Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SettingDogStar

The New WoW Question

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Calm said:

However, it is not like changes to past revelations were always only done through canonized revelations before. Chances are most changes were spread word of mouth long before such were written down and presented to the Church as a whole in NT times for example. 

Got to wonder how much stuff was written down in Old Testament times as it was taught from the prophet.

And plural marriage was undertaken as a change in commandment in the modern church a number of years before the revelation was written down and then present to the Church as a whole. 

That's because they were hiding it. Seriously :) 

Quote

Actually, the lord isn't commanding.  The text of the revelation states in verse two:

Quote

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the a word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days

It seems to me the men have created a policy and have raised it to the level that it overrides the original revelation. IMO that is a dangerous thing to do.  That's how we got the racist priesthood policy that we had to live with for 150 years.

This is exactly right. The WoW is not a commandment from God. It's a commandment of men based loosely on a revelation of health from God. IMO we should be very wary in holding each other to the commandments of men, particularly when pertaining to issues of judging "worthiness" to participate in saving ordinances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, etana said:

Not a habitual tea drinker, but i know some and try to follow Jesus' words in Luke 10: 8 Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. and Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 10: 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Matthew 15:10 ¶ And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Not directly relating to Word of Wisdom but to member opinions of those who violate it.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, etana said:

Not a habitual tea drinker, but i know some and try to follow Jesus' words in Luke 10: 8 Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. and Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 10: 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

They did not have the word of wisdom like we do now from current prophets.  So what if you are severely allergic to something someone serves you, do you take it anyway and hope you don't die?
I think it's easy enough in our time and culture to just thank the host and ask for something else to drink.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It is a trick question as nobody actually understands the WoW.  I follow the WoW as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version: D&C 89.  If I follow D&C 89 exactly as defined by the Lord, does this qualify me for Obeying the WoW?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

They did not have the word of wisdom like we do now from current prophets.  So what if you are severely allergic to something someone serves you, do you take it anyway and hope you don't die?
I think it's easy enough in our time and culture to just thank the host and ask for something else to drink.  

No, they had even more strict dietary laws than we do.
Avoiding food allergies has nothing to do with (in Paul's words) "conscience sake".

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It is a trick question as nobody actually understands the WoW.  I follow the WoW as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version: D&C 89.  If I follow D&C 89 exactly as defined by the Lord, does this qualify me for Obeying the WoW?

if that's how you understand the requirement, absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It is a trick question as nobody actually understands the WoW.  I follow the WoW as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version: D&C 89.  If I follow D&C 89 exactly as defined by the Lord, does this qualify me for Obeying the WoW?

I would say yes.
Apparently many would say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, etana said:

of course we listen to and accept continuing revelation. That doesn't mean that we can expect modern prophets to completely contradict what God has said "through" his prophets in the past; in this case, specifically, that it is NOT a commandment. It is certainly a policy and a practice and a commitment that we willingly make, but it is not a commandment. Unless you want to call God, who knew the future when he spoke through Joseph, a liar.

I take it, then, that you reject the revelation received by Wilford Woodruff ending the practice of plurality of wives among the Latter-day Saints. Which schismatic group do you belong to?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It is a trick question as nobody actually understands the WoW.  I follow the WoW as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version: D&C 89.  If I follow D&C 89 exactly as defined by the Lord, does this qualify me for Obeying the WoW?

If you lack understanding of the Wordif Wisdom, you need to say so in the temple recommend interview. Your priesthood leader will be happy to explain it to you, I’m sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you lack understanding of the Wordif Wisdom, you need to say so in the temple recommend interview. Your priesthood leader will be happy to explain it to you, I’m sure. 

But his stance is sometimes understanding will differ, unbeknownst to the individual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

But his stance is sometimes understanding will differ, unbeknownst to the individual. 

Her stance is “nobody understands the Word of Wisdom.” Therefore to answer the question honestly, she would have to reply that she doesn’t understand it, as she thinks nobody does.

She says it’s a trick question. Perhaps she ought not be seeking a recommend in the first place, if she believes the Church and its leaders are engaged in trickery. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take it, then, that you reject the revelation received by Wilford Woodruff ending the practice of plurality of wives among the Latter-day Saints. Which schismatic group do you belong to?

:lol:
Sometimes I love your black and white viewpoint Scott.  It's just the other side of the coin from my own.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take it, then, that you reject the revelation received by Wilford Woodruff ending the practice of plurality of wives among the Latter-day Saints. Which schismatic group do you belong to?

You take it wrong.

What statement of God did President Woodruff contradict? The one that stated that worldly marriages were meaningless as far as the Lord is concerned, or the part where he said that all ordinances sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise are binding?

The schismatic group i belong to is whichever member of the Body of Christ i happen to find myself in at any given time.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, juliann said:

That diabetics are being told not to take advantage of this is troublesome. 

