Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Word Of Wisdom: From Principle To Requirement


Recommended Posts

Safe to acknowledge that our 2015 practice for observation of the WoW will change in the next 100 years as well.  Could it also be that our current interpretation has gone too far, or misinterpreted the WoW in some way? 

 

It’s frustrating to learn about the complex history that explains how we got to where we are today.  Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem like God is always involved in the process, that much of how we got here was culturally influenced.  Why should I assume that God led us to the promised land on the WoW issue in 2015.  How do we know we aren’t still in the wilderness, and perhaps a future understanding will lead us to a more inspired understanding.  

 

Hope, the WofW is a strictly a temporal guideline.  It is worth review the 89th Section periodically rather than just living what we think is the WofW.  There are very specific blessings offered for those who live by its precepts.  Based upon these promised blessings I am not sure how you arrive at a point where you think we might be in the wilderness on the WofW; that seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater type of thinking.

 

I have no question that the WofW was inspired revelation just as it is recorded in the 89th Section.  Further, I have no problem agreeing that we are now living under a policy regarding the WofW.  The policy was instituted by the leaders of the Church and has continued to be supported by the leadership.  I also think that based on scripture and an understanding of what a temporal teaching is the WofW policy will be done away with at some point i.e. we will no longer be compelled to be obedient to it.  

 

On that day where the policy changes, will you cease to obey the WofW?  Why?  Are the blessings of so little value that you would put obedience aside?  

 

It has been my belief that policies, these types of policies, are not healthy for the Body of Christ.  They create more problems than they are worth; however, I also believe that the leadership has every right to guide us by creating implementing policies for the good governance of the membership.  I would prefer that policies were never instituted, but I think we should follow regardless of our personal feelings about policies. 

Link to comment

It's also interesting that in the March 1917 Improvement Era published an article dealing with the question "Should LDS Drink Coca-Cola?" The answer was "No." The article argued that cola contained the same drugs as tea and coffee.

 

In October 1924 representatives from Coca-Cola contacted the church to ask them to rethink their call for abstinence from Coke. President Grand first refused to change the position but later changed his mind when they demonstrated that the amount of the drugs (caffeine) was substantially less than coffee and tea.

What year did they take the cocaine out of Coca Cola? 1929?

Link to comment

There are very specific blessings offered for those who live by its precepts.

 

One of these blessings is life.  I wonder at what point the destroying angel of verse 21 would

slay you for going against church policy.  Also, I'm unsure of which Latter-day Saints of today

would use strong drinks to wash their bodies.

 

Regards,

Jim 

Link to comment

One of these blessings is life.  I wonder at what point the destroying angel of verse 21 would

slay you for going against church policy.  Also, I'm unsure of which Latter-day Saints of today

would use strong drinks to wash their bodies.

 

Regards,

Jim 

 

 

OD on drugs? alcoholism? drunk driving? I can't see any of those things as being a good thing

Link to comment

...I'm unsure of which Latter-day Saints of today

would use strong drinks to wash their bodies.

 

I'm a "Latter-day Saint of today", so would this count?

 

I went on a long camping trip with friends--some of whom (non-LDS) also brought a little alcohol to enjoy in the evenings.  During one of our hikes, I fell hard on some loose rocks, sprained my ankle badly, and also suffered some pretty severe scrapes on my legs.  My legs and my wounds were very dirty, so I washed my legs with water to clear away the dirt and blood, and then "washed" them again with the alcohol my friends had brought in hopes that the alcohol would help prevent infection.

Link to comment

 I have no problem agreeing that we are now living under a policy regarding the WofW.  The policy was instituted by the leaders of the Church and has continued to be supported by the leadership.  I also think that based on scripture and an understanding of what a temporal teaching is the WofW policy will be done away with at some point i.e. we will no longer be compelled to be obedient to it.  

 

 

On that day where the policy changes, will you cease to obey the WofW?  Why?  Are the blessings of so little value that you would put obedience aside?  

