Will facts eventually rule the day?

[Calm]

From Church History in the Fulness of Times:

During the winter of 1833, the School of the Prophets frequently met to discuss the affairs of the Church; as was the custom of the time, many of the brethren chewed or smoked tobacco. As Brigham Young recalled, Joseph Smith became concerned at having to instruct the school

[Calm]

For information about the Temperance movement in Joseph Smith's environment, see http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7027

It mentions a Kirtland Temperance Society that had managed to shut down a distillery in the area about a month prior to the revelation.

I personally would be very surprised if some of the ideas of the Temperance movement were not in Joseph's thoughts when he went to inquire of the Lord His Will on the matter.

[Duncan]

For information about the Temperance movement in Joseph Smith's environment, see http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7027

It mentions a Kirtland Temperance Society that had managed to shut down a distillery in the area about a month prior to the revelation.

I personally would be very surprised if some of the ideas of the Temperance movement were not in Joseph's thoughts when he went to inquire of the Lord His Will on the matter.

Unless he said they were I don't know if anyone can know for sure

[Calm]

Unless he said they were I don't know if anyone can know for sure

I would agree, but I also wouldn't argue against the high probability of it.

[paulpatter]

Actually, Joseph Smith was not the first to promote temperance, nor was the LDS church the first religion to embrace it. Temperance associations had been formed in America as far back as 1789, and they spread quickly throughout the northeast. In fact, the American Temperance Society had been formed in 1826, years before Joseph Smith's Word of Wisdom was revealed. This movement towards abstaining from alcohol was started and established long before Joseph Smith gave the Word of Wisdom edict. So , no he didn't need scientific journals, he just took a page from the temparance movement that had been established long before his Word of Wisdom edict.

You're correct. I will even supply a reference to help validate your claims: "By 1833 there were 6,000 local temperance societies in the U.S." (History.Com, "Temperance Movement."). I'm quite sure I didn't state that Joseph Smith was the first to warn against using strong drinks, but you engage in speculation when you accuse him of merely taking "a page from the temperance movement." Perhaps you can document that assertion.

Note, however, that the counsel to abstain from "strong drink" is only one part of the WW. Section 89 also warns against using tobacco, stating that it "is not good for man. . . ." Nicotine was discovered in 1826, but it wasn't until 1836 that one Samuel Green designated it as a poison. And it wasn't until 1964 that the U. S. Surgeon General asked the government to regulate the advertising and sales of cigarettes (Boston University Medical Center, "History of Tobacco"). During that long period, billions of cigarettes were sold despite growing evidence about their lethal effects, making tobacco companies filthy rich. That fact imparts telling meaning to Section 89's sentence, "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men. . . ."

It should be noted, too, that the section encourages the use of herbs and grains and advises moderation in the consumption of the flesh of beasts and fowls. That counsel is commonplace today, particularly with reference to red meat ("beasts").

Frankly, your effort to discredit the Word of Wisdom by citing the history of temperance unions (that was your intent, wasn't it?), strikes me as falling appallingly short.

[Walden]

Frankly, your effort to discredit the Word of Wisdom by citing the history of temperance unions (that was your intent, wasn't it?), strikes me as falling appallingly short.

You must have misread my intent. Or maybe you failed to read my original post on this topic. My intent is not to discredit the word of wisdom. I think that it is wise council, and in fact, even though I am not a believer, I do not consume alcohol or tobacco, and I would put my diet up against even the most faithful mormons.

If you took the time to actually read my original post, you will see that my beef is not with the WoW itself, but rather, with those who attempt to use the word of wisdom as a way to try to prove that Joseph Smith must have been some type of prophet because he was so ahead of his time in his admonitions against alcohol and tobacco, as if he was the first person to ever do so. There are plenty of examples of entire movements of people who fought against the use of alcohol before Smith, yet they are not considered prophetic. And the admonitions against tobacco could as easily be explained by the texts already sited in previous posts by others. Practical advice, sure. Prophetic advice, well, not quite.

