151 replies to this topic

[cdowis]

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 by cdowis, 01 May 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[Jaybear]

Kenngo1969, on 01 May 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

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."

[DWhitmer]

Kenngo1969, on 01 May 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes?  See 2 Nephi 29:9.

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

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.

[Valentinus]

Buzzard, on 01 May 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

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.

[Valentinus]

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

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.

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

From what i read, the only direct answer to the question was "cuz they changed it."

Right...I'm still waiting.

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

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.

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

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."

[BCSpace]

Quote

So this is an example of how a current prophet can override scripture without explicitly recording a revelation.

Official doctrine is not necessarily canon and is being constantly made through official publication; Church web sites, magazines, manuals, video, etc.

[mfbukowski]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.

Nope.

The endowment has been changed many times.   Of course that's not relevant to you.   Either you actually believe in on going revelation or you don't.

I do.

Edited by mfbukowski, 01 May 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[mfbukowski]

BCSpace, on 01 May 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Official doctrine is not necessarily canon and is being constantly made through official publication; Church web sites, magazines, manuals, video, etc.

You forgot press releases  

OOPs- derail.

Forget I said that......  

But I suppose that is an inevitable direction for this thread......

[Mark Beesley]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

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?

It's not a commandment of the Church.  It is a Word of Wisdom on things we should do and not do in order to take care of these earthly tabernacles with which the Lord has blessed us.  It had been adopted by the Church as a minimum code of conduct for keeping ourselves worthy to enter the Temple.  I don't believe there is any eternal law that is broken if you violate the Word of Wisdom.  In other words, I don't think it is necessarily a sin to smoke and drink.  But to do so shows an inability to rise to a minimum level of conduct that is expect of the Saints.  So, while you might be deprived of certain blessings, I don't think you need to fear hellfire for noncompliance.

cdowis gave a really good answer too.  Make sure you read that.

[DWhitmer]

mfbukowski, on 01 May 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Nope.

The endowment has been changed many times.   Of course that's not relevant to you.   Either you actually believe in on going revelation or you don't.

I do.

Paradox. On the one hand initiates are led to believe that very specific signs and tokens, etc. are required to pass by angels and gods which require memorization - it must be word-for-word accurate or can't pass, including the new name. But when those very things are changed, it's a contradiction, a seeming paradox!

The changing of garments and the temple ritual rattled the testimony of many members and caused them to ask as the OP, how revelation works. As for the Word of Wisdom and everything else J.Smith did, the historical setting sheds light. When opportunities came along, new revelations followed. In the Christian arena, it is referred to as "Words of Knowledge" which literally is one of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:.  So when J. Smith heard there was treasure in Salem, he produced a revelation promising them treasure in Salem. But like with the Copyright to the Book of Mormon revelation, it produced no fruit.

The background on the WoW is that the (Sylvester) Graham health movement was on fire and as it was J.Smith's nature to "one up" everyone, his WoW revelation just happened to cover everything that Graham, albeit in verse form, i.e. borrowed from Isa. 40:13, etc. The Utah period is full of more double talk, but that's beyound this topic.

[cdowis]

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

In other words, I don't think it is necessarily a sin to smoke and drink.  But to do so shows an inability to rise to a minimum level of conduct that is expect of the Saints.  So, while you might be deprived of certain blessings, I don't think you need to fear hellfire for noncompliance.

Except you cannot get a temple recommend.  What happens to those who are unable to get their temple endowments or have a temple marriage?

[Mark Beesley]

cdowis, on 01 May 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Except you cannot get a temple recommend.  What happens to those who are unable to get their temple endowments or have a temple marriage?

I think that was what I said, that you can't go to the temple if you can't conform your conduct to the minimum standards adopted by the Church.  I don't think that not going to the temple equates to hellfire.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what your question is.

[Mark Beesley]

DWhitmer, on 01 May 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Paradox. On the one hand initiates are led to believe that very specific signs and tokens, etc. are required to pass by angels and gods which require memorization - it must be word-for-word accurate or can't pass, including the new name. But when those very things are changed, it's a contradiction, a seeming paradox!

Only if you take it literally.

Quote

The changing of garments and the temple ritual rattled the testimony of many members and caused them to ask as the OP, how revelation works.

Whose testimony was rattled? Do you have a reference?