 

 

It has been my belief that policies, these types of policies, are not healthy for the Body of Christ.  They create more problems than they are worth; however, I also believe that the leadership has every right to guide us by creating implementing policies for the good governance of the membership.  I would prefer that policies were never instituted, but I think we should follow regardless of our personal feelings about policies. 

If it's not a commandment and it's not a policy then I don't see why having an occassional glass of wine or a beer would be a bad thing. Most people who drink socially are not raging alcoholics.  It's not evil in and of itself. The abuse of substances seems to be the real problem.

 

It would be interesting if the church some day decided to enforce the original intent of the WoW as understood by JS, Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruf, eg. abstaining from meat. A church comprised of vegetarians sounds like an unhappy group.

Link to comment

If it's not a commandment and it's not a policy then I don't see why having an occassional glass of wine or a beer would be a bad thing. Most people who drink socially are not raging alcoholics.  It's not evil in and of itself. The abuse of substances seems to be the real problem.

 

It would be interesting if the church some day decided to enforce the original intent of the WoW as understood by JS, Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruf, eg. abstaining from meat. A church comprised of vegetarians sounds like an unhappy group.

Bite your tongue and give thanks to the cow that gave his life that you might live.

 

Link to comment

I'm curious in what ways that you believe that our current interpretation has "gone too far?" And if that interpretation is the official policy or the opinions of individual members? I've met members that wouldn't eat chocolate based on their interpretation of the WofW.

 

As to the complex history that got us here today, I would say that He is always involved in the process. The Lord isn't going to bind our agency though, He won't command in all things. We're allowed to stumble and fall through the wilderness - per your analogy, which I like - so that we can learn for the better. I think our understanding of the Word of Wisdom is an example of this.  

 

We have gone too far with strict abstinence of substances.  The WoW doesn’t say, never have any alcohol, or even never use tobacco.  It also doesn’t talk about modern medicine and prescription drugs (Utah has a big problem with abuse of these). 

 

I think the core principles that God was revealing with the WoW is the concept of taking care of our temporal bodies receiving spiritual and temporal blessings when we do this.  It’s the connection of body and spirit and using good judgment in our stewardship over the earth and things temporal.  To me, those are the key principles that God revealed.

 

Joseph was inspired to add some items to the list based on his understanding (God reveals things according to men and their understandings at the time).  But we shouldn’t be constrained by this list of things in either our avoidance of things bad or our prescriptions to things good.  Modern science has come a long way since the 1830s, we have so much more knowledge about what is good and bad for the body and for the earth.  I don’t believe God gave us this wonderful list of things that are eternally good or bad.  We need to use our judgment and learning to continually update the specifics, and not focus on the specific items as much as we focus on the principles behind them.   

 

The current policies are too focused on one point in time and a few substances that can have bad effects on individuals and societies when they are abused.  The good principles of the WoW have been essentially lost through this strict obedience to the letter of the law mindset.  We act like the Pharisees and we are missing the essence in my opinion. 

Link to comment

Hope, the WofW is a strictly a temporal guideline.  It is worth review the 89th Section periodically rather than just living what we think is the WofW.  There are very specific blessings offered for those who live by its precepts.  Based upon these promised blessings I am not sure how you arrive at a point where you think we might be in the wilderness on the WofW; that seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater type of thinking.

 

I have no question that the WofW was inspired revelation just as it is recorded in the 89th Section.  Further, I have no problem agreeing that we are now living under a policy regarding the WofW.  The policy was instituted by the leaders of the Church and has continued to be supported by the leadership.  I also think that based on scripture and an understanding of what a temporal teaching is the WofW policy will be done away with at some point i.e. we will no longer be compelled to be obedient to it.  

 

On that day where the policy changes, will you cease to obey the WofW?  Why?  Are the blessings of so little value that you would put obedience aside?  

 

It has been my belief that policies, these types of policies, are not healthy for the Body of Christ.  They create more problems than they are worth; however, I also believe that the leadership has every right to guide us by creating implementing policies for the good governance of the membership.  I would prefer that policies were never instituted, but I think we should follow regardless of our personal feelings about policies. 