The WoW policy iirc states that taking drugs under the supervision of a doctor is acceptable.  If I thought green tea could provide me with medical support, I would ask my doctor if they would recommend it and if there were other options that would fill the same benefits without more costs (side effects).  If nothing else as good and the doctor viewed it as useful, I would then see that as abiding by the WoW.  I would also treat it as I treat other drugs and not include it as part of my social or recreational life ( drinking it socially).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's because they were hiding it. Seriously :) 

 

Certainly much of the reason.  But it shows along with other examples that commandments were viewed as valid in the past even if expected procedure is not followed.  Do we have clear written down directions for all commandments that were given to church members?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:
 

Certainly much of the reason.  But it shows that commandments can be valid even if expected procedure is not followed.  Do we have clear written down directions for all commandments that were given to church members?

You're right. We don't have revelations for many commandments but I think that illustrates the problem. When a commandment/doctrine/policy changes there is really no accountability because the discarded commandment/doctrine never really existed. It was just the opinion of a man who happened to be a prophet or apostle. By not having documentation leaders can play it both ways. They can treat their opinions as doctrine and the direct will of God yet also discard it when necessary. And the people are required to accept it both ways. The only real principle required is obedience to the current leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

It is a trick question as nobody actually understands the WoW.  I follow the WoW as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version: D&C 89.  If I follow D&C 89 exactly as defined by the Lord, does this qualify me for Obeying the WoW?

What would you say is the difference between following the spirit of D&C 89 and its exact definition?

For example, can "revelation," "adapt[ability]," and "a principle with a promise" refer to subsequent applications such as using it as a requirement for temple recommends, or the future inclusion of all alcoholic drinks, green tea and Handbook 1, 17.2.11, as the "capacity" of the saints increases over time?

 

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

What would you say is the difference between following the spirit of D&C 89 and its exact definition?

For example, can "revelation," "adapt[ability]," and "a principle with a promise" refer to subsequent applications such as using it as a requirement for temple recommends, or the future inclusion of all alcoholic drinks and green tea, as the "capacity" of the saints increases over time?

 

absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right. We don't have revelations for many commandments but I think that illustrates the problem. When a commandment/doctrine/policy changes there is really no accountability because the discarded commandment/doctrine never really existed. It was just the opinion of a man who happened to be a prophet or apostle. By not having documentation leaders can play it both ways. They can treat their opinions as doctrine and the direct will of God yet also discard it when necessary. And the people are required to accept it both ways. The only real principle required is obedience to the current leader.

I would say the people are not required to accept it both ways, but those who remain sustain. I also think it is broader than obedience to a current leader, but to the teachings found in 3 Nephi 11 and 12.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Her stance is “nobody understands the Word of Wisdom.” Therefore to answer the question honestly, she would have to reply that she doesn’t understand it, as she thinks nobody does.

She says it’s a trick question. Perhaps she ought not be seeking a recommend in the first place, if she believes the Church and its leaders are engaged in trickery. 

Or maybe they could just clarify when asked if they understand. "Do I understand and obey the WoW as revealed in scripture or do I understand and obey the current WoW policy?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or maybe they could just clarify when asked if they understand. "Do I understand and obey the WoW as revealed in scripture or do I understand and obey the current WoW policy?"

Right, because they aren’t the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, etana said:

No, they had even more strict dietary laws than we do.
Avoiding food allergies has nothing to do with (in Paul's words) "conscience sake".

But living the word of wisdom has everything to do with what our prophets are telling us today.  And my conscience tells me to follow their advice.

 

Edited by JAHS

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, etana said:

absolutely.

What do you think of the current prohibition of all alcoholic drinks and green tea, and the substances in policy Handbook 1, 17.2.11 which specifies coffee, tea, illegal substances, and harmful or habit-forming substances without competent medical supervision? Do you feel these fall under the WoW (in spirit or letter) as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version (D&C 89) and exactly as defined by the Lord?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or maybe they could just clarify when asked if they understand. "Do I understand and obey the WoW as revealed in scripture or do I understand and obey the current WoW policy?"

I think the obvious answer, if you must draw the dichotomy, is the latter. We believe in ongoing and current revelation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you think of the current prohibition of all alcoholic drinks and green tea, and the substances in policy Handbook 1, 17.2.11 which specifies coffee, tea, illegal substances, and harmful or habit-forming substances without competent medical supervision? Do you feel these fall under the WoW (in spirit or letter) as defined by the Lord in the only canonical version (D&C 89) and exactly as defined by the Lord?

I think that any harmful or addictive substance (including sugar) falls under the spirit of the WoW, but not the letter AKA "exactly as defined by the Lord". In a TR interview i would have to go by my understanding of the spirit as i imagine it is understood by those with the Keys to the Temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...