Another thing that I have always found curious about the word of wisdom is the way in which only bits and parts of it are actually adhered to by the membership or monitored by the leadership. I mean, have you ever known anyone who was denied a temple recommend for consuming too much meat, even though the word of wisdom calls for very limited consumption of meat? But that is a topic for another thread, I've just always found it curious.

[paulpatter]

You must have misread my intent. Or maybe you failed to read my original post on this topic. My intent is not to discredit the word of wisdom. I think that it is wise council, and in fact, even though I am not a believer, I do not consume alcohol or tobacco, and I would put my diet up against even the most faithful mormons.

If I misread your intent, I apologize. The post's rather strident tone ("took a page. . ") contributed to my interpretation of your intent.

: If you took the time to actually read my original post, you will see that my beef is not with the WoW itself, but rather, with those who attempt to use the word of wisdom as a way to try to prove that Joseph Smith must have been some type of prophet because he was so ahead of his time in his admonitions against alcohol and tobacco, as if he was the first person to ever do so.

I understand. I'm not impressed either by people who grasp at straws in an effort to substantiate Joseph's Smith's prophetic calling.

: There are plenty of examples of entire movements of people who fought against the use of alcohol before Smith, yet they are not considered prophetic. And the admonitions against tobacco could as easily be explained by the texts already sited in previous posts by others.

True enough. Perhaps, though, Joseph Smith merits some credit for using that information--whether or not you believe he validated it through divine inspiration--to give cautionary counsel to his followers. Moreover, some "voices" trumpeted claimed benefits of tobacco. The site Butts & Ashtrays states that some believed [circa 1800s] tobacco could "cure everything from bad breath to cancer."

: Practical advice, sure. Prophetic advice, well, not quite.

You're entitled to your suppositions, sans references and all.

: Another thing that I have always found curious about the word of wisdom is the way in which only bits and parts of it are actually adhered to by the membership or monitored by the leadership. I mean, have you ever known anyone who was denied a temple recommend for consuming too much meat, even though the word of wisdom calls for very limited consumption of meat? But that is a topic for another thread, I've just always found it curious.

Thanks for mentioning this. Your question, for which I don't have an answer, raises another question: Was it commonly known in Joseph Smith's day that red meat ("beasts"), in particular, was not good for the body and could contribute to heart disease? Does a body of literature on that subject, written in the 1800s, exist?

[SkepticTheist]

In science it is a process of gathering more and more information until it moves from concept to theory to fact. All along the way there are naysayers and those opposed to the new idea. Ultimately some ideas turn out correct some may not, but the more evidence the more broadly the theory is accepted. If you look at evolution for example, it has been established in scientific circles that it has moved from theory to fact. 50 Years ago in the church I would say hardly anyone believed in evolution. Now many more members have come to accept it and try and incorporate it into their beliefs. As the understanding and facts piled up rational minds had to accept it at least to some degree. The same can be said for the age of the earth and other scientifically proven ideas.

So as time goes on religion will be more and more relegated to only being able to defend those things that are not provable by scientific methods, faith, the existence of God and such. Some will always hold on to beliefs that are contrary to the facts but over time facts tend to win the day.

Whether it be scientific, historical, or anything else at what point do the facts out weigh faith and force you to change your belief? Is it when you can connect the dots so to speak and start to see the big picture, or do you hold out to the point that it must be starring you in the face hitting you with a club before you accept the facts as the actual truth.

Religion does not have a great track record for embracing facts that run contrary to its core or even periphery beliefs. Human nature perhaps, but still a belief does not make something a fact.

there is no such thing as anything that is scientifically proven. There is only that which has not been falsified yet, which is the best idea they have yet. Science is about falsification of ideas, not proving ideas as true. Science is self corrective, moving from bad ideas to better ideas to best ideas. Never to proven ideas. because, even if an idea is pretty good, some nuance of it is typically wrong. And until science can get to those nuances, the idea remains rough and uncut, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. Just because something has not been falsified does not mean it is true.

Ed Goble