 

I think we mostly agree here, see my last response.  I’m not trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I believe God revealed key principles in the WoW, but I don’t think we are focusing on the right things with our current cultural and policy emphasis on specific substances and strict abstinence. 

 

Would I cease to obey the WoW if current church policies changed?  I think you’re getting that piece confused.  Explain your definition of obedience to the WoW principle.  I see the principle and the policies as two separate things. 

 

I totally agree with you about policies being not healthy and distracting us from Christ, great point. 

Link to comment

  11 Not that which goeth into the mouth adefileth a man; but that which cometh out of the bmouth, this defileth a man.


  




17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?



  18 But those things which proceed out of the amouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Link to comment

Something i've learned in mankind doesn't do moderation very well. We start off fine but slowly overtime it can get outta hand, I doubt any addict started out wanting to be addicted to something. Some people can do something small and stay there but others they can go from 0-60 in a week

Link to comment

If it's not a commandment and it's not a policy then I don't see why having an occassional glass of wine or a beer would be a bad thing. Most people who drink socially are not raging alcoholics.  It's not evil in and of itself. The abuse of substances seems to be the real problem.

 

It would be interesting if the church some day decided to enforce the original intent of the WoW as understood by JS, Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruf, eg. abstaining from meat. A church comprised of vegetarians sounds like an unhappy group.

 

Almost anything if eaten in very moderate amounts won't physically hurt you. So it's not about use. It is about keeping the covenants with God that we make.

 

Actually we do have Scripture that precludes teaching vegetarianism as Church doctrine. In my Ward we have a few vegetarians. Great people. But they don't claim it is Church doctrine.

Link to comment

Almost anything if eaten in very moderate amounts won't physically hurt you. So it's not about use. It is about keeping the covenants with God that we make.

 

Actually we do have Scripture that precludes teaching vegetarianism as Church doctrine. In my Ward we have a few vegetarians. Great people. But they don't claim it is Church doctrine.

Do we specifically covenant to keep the word of wisdom at some point or is that just lumped into the overall "keep the commandments" covenant?

 

I'm not aware of a covenant that would require me to continue living the word of wisdom as currently proscribed should the policy change.

Link to comment
What are your thoughts about looking at the WoW as an example of how doctrine and policy change within the church?

Some will understand the reasons for any changes (or not) and/or attribute changes to revelation, practicality or social pressure (or not) and/or sustain the Church and her leaders’ actions (or not) in making the changes.

 

In the end, “all things which are good cometh of God” and “every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ.” (Moroni 7:12, 16).

 

From Section 89, the word of wisdom is a warning given by revelation in "consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." These evils and designs are not static  and neither is the warning revelation (Section 89 is only its starting point), hence the changes in the approach to warning, which includes policy.

 

It seems to me Section 89 builds upon the principle of warning in Section 88, which includes like instruction such as "Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."

 

And either of those Sections seem to have been built upon the principles in Section 59:12-24. Maybe these successive revelations about what we take into our bodies and how, and how we treat them (both our bodies and the things that go into them) came because some saints obeyed enough to receive more, or because not enough obeyed and needed more emphasis (or both!). I any case, they represent changes that "inviteth to do good."

Link to comment

From Section 89, the word of wisdom is a warning given by revelation in "consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." These evils and designs are not static  and neither is the warning revelation (Section 89 is only its starting point), hence the changes in the approach to warning, which includes policy.

 

Seriously - between agribusiness, GMO foods, processed food, obesity, diabetes, etc (the list is basically endless) we are being fed a diet of pure crap most of the time.  And most people either don't know, don't care, or can't afford to do anything about it.

 

The evils and designs in the hearts of conspiring men concerning our food supply is evident in every supermarket, and every doctors visit for something caused by a bad diet.

Link to comment

When did the WOW become part of the temple recommend interview questions? (In other words, when did it become necessary to follow the WOW in order to be temple worthy?)

(I'll try to look this up too.)

