and I am glad that others don't have it.

[Saints Alive]

volgadon, on 26 April 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Only if you hold that Heber J. Grant was not a prophet and had no business going anywhere near the Word of Wisdom.

“A Prophet is only a Prophet when he is acting as such” so was he speaking for himself or for the lord? BY said many things in GC that he later said was BY talking and not the Lord.

KevinG, on 26 April 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why someone in the 21st century would consider abstaining from addictive substances completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and only subjectively wrong.

Wine isn’t the same as cocaine or tobacco, there are many, many people who imbibe without becoming addicts. The whole “alcohol is addictive” line is totally blown out of proportion IMHO. Any substance can become addictive.  

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Call For References:

Please provide evidence for the following assertions:
"completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things "
"only subjectively wrong".

Other than not following Prophets council what effect does the reasonable and responsible consumption of alcohol (and more specifically wine) have? I say none. Since it is only (as far as I can tell) wrong because of disobedience that means that the action isn’t wrong of itself – subjectively wrong.

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Is baptism "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?

Nope, we all know that it has eternal consequences, and it is quite clear why.

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Is the endowment "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?

Nope, same as above.

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Are chastity and marital fidelity "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?

Chastity has the consequence of bringing children into the world, outside of marriage that can have eternal consequences.

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Is adultery "only subjectively wrong"?  What about bearing false witness?  Is murder "only subjectively wrong"?

I never made a claim that they were.

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

If not, why not?

All of our modern law and "conventional" morality boils down to a subjective sense of right or wrong.

A common consensus (which is the penultimate root of common law) remains a subjective, rather than objective judgement.

I think I have shown how some of the examples you listed have objective consequnces

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

More generally speaking, why should we care what YOU think is relevant?  We did not make sacred covenants with you, and are not answerable to your interpretation of those constraints.

When I covenanted with my wife, I promised to love, honor, and cherish- in sickness and in health.  Does it truly matter to our covenant that someone else thinks such a covenant is old, archaic, or passe?

You are entitled to your opinion- but why should we consider your interpretation of what is "truly important" over the Lord's?

Should we likewise harken to the caterpillar chewing on a leaf instead of the planter and cultivator of the vineyard?

I didn’t ask you to care about my opinion or think it relevant, you choose to respond.

cinepro, on 26 April 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

In my experience, people who can't handle the idea of Jesus drinking wine are probably unaware of the fact that Joseph Smith continued to drink wine even after the publication of D&C 89.

  
Good point.

[cinepro]

volgadon, on 27 April 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

It would indicate a special strength of character of the one refusing anesthesia.

It never occurred to me that "refusing anesthesia" shows "a special strength of character".    Does anyone else see it this way?  Has anyone here ever declined anesthesia at the dentist or other medical situation out of a desire to build character?

[Scott Lloyd]

Jaybear, on 27 April 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Strikes me as an example of parents indulging an irrational fear, which they probably place in the child.

How so? As I understand the story, the parents would have permitted the administration of alcohol had Joseph himself been willing to receive it. CFR that the parents had some "irrational fear" that they were indulging and placing in the child.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 27 April 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[calmoriah]

cinepro, on 27 April 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

It never occurred to me that "refusing anesthesia" shows "a special strength of character". Does anyone else see it this way?  Has anyone here ever declined anesthesia at the dentist or other medical situation out of a desire to build character?

I think it would depend on the situation and the effect of the drug.  I was not allowed to drive myself after having been given something when my molars were removed.  It would have shown strength of character if there was a need for me to drive and I was able to refuse it (I probably wouldn't, pain and me don't get along, if there is an option to go painless, I will).  My understanding of how Lucy saw the story was that Joseph didn't want to lose selfcontrol and become all emotional in front of his parents, particularly her.  Alcohol likely would have caused it as it wouldn't have removed all the pain unless taken to the point of knocking him out...dangerous for a child I would think, more likely it would have just removed the fear about it prior to and after the surgery, there still would have been plenty of screaming.  As it was, he didn't scream having the self control to not to....which is very impressive to me.

Edited by calmoriah, 27 April 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

Storm Rider, on 27 April 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Had Grant received a revelation then I suspect he would have announced as such;

Maybe, but not necessarily.

Quote

... however, the way it was handled was to hearken back to the actions of an earlier apostle that committed the saints to live the standards of the WofW.  In effect, he created policy out of whole cloth.

I disagree. I believe he was inspired with divine wisdom and foresight to emphasize and making binding a revelation that had previously been received. I'm confident this happens all the time among the Brethren.

Quote

When a revelation is received it is announced as such and the Brethren have never been shy about declaring a revelation.

I submit that the Brethren are in constant receipt of revelation regarding the day-to-day operation of the Church. They don't codify every such instance, nor is it necessary that they do so.

Quote

As far as the CFR goes, I would submit the priesthood ban as example number one.  No revelation just a policy that was created and had the misfortune to be carried down through the decades until a revelation was required to reverse it.

This is the begging-the-question fallacy. I submit that your view about the pre-1978 policy about the priesthood stems from your misconception that every single revelation received by prophets must be written down, announced as such and codified.