Word Of Wisdom And Recommends

[solomarineris]

We all know of the very high statistics of innocents that are killed each year by people who are driving while fat. And although it wasn't on your list, let's not forget about the hurt that second hand fatness does too.

Dr Steuss,

I cannot believe how pathetic and mediocre your anology sounds.

Some guy responded you by saying losing all respect for you, now I see why...

Alcohol do not cause murder, so are the guns...

People drive drunk, people shoot innocents, how are you going to avoid that?

By prohibition?

I do carry a gun most of the time, I do drink at my leisure. I never drive unde when I drink.

What are you saying? should we opress/supress people?

Take their freedom away for your religious convictions?

For your sake I hope you do not have any owerweight people around you that you love.

[battlefieldboy]

Hypothetical question: What if someone prays about the WOW and for certain parts (say like the hot drinks) and doesn't get confirmation from the Holy Ghost that it is true. When this person get questioned for his or her temple recommend and is asked if they have any problems with the WOW can the person truthfully say no and receive their recommend?

[Calm]

Hypothetical question: What if someone prays about the WOW and for certain parts (say like the hot drinks) and doesn't get confirmation from the Holy Ghost that it is true. When this person get questioned for his or her temple recommend and is asked if they have any problems with the WOW can the person truthfully say no and receive their recommend?

What do you think? (serious question)

[battlefieldboy]

I was informed on a thread on this sight that everyone in the LDS church needs to pray about doctrine that has been presented and if it is true they will have it confirmed by the Holy Ghost. So I was just wondering if that could be applicable to the WOW. I know that I have an Uncle who liked his coffee and he kept his temple recommend up until his passing. He wasn't a coffee fiend but he did drink at least one cup a day. So my assumption would be that if an Individual doesn't have a spiritual confirmation about a particular principle then technically they aren't being disobediant if they choose not to follow it?

Obviously I'm not talking about major things like sexual sin, murder, blasphemy, but if its a small thing would it make a difference.

[Legalbryan]

Having just sat through a recommend interview, I don't believe they ask "Do you have a problem with the word of wisdom." They ask, do you keep the word of wisdom. This, of course, would mean no smoking/coffee/black tea/alcohol, etc. You can't rationalize away part of the word of wisdom. The reason why we are asked to pray about certain doctrines is to get a witness of the truthfulness of it. The holy ghost isn't going to tell your uncle "its okay for you to have coffee, but the other schlubs have to refrain." Moroni instructs us on the proper use of prayer, asking with a sincere heart, nothing wanting. If asked in the correct spirit, then the confirmation will come. If asked with a pre-defined answer, then who knows what "confirmation" you will get. Most likely the one you want to get.

[Sleeper Cell]

Secondhand cookies have probably taken half a dozen years off my life.

Not that I'm turning them down.

â??We never eat cookies, cause cookies have yeast.

Just one little taste turns a man to a beast.

A man who eats cookies -- oh what a disgrace,

to lie in the gutter with crumbs on your face!â?

[grego]

Legalbryan,

The coffee story, I believe, is from President Spencer W. Kimball.

[Calm]

I was informed on a thread on this sight that everyone in the LDS church needs to pray about doctrine that has been presented and if it is true they will have it confirmed by the Holy Ghost. So I was just wondering if that could be applicable to the WOW. I know that I have an Uncle who liked his coffee and he kept his temple recommend up until his passing. He wasn't a coffee fiend but he did drink at least one cup a day. So my assumption would be that if an Individual doesn't have a spiritual confirmation about a particular principle then technically they aren't being disobediant if they choose not to follow it?

I don't know. Depends a great deal, imo, on how someone personally understands the entire context.

Say for example, they know that leaders expect them to abstain from coffee and that they sustained such leaders.

Should they let the lack of confirmation (not a witness that actually rejects something, but rather the absence of an answer either way) be evidence that it is a good thing to drink coffee and therefore they should do it in spite of the expectations of these sustained leaders including to the point of omitting they are doing so when it comes to the TR interview or perhaps should they take in the absence of a 'yea' or 'nay' on one standard, their commitment to sustain their leaders and their leaders' expectations as a sufficient reason to follow that so far unconfirmed standard?

Seems to me that knowing what the expected standard is, that if one is certain enough that one is doing the right thing, one should be willing to take the consequences of their decisions and not try to circumvent the community setting the standards. If one is really doing the right thing, then the Lord will bless one for being faithful and if one is sincere but wrong, then dealing with the consequences just might lead to knowing what is right much more effectively than ever before whether or not it agrees with the community.

