84 replies to this topic

[Law22]

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a sometimes pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.

(from Wikipedia)

[Ryan.Samples]

calmoriah, on 27 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Check the guidelines for the forbidden topics.  Mods do not always read the posts, so if you have questions for them you need to use the "contact us" form.

The threads I keep seeing aren't so listed. No bother; it was ultimately just a passing curiosity. Thanks for responding though.

[Storm Rider]

Scott Lloyd, on 27 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Maybe, but not necessarily.

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.

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.

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.

When the Brethren begin to implement policy that directly affects the eternal lives of the saints, then you best believe it should be by revelation that is announced and accepted by the membership as such.  That is the way the Church is run.  It is not run by willy-nilly bending to the will of man.  Revelation is THE foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Just assuming that Grant made the WofW a requirement had to have been a revelation (one he just kept to himself and never shared with any other GA is a stretch that boggles the mind).  If you think it was revelation, then CFR.  A policy occurs where revelation is not present, is not announced, and is begun by fiat of the leadership.  Policies get the Church in trouble because they are not based upon direct revelation, but upon the wisdom of men.  After policies are created the membership is left to either blindly assume it was by revelation; worse, after years of living they then come to find out it was not revelation it was just policy.  Anything that is not directed by God is an opportunity for the foolish traditions of man to be started.  The best advice is never start a foolish tradition, even when it sounds good or is common sense.  If God does not direct it; keep your mouth closed.  This advice is as good for each member as it is for the leadership.

Lastly, as far as my misconception about the functioning of the Church, please provide support that the D&C does NOT require changes to be brought before the membership for approval.  When it does not happen and changes are made, what is it?

[semlogo]

It's interesting to note that the WOW as written does not prohibit or even discourage alcohol use, only strong drink (strong drink being distilled liquor). Mild barley drinks are most certainly beer, and the WOW recommends their use. Note that beer has much less alcohol than liquor or wine. Wine isn't prohibited either, but limited to sacramental use.

However, I have no problem following the modern version. I agree it should be canonized. I see no value in drinking. It does more harm than good. Smoking is terrible for your health. Of course, tea and coffee are not harmful. I wouldn't mind seeing those parts go away, but I'm not particularly bothered by it.

I see the original WOW as a tentative step toward a health code, and the version we have today as the culmination.

[calmoriah]

semlogo, on 28 April 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

Mild barley drinks are most certainly beer

Not all, barley water is considered more or less a health drink to the point it is given to babies:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Barley_water

There is also barley tea and in some places barley is used as a substitute for coffee.

Quote

Of course, tea and coffee are not harmful.

Not as harmful, but they can be.  Both can be addictive, one has to only observe someone who requires her morning coffee to feel human to learn this.  However, it is likely an easy addiction to get rid of though the person will be prone to rebound headaches and irritability for a few days.  Coffee can cause heartburn by stimulating stomach acids.  Coffee and tea are both artificial stimulants, one can make the decision for oneself if just that is a reason to avoid the stuff at least on a regular basis (in my mind it is, I treat caffeine as a medicine, not a recreational drug).  Coffee and tea contain phenols which inhibit absorption of iron, which is not only involved in anemia, but iron is used in the production of dopamine and low levels in one's blood can therefore affect mental health.

There are other substances that are not particularly healthful as well in coffee:

http://www.mayoclini...-health/AN01354
http://www.mayoclini...ylamide/MY00062

One of the major problems I see with coffee and tea is their caffeine content.  The caffeine in and of itself might not be bad for an individual (for anyone with sleep issues it can be harmful though), but it can contribute to feelings of anxiety in anxiety prone individuals and the most problematic in my view negative health issue is the masking of sleep deprivation.  People get last I checked on average 7 hours of sleep a night when they should be getting 8 to 10 and if caffeine is taken within 10 hours of bedtime then it has not yet cleared the system and can affect the quality of sleep.  Long term sleep deprivation contributes a host of life threatening problems including obesity, impair cognitive effects, clumsiness leading to accidents, impaired healing, etc. etc. etc. coupled with alcohol it is a double whammy (the Exxon Valdez disaster was as much a lack of sleep problem as drink).

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSleep/

There have been some studies that have shown a link between coffee intake and miscarriage, not definitive yet, but enough so that potential mothers are warned to cut their consumption to at least no more than one cup daily, better none.  Caffeine crosses the placenta and is absorbed by the fetus, caffeine reduces the blood flow to the fetus as well.

http://www.babycente...uring-pregnancy

Among coffee drinkers, average intake is about 3 cups a day.  Four cups a day is considered heavy usage with significant side effects.  Two cups a day or more can cause heart disease for those who have a "fairly common" genetic mutation.

Green tea, being less processed, is the healthier version, and may be the one version whose health benefits outweigh any negative effects.  Commitment not to drink green tea then becomes based not on its effects, but on why one is choosing to abstain.

Edited by calmoriah, 28 April 2012 - 10:34 AM.