Quote

As for the Word of Wisdom and everything else J.Smith did, the historical setting sheds light. When opportunities came along, new revelations followed.

Don't you just sometimes wish God would remain more oblivious to what's going on down here?    I mean, really, who does He think He is to respond to real questions from real people in real time.

Quote

The background on the WoW is that the (Sylvester) Graham health movement was on fire and as it was J.Smith's nature to "one up" everyone, his WoW revelation just happened to cover everything that Graham, albeit in verse form, i.e. borrowed from Isa. 40:13, etc.

One up everyone?  Your cynicism is noted.  Here is a good article on the matter.

http://www.mormonstu...century_wow.pdf

[BCSpace]

Quote

Official doctrine is not necessarily canon and is being constantly made through official publication; Church web sites, magazines, manuals, video, etc.

Quote

You forgot press releases

As long as they're published by the Church......If you're refering to the 2007 statement, it is on the Church's web site.  Notice also the word "official" in the header.

Quote

But I suppose that is an inevitable direction for this thread......

What is and is not doctrine is what everyone wants to know on a variety of subjects so yes, it has bearing in most threads.  The Church merely expects you to take it at it's word and believe what it says.  That makes doctrinal identification easy and is the common sense modus operandi for most organizations worldwide.  If the Church says it through publication, it is the Church's official doctrine.  Now go and quote from the manuals, the web sites, and even the press releases, on the WoW and you will be teaching the doctrine and keeping it pure; the Church has an entire manual dedicated to teaching you how and why you are to teach the doctrine from it's publications.

[DWhitmer]

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Here is a good article on the matter. http://www.mormonstu...century_wow.pdf

I liked this part:

"The implications of all this would seem to be that despite the reluctance of some to concede the point, Mormons must grant that the Word of Wisdom is not quite as unique a document as we might hope, no necessarily a reflection of a few far-seeing reformists ideas." (p. 58)

[Mark Beesley]

DWhitmer, on 01 May 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

I liked this part:

"The implications of all this would seem to be that despite the reluctance of some to concede the point, Mormons must grant that the Word of Wisdom is not quite as unique a document as we might hope, no necessarily a reflection of a few far-seeing reformists ideas." (p. 58)

A thirteen page, scholarly treatise, and that's the part you would like to highlight?

Did I say your cynicism is noted? Let me rephrase . . . Your cynicism is overwhelmingly apparent.  

Edited to add:  And lest you forget, I am interested in your references for the many whose testimonies were ratttled by changes in the endowment ceremony.  At your convenience of course.

Edited by Mark Beesley, 01 May 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[DWhitmer]

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

A thirteen page, scholarly treatise, and that's the part you would like to highlight?

Why wouldn't I cite what confirms what I said? Btw, this thesis may be a better read and safer for the not-so-cynical readers:

http://contentdm.lib...n/MTNZ/id/10572

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

I am interested in your references for the many whose testimonies were ratttled by changes in the endowment ceremony.

I'd rather not bring in the anti-Mormon references.

[Mark Beesley]

DWhitmer, on 01 May 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

I'd rather not bring in the anti-Mormon references.

Then don't make the claim.

[cdowis]

Mark Beesley, on 01 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

I think that was what I said, that you can't go to the temple if you can't conform your conduct to the minimum standards adopted by the Church.  I don't think that not going to the temple equates to hellfire.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what your question is.

Let me clarify.

Damnation is when one is blocked from entering the Celestial Kingdom.  Persistent, unrepetentant violation of the Word of Wisdom will bring damnation, because we cannot enter temple covenants, thus blocking our access to the Celestial Kingdom

But for you it is not a sin, but only a code of conduct.  No big deal, right?

Edited by cdowis, 01 May 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[Mark Beesley]

cdowis, on 01 May 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Let me clarify.

Damnation is when one is blocked from entering the Celestial Kingdom.  Persistent, unrepetentant violation of the Word of Wisdom will bring damnation, because we cannot enter temple covenants, thus blocking our access to the Celestial Kingdom

But for you it is not a sin, but only a code of conduct.  No big deal, right?

I used the term hellfire, not damnation.  In my mind, completely different things, thinking of those who are referenced, for example, in D&C 132:26 . . . they are not damned, but they sure as tootin' suffer the pains of hellfire.  Anyway . . .