This essay on LDS.org might be a useful addition to your sources:

For the next two generations, Latter-day Saint leaders taught the Word of Wisdom as a command from God, but they tolerated a variety of viewpoints on how strictly the commandment should be observed. This incubation period gave the Saints time to develop their own tradition of abstinence from habit-forming substances. By the early twentieth century, when scientific medicines were more widely available and temple attendance had become a more regular feature of Latter-day Saint worship, the Church was ready to accept a more exacting standard of observance that would eliminate problems like alcoholism from among the obedient. In 1921, the Lord inspired Church president Heber J. Grant to call on all Saints to live the Word of Wisdom to the letter by completely abstaining from all alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco. Today Church members are expected to live this higher standard.16

...

Footnote 16: Moderation rather than abstinence was applied to virtually all of the “do nots” of the Word of Wisdom until the early twentieth century. On the tightening up of Word of Wisdom observance, see Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 258-72; and Paul H. Peterson and Ronald W. Walker, “Brigham Young’s Word of Wisdom Legacy,” BYU Studies 42, nos. 3-4 (2003): 29-64.

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

I'd be interested to see the original quote from 1921

Link to comment

The Lord knew what he was saying in Section 86 (that's for you BoMLuvr ). The current policy was adopted without revelation based on the evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

Thanks!

Yes, the LORD knew what He was saying, but we have done a lot of assuming since then. ;)

Link to comment

Joining this thread late, so pardon me if I'm going over plowed ground here.

I just finished reading an interesting Dialogue article by Thomas G. Alexander called The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement. http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf

 

The author walks us through the evolution of the WoW from a principle with a blessing to a requirement for full fellowship and worthiness. He illustrates how social and political pressures combined with past statements of church leaders and scriptural study to influence the evolution of the WoW to a commandment in the church. He claims there is no evidence a "revelation" was received which changed the status of the WoW from principle to revelation.

 

Are any of you familiar with this article? What are your thoughts about looking at the WoW as an example of how doctrine and policy change within the church?

 

I just did a quick scan of the article, but I don't read him as denying that there was revelation received to change the status of the Word of Wisdom, but rather, that there were a number of factors that combined to bring it about. Alexander wrote that this "provides a case study of the usual method of revelation and hence of doctrinal and policy development in the Church." (Emphasis mine)

 

So apparently Alexander believes there was, at some point, revelation in the matter.

Link to comment

Joining this thread late, so pardon me if I'm going over plowed ground here.

I just did a quick scan of the article, but I don't read him as denying that there was revelation received to change the status of the Word of Wisdom, but rather, that there were a number of factors that combined to bring it about. Alexander wrote that this "provides a case study of the usual method of revelation and hence of doctrinal and policy development in the Church." (Emphasis mine)

 

So apparently Alexander believes there was, at some point, revelation in the matter.

I agree. Though he said there isn't a "Here is the revelation to make this change" kind of revelation, there was inspiration influenced by many different factors. I like this analysis because it gives us an example of how things are worked through in logical, every-day kinds of ways instead of expecting a "thus saith the Lord" kind of revelation through the prophet. Anyone who has worked in a church council recognizes that there are many influences involved with inspiration.

Link to comment

Joining this thread late, so pardon me if I'm going over plowed ground here.

I just did a quick scan of the article, but I don't read him as denying that there was revelation received to change the status of the Word of Wisdom, but rather, that there were a number of factors that combined to bring it about. Alexander wrote that this "provides a case study of the usual method of revelation and hence of doctrinal and policy development in the Church." (Emphasis mine)

 

So apparently Alexander believes there was, at some point, revelation in the matter.

 

I agree. Though he said there isn't a "Here is the revelation to make this change" kind of revelation, there was inspiration influenced by many different factors. I like this analysis because it gives us an example of how things are worked through in logical, every-day kinds of ways instead of expecting a "thus saith the Lord" kind of revelation through the prophet. Anyone who has worked in a church council recognizes that there are many influences involved with inspiration.

In the end, “all things which are good cometh of God” and “every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ.” (Moroni 7:12, 16).

 

It is certainly the "usual method of revelation" at least in my personal experience, and a form of "line upon line, precept upon precept." Comparing DC 59, 88 and 89, I think the same type of progression can be seen. Including Emma's role!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...