[Doctor Steuss]

Dr Steuss,

I cannot believe how pathetic and mediocre your anology sounds.

The feeling is mutual.

Some guy responded you by saying losing all respect for you, now I see why...

Ainâ??t it grand seeing the light?

Alcohol do not cause murder, so are the guns...

People drive drunk, people shoot innocents, how are you going to avoid that?

By prohibition?

You have totally lost me.

I do carry a gun most of the time, I do drink at my leisure. I never drive unde when I drink.

Congratulations.

What are you saying? should we opress/supress people?

No, not â??people.â? Just Mormons. Mormons arenâ??t people.

Take their freedom away for your religious convictions?

I have no religious convictions. I have some spiritual ones. Iâ??m not sure I understand what that has to do with anything.

For your sake I hope you do not have any owerweight people around you that you love.

What in the world is this supposed to mean? I donâ??t know what tender spot I hit with you to get you all up in arms to maintain your right to drink and be overweight. Whatever it was, I apologize. Hopefully you were able to get a little thicker skin over the weekend.

Oi vey.

Edited to add:

I've gone back and re-read my statement and I'm really not seeing how it could have possibly caused you to go on a parenthetical rant about "losing respect for me," followed by you bringing up guns, shooting people, having a right to drink, me trying to stifle that right, and your hope that all of my loved ones are slender.

Care to enlighten me? Please?

[Garden Girl]

Doc... I laughed out loud at the "driving while fat" thing...

I believe that we should eat meat sparingly just as it says... that is proving to be very wise counsel... but the admonition about eating during cold or famine IMO had more to do with the lack of refrigeration and ability to keep meat from spoiling... also pork unless properly stored or cooked would cause trichnosis(sp?) (worms). Today we have freezers/refrigs so waiting for cold weather isn't necessary.

As someone who is fighting to rid myself of some extra poundage (the older we get the harder it is), I'm very aware of the state of myself and others around me and am appalled at the "size" of America in general, which is becoming a widespread medical problem. The attendant results of high cholesterol, blood pressure, heart problems, etc., etc., grow more serious every day.

As far as I'm concerned, the WoW is wise counsel indeed and should be embraced for more healthy living. We all know, really, what is right or wrong under its principles and shouldn't try to get around it to justify our own wants.

The Garden Girl

[Doctor Steuss]

Doc... I laughed out loud at the "driving while fat" thing...

I'm glad at least one person saw it for the spirit in which it was intended.

Hope the weather is nice today. We might get up around 107 here...

[Lamanite]

Maybe Daniel Petersen the king of krispy kreme can shed some light on the issue of food abuse and other health issues addressed and those implied by the D&C, and whether he feels this type of abuse should exclude one from obtaining a recommend.

It is a simple question. Do you have problems with the WoW? Yes, I abuse food, or- No I'm doing fine. There is no need to justify with, "well I ate 4 boxes of cookies and then went on the Atkins diet, but I'm also on Zyprexa and it made me do it". Either you can sa in your heart your keeping the health code or you're not. Pretty simple.

[Nephi]

We all know of the very high statistics of innocents that are killed each year by people who are driving while fat. And although it wasn't on your list, let's not forget about the hurt that second hand fatness does too.

So are you implying that since overweight does not directly hurt other people, then its better or okay compared to alcohol or tobacco?

[Doctor Steuss]

So are you implying that since overweight does not directly hurt other people, then its better or okay compared to alcohol or tobacco?

To an extent. Mostly it was just a flippant response that was intended to be humor (which seems to have been lost...).

But, I know that being overweight does indeed potentially â??hurtâ? other people by driving up health care costs, influencing eating habits of children, etc. So it does tend to indirectly harm others, but if I were forced to give a definitive opinion, I would say that IMO the effects of tobacco and alcohol and the harm caused by them to those who are not choosing to take them is greater than that caused indirectly by those who are willfully overweight.

Does that make one of them â??betterâ?? Nope. But it makes one of the â??less worse.â?

[Nephi]

Does that make one of them â??betterâ?? Nope. But it makes one of the â??less worse.â?

So this brings the question forth that if God tells us that we must show moderation and healthful choices in our food and we must not smoke or drink, then why is it that if you don't follow the smoke or drink clause, you are out of the temple, and yet you can "glutton on mutton" and be allowed in to God's house? I think (what the original question) was leading to was who's laws are we bound to follow to enter God's house? God's law or the church's law?

