Word Of Wisdom Question

[mfbukowski]

Didn't Joseph Smith condemn this kind of creedal thinking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think his problem is that he has a "Good Joseph" who translated the BOM and "Bad Joseph" who did everything else while still retaining the pristine perfection of the BOM- and then presumably as Bad Joseph, not even interpreting the BOM's perfection correctly.

I think it's a pretty hard case to make. Most people kind of keep their same character- good, bad, or medium throughout their lives, but here he must be postulating some kind of "fall" from Perfect Inspired Prophet to Evil Maniacal Charlatan.

It's hard to imagine how such a think could even happen, except in novels, and I think perhaps whatever he is selling is indeed just that. But he is out of this thread and can't respond. I am sure it will come up later until he is banned permanently

[Calm]

If he follows the reasoning I've seen elsewhere it is that Joseph was given the gift of translation of scripture and no other and thus anything else he did was in violation of his calling, IIRC (it's been awhile since I've heard this so the nuances may be wrong). There is a D&C scripture that is used to support this claim, but I can't remember which one save it is early in the book.

Considering his alias, I would assume that all one has to do is go read David Whitmer's criticism of JS (which rejects more or less everything after the mid 1830s) to figure out this DW's position.

They have departed a great measure from the faith of the CHURCH of CHRIST as it was first established, by heeding revelations given through Joseph Smith, who, after being called of God to translate his sacred word–the Book of Mormon–drifted into many errors and gave many revelations to introduce doctrines, ordinances and offices in the church, which are in conflict with Christ’s teachings. They also changed the name of the Church…On account of God giving to Joseph Smith the gift to translate the plates on which was engraven the Nephite scriptures, the people of the Church put too much trust in him–in the man–and believed his words as if they were from God’s own mouth. They have trusted in the arm of flesh…They looked to Joseph Smith as lawgiver, we look to Christ alone, and believe only in the religion of Jesus Christ and not in the religion of any man.

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-david-whitmer-on-joseph-smith-and-his-legacy/ Edited May 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

If he follows the reasoning I've seen elsewhere it is that Joseph was given the gift of translation of scripture and no other and thus anything else he did was in violation of his calling, IIRC (it's been awhile since I've heard this so the nuances may be wrong). There is a D&C scripture that is used to support this claim, but I can't remember which one save it is early in the book.

Which unfortunately cannot be correct since it the D&C is not inspired

[wenglund]

I think his problem is that he has a "Good Joseph" who translated the BOM and "Bad Joseph" who did everything else while still retaining the pristine perfection of the BOM- and then presumably as Bad Joseph, not even interpreting the BOM's perfection correctly.

I think that may actually be a symptom of his real problem, which I detect as pride--mistakenly assuming he already knows better than anyone what is what.

But he is out of this thread and can't respond. I am sure it will come up later until he is banned permanently.

I hope it does come up again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

http://www.juvenilei...and-his-legacy/

Thanks for this, it clarifies a lot- but I really agree with Chris Smith's comments below the article- one might argue that Joseph went haywire around the polygamy issue, but I think that the BOM clearly points toward a need for greater clarification of doctrines just hinted at in the BOM.

Polygamy is always an issue, but after all, the OT prophets did practice it, and I don't see a way around the fact that it clearly must be justifiable to God under certain circumstances.

To me, the doctrines of exaltation which I presume would be the prime "evil" doctrines to these folks are what make it all worthwhile as philosophy- if we retain the nobility of man despite the Fall- a hallmark of LDS theology- as opposed to creedal interpretations of man as totally depraved- AND the first vision- that God is a man of flesh and bones- I think exaltation just plain follows.

Either mankind is inherently depraved, or inherently noble yet subject to sin. If we go down the inherently noble road, I think that road must end in the opportunity for a "second chance" by hearing the gospel in the world to come, and the logical outcome in rewarding an inherently noble creature- exaltation or theosis or something like it.

On the other hand, if mankind is depraved, creedals win the day. We should all be in hell, and we are lucky if God gives us his grace without rhyme or reason and saves us from hell.

Either we can contribute by doing something toward salvation or we can't- and I think the BOM clearly says we can, and that the Fall was a set-up to help us return to our Father. If you buy that the Fall was a set-up that was supposed to happen, there must be a plan for a greater destiny.

2Nephi 2

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no ^achildren; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no ^bjoy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no ^csin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who ^aknoweth all things.

25 ^aAdam ^bfell that men might be; and men ^care, that they might have ^djoy.

26 And the ^aMessiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may ^bredeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are ^credeemed from the fall they have become ^dfree forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the ^elaw at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are ^afree according to the ^bflesh; and ^call things are ^dgiven them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to ^echoose ^fliberty and eternal ^glife, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be ^hmiserable like unto himself.

