TruthSeeker24 Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Why is the Word of Wisdom a commandment of the Church when it specifically states that it's sent "not by commandment..." (v 2). Thoughts? 1
Senator Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Why is the Word of Wisdom a commandment of the Church when it specifically states that it's sent "not by commandment..." (v 2). Thoughts?Cuz they changed it. 1
ERMD Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Peter thought preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was theologically legal.Same principle.
TruthSeeker24 Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?
Senator Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?Well if he can get it ratified by the F. Presidency and Q of the 12, then it's good to go. 1
Kiviuq Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 So this is an example of how a current prophet can override scripture without explicitly recording a revelation.
TruthSeeker24 Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 Well if he can get it ratified by the F. Presidency and Q of the 12, then it's good to go.Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.
wenglund Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Is that theologically legal?If you are thinking that it isn't theologically legal for God to direct his chosen leaders to make something a commandment that wasn't a commandment, or vice versa, then you may want to revisit the transition from the old law and covenants and rituals to the new. We are no longer commanded to stone adulterers or to sacrifice animals.Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
Kenngo1969 Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.You're derailing your own thread ... but then, I guess if you're determined to smack the Church of Jesus Christ upside the head, any ol' cudgel will do! 1
TruthSeeker24 Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 You're derailing your own thread ... but then, I guess if you're determined to smack the Church of Jesus Christ upside the head, any ol' cudgel will do! I apologize. Though not a member, I do consider myself LDS and I do try and support the Church. I was merely curious is all.
Senator Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 So this is an example of how a current prophet can override scripture without explicitly recording a revelation.Basically, yes.
Senator Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.I would suggest you thought wrong.“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the [living] oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” Edited May 1, 2012 by Senator 1
TruthSeeker24 Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 I would suggest you thought wrong.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Buzzard Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?Whole different ball O' wax. Baptism is a saving ordinance. Christ himself said no man could enter into the kingdom of God unless he was baptised. WOW was given for our day-for the weakest of the saints. Christ drank wine and it wasn't a sin then. Completely apples and oranges.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 I apologize. Though not a member, I do consider myself LDS and I do try and support the Church. I was merely curious is all.Your question has been answered well by others here ... if you're willing to accept that. What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes? See 2 Nephi 29:9.
TruthSeeker24 Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 Whole different ball O' wax. Baptism is a saving ordinance. Christ himself said no man could enter into the kingdom of God unless he was baptised. WOW was given for our day-for the weakest of the saints. Christ drank wine and it wasn't a sin then. Completely apples and oranges.That makes more sense to me.Your question has been answered well by others here ... if you're willing to accept that. What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes? See 2 Nephi 29:9.For many reasons. There's things having to do with temporal affairs. Things having to do with revelation given to specific people. There are also times when people simply aren't ready to live certain laws, so they need to be taken from them, as in the case of Moses and the Israelites when the higher Priesthood was taken from them.
cdowis Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) This is a common misunderstanding.The Word of Wisdom is not a doctrine but the practice of a doctrine. For example, we can live the Law of Consecration by practicing the paying tithing or by having all things in common. The church can change the practice from one to the other, but the doctrine itself remains.The doctrinal principle here is to keep our body clean and pure, as a temple to God. The Word of Wisdom is one practice of that doctrine. Christ and the disciples drank wine, but today we do not. The practice can change but the doctrine remains the same.So, yes the prophet can change the practice.As a bonus, the law of polygamy has not changed, only the practice. If a man has been sealed to a woman, but now he is widowed, he can be sealed to a second wife without a temple divorce. Edited May 1, 2012 by cdowis 2
Jaybear Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Your question has been answered well by others here ... if you're willing to accept that. What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes? See 2 Nephi 29:9.You and I clearly have a fundamental disagreement, on what constitutes a good answer. He asked why is compliance with the WOW a commandment, contrary to the stated language of the underlying revelation.From what i read, the only direct answer to the question was "cuz they changed it." This of course, doesn't tell him who changed it, when it was changed, and even more relevant, why it was change.Was the change the result of further revelation, or personal preference. If the former, what did God say, how did he say it, who did he say it to? In the end, perhaps the best answer as to why coffee drinkers cant enter the temple, is the same answer as to why black could not enter the temple .... "we don't know." 1
DWhitmer Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes? See 2 Nephi 29:9.There are also times when people simply aren't ready to live certain laws, so they need to be taken from them, as in the case of Moses and the Israelites when the higher Priesthood was taken from them.There is a more direct question to be addressed: "Does diet affect the Holy Spirit"? Consider the original Garden of Eden diet; after the flood diet; Daniel's diet; John the Baptist, the Essenes, and through Millennial. Most Mormons are ignorant of the fact that most Mormon prophets either espoused or adhered to a vegetarian diet. Does fasting matter? Do our fleshly bodies war against the Spirit of God, if so how?We know that habits create personalities and demeanors. What part of Christ's Sermon on the Mount was not about character? How meek is the person who is addicted to coffee, chocolate, alcohol, or prescription drugs? How sensitive to the subtle whispers of the Holy Spirit are those consumed with a heavy flesh diet?How does the Father/Son, i.e. the creator feel about how their creations are currently being used when we can buy any food item at any season?Lastly, church history shows a double standard - David Whitmer was brought up on charges for not wanting to incorporate the WoW as a commandment, and then we have J.Smith stocking his bar in the Nauvoo House with Porter Rockwell has bar tender and J.Smith smoking cigars! The fact Mormons believe a temple recommend is the gateway to God's presence, and adherence to the WoW is a temple recommend question, then yes, disobedience to the WoW can keep a person from God in their minds. Is it confirmed by the Holy Book of Mormon? Choose which you trust to get to God.
Damien the Leper Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Whole different ball O' wax. Baptism is a saving ordinance. Christ himself said no man could enter into the kingdom of God unless he was baptised. WOW was given for our day-for the weakest of the saints. Christ drank wine and it wasn't a sin then. Completely apples and oranges.I really hope you aren't indirectly quoting Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:5 to validate your argument. If so, you fail like many others have. Go back and read the chapter...it is a chapter loved by Gnostics because of its mysteries.
Damien the Leper Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 You and I clearly have a fundamental disagreement, on what constitutes a good answer.He asked why is compliance with the WOW a commandment, contrary to the stated language of the underlying revelation.It would cost too much to change the language of Section 89 in all the copies of the D&C so it's better to just make a verbal change and call it good.From what i read, the only direct answer to the question was "cuz they changed it."Right...I'm still waiting.This of course, doesn't tell him who changed it, when it was changed, and even more relevant, why it was change.Was the change the result of further revelation, or personal preference. If the former, what did God say, how did he say it, who did he say it to?Right, again. Remember that God changed His mind about black people in 1978.In the end, perhaps the best answer as to why coffee drinkers cant enter the temple, is the same answer as to why black could not enter the temple .... "we don't know."
Recommended Posts