[Doctor Steuss]

So this brings the question forth that if God tells us that we must show moderation and healthful choices in our food and we must not smoke or drink, then why is it that if you don't follow the smoke or drink clause, you are out of the temple, and yet you can "glutton on mutton" and be allowed in to God's house? I think (what the original question) was leading to was who's laws are we bound to follow to enter God's house? God's law or the church's law?

"Glutton on mutton"

As far as your questions. I think the J. Reuben Clark quote I posted earlier is about as close an answer as we can receive... at least for now.

Rules change. Laws don't. Certain aspects of the WoW having weight (pun not intended) in the TR interview are "rules.â? Maybe theyâ??ll change again some dayâ?¦ maybe not.

[Lamanite]

"Glutton on mutton"

Rules change. Laws don't. Certain aspects of the WoW having weight (pun not intended) in the TR interview are "rules.â? Maybe theyâ??ll change again some dayâ?¦ maybe not.

Did some correlation committee decide this or was this some subjective weighting (pun intended) decision made by H. David Burton and his 50 inch waist. Wow, I'm going to hell for that one.

[thesometimesaint]

Lamanite:

Doubtful. BY was not a small guy.

[Doctor Steuss]

Did some correlation committee decide this or was this some subjective weighting (pun intended) decision made by H. David Burton and his 50 inch waist. Wow, I'm going to hell for that one.

Dunno. All I know is that it changed to a requirement for a TR circa 1930.

[Lamanite]

Dunno. All I know is that it changed to a requirement for a TR circa 1930.

Really, I didn't know that. It is what it is. Thanks!

Sione

[Nephi]

I think the J. Reuben Clark quote I posted earlier is about as close an answer as we can receive... at least for now.

Rules change. Laws don't.

"...the Church cannot change the laws of God. They stand immutable. We may change the rules; we may say that a drunkard... [or] he who drinks tea and coffee may go into the temple. These rules we may change. But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow, somewhere, sometime...."

I find no presidence (sp?) whereby the church can change God's "rules". God has commandments, and that is that. Besides, if I make a house and tell my son that there are "rules" about my house, and he is the keeper of the house for me, lemme tell you I am gonna be upset if even one of these "rules" are broken:

1. No smoking in the house
   
2. No parties in the house
   
3. No sex in my house
   

Similar to God's rules, and letting others break these rules but to enter the house of God. Is there a better reference than the talk given by Clark?

[Lamanite]

I find no presidence (sp?) whereby the church can change God's "rules". God has commandments, and that is that. Besides, if I make a house and tell my son that there are "rules" about my house, and he is the keeper of the house for me, lemme tell you I am gonna be upset if even one of these "rules" are broken:

1. No smoking in the house
   
2. No parties in the house
   
3. No sex in my house
   

Similar to God's rules, and letting others break these rules but to enter the house of God. Is there a better reference than the talk given by Clark?

I'm sure this has a similar explaination to that of BY using tobacco for long after the rev. on WoW and how it was a recommendation and then a commandment blah blah.

I treat it lightly because I think it's an area we are falling short in. I think God is aware, but to be honest I don't know if the work could handle the massive decrease in Temple work that would ensue if we treated the WoW as strict constructionists. No worries, continue to abstain from coffee but feel free to do the Atkins diet with the immediate consumption of white flour and sugar when you come off. Coffee is bad but type two diabete's is not a big deal even if coupled with heart disease and high blodd pressure- as long as you're not smoking weed.

[Nephi]

I'm sure this has a similar explaination to that of BY using tobacco for long after the rev. on WoW and how it was a recommendation and then a commandment blah blah.

I treat it lightly because I think it's an area we are falling short in. I think God is aware, but to be honest I don't know if the work could handle the massive decrease in Temple work that would ensue if we treated the WoW as strict constructionists. No worries, continue to abstain from coffee but feel free to do the Atkins diet with the immediate consumption of white flour and sugar when you come off. Coffee is bad but type two diabete's is not a big deal even if coupled with heart disease and high blodd pressure- as long as you're not smoking weed.

Seems strange. To believe the church its believe it all or nothing... But WoW is selective...

[thesometimesaint]

Lamanite:

Should the Bishop require a doctors clearance before issuing a TR? Depends on how Pharisaical you want to get.

[Lamanite]

Lamanite:

Should the Bishop require a doctors clearance before issuing a TR? Depends on how Pharisaical you want to get.

Not pharisaical. Just ask the person if they keep the WoW. If they say yes, and weigh 392 lbs. then still give them a recommend. The interview is not a fact finding mission. It's an opportunity to communicate and give an accounting for yourself. If you say yes, it's yes.

Seems strange. To believe the church its believe it all or nothing... But WoW is selective...

I don't understand.