I mean it's all right there. You can deduce everything else from this and the first vision. God is a man, man is noble, Adam had to fall that man and the entire plan could happen and we are here to have joy. If God is a man of flesh, then questioning that fact becomes obvious. You take the idea that he is flesh and we are here to have joy, and there is King Follette right around the corner. One thing implies the other- I don't think you can just slice and dice the doctrine that way.

It just doesn't make sense

[Calm]

It just doesn't make sense

I would agree.

[cacheman]

Killing animals when unnecessary is wrong, that is the point of the quote.

In this day and age, when do animals 'need' to be killed for their meat? When is it necessary? I can only think of rare circumstances where that would be necessary. Particularly in developed countries.

[thesometimesaint]

cacheman:

Because trying to take a bite out of a live one can cause serious damage to the biter.

[Log]

In this day and age, when do animals 'need' to be killed for their meat?

Maybe we could take a page out of Dennis Leary's No Cure for Cancer tour and just cut a steak out of a live steer at the tableside. Perhaps with proper anesthetics and veterinary care, they could be used for meat without killing them... completely...

Edited May 17, 2012 by Log

[cacheman]

I walked into that one... lol. :rofl:

But seriously... when is it necessary to eat meat? If we purposefully cause an animal to be needlessly killed, are we in the wrong? I'm interested in people's opinions.

[ERayR]

In this day and age, when do animals 'need' to be killed for their meat? When is it necessary? I can only think of rare circumstances where that would be necessary. Particularly in developed countries.

It is very dificult to get the steaks and burgers if you don't.

[mfbukowski]

cacheman:

Because trying to take a bite out of a live one can cause serious damage to the biter.

Not to mention causing unnecessary pain to the animal in trying to cook the steak while the cow is still alive.

[mfbukowski]

I walked into that one... lol. :rofl:

But seriously... when is it necessary to eat meat? If we purposefully cause an animal to be needlessly killed, are we in the wrong? I'm interested in people's opinions.

It's one of the best sources of complete protein, and people don't want to read volumes on nutrition it takes to be vegan.

[CV75]

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?

Because we are basically commanded not to have to be commanded in all things (D&C 58:26).

[thesometimesaint]

cacheman:

Unless prescribed by a MD for the treatment of some disease like anemia it isn't an absolute necessity. But we evolved to eat a variety of foods including meats, from our canines to our incisors to our single stomachs we are omnivores.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm impressed, most can't see it with conginitive dissonance and such.

Oh, noes! We're conginitively dissonant, folks!

[Log]

Oh, noes! We're conginitively dissonant, folks!

It's true.

[Stargazer]

Because we are basically commanded not to have to be commanded in all things (D&C 58:26).

Uh-oh. If we're commanded not be commanded in all things, isn't that, like, some sort of contradiction?

Or is it something like expected to use our initiative?

I think it is the latter.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, noes! We're conginitively dissonant, folks!

In my case of course, it's spelled "dis son ain't".

[MichaelH]

"Lastly, church history shows a double standard...J.Smith smoking cigars!"

I'm curious why you think Joseph Smith smoked cigars?

[Alan]

Once again, I spend some time doing something else away from my computer and a whole new interesting topic comes up here and I miss it until it's running out of steam. So I'm joining late yet again.

The WoW was never changed into a commandment. BY never actually did this, he just asked some members at a meeting he was speaking at to commit to living it if he would. It wasn't a general conference, it wasn't addressed to the whole church and was never presented to the church for a sustaining vote.

A tradition has grown up in the church that brother Brigham made it binding, but this is an urban myth. In fact, Brigham himself continued to use tobacco for several years following the above mentioned speech.

On the other side of the coin, it is wise to follow the counsel of the WoW, but it should be all of it. Very little, if any, meat for a start! Eating things in season, not just because they are in the shops etc.

We concentrate far too much on the don'ts and not nearly enough on the do's of the WoW.

Finally, (and apologies if someone has already made this point) the WoW appears to condone the drinking of beer. What else is a mild drink (as opposed to a strong drink) made with barley?

[thesometimesaint]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/04/a-principle-with-a-promise?lang=eng

Barley Water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley_water

[cinepro]

What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?

TruthSeeker24, if you actually want some degree of understanding on this subject, I highly recommend starting with this article:

The Word of Wisdom in Early Nineteenth Century

It's also important to understand the difference between the Word of Wisdom and Baptism. For example, were you to time travel 100 years into the future, I think it would be possible (but not likely) to find the LDS then allowing coffee drinking, and moderate wine and beer consumption*. I don't think it would be possible to find a change in the attitude towards baptism.

*For those who wonder how this would happen, it wouldn't be by edict or revelation. Church leaders would just stop talking about it, and over time, our understanding of it would change. You would still have "the old guard" who adhere to the old ways, but newer generations would adapt over time, until it is only the historians who remember those few decades long ago when LDS were known as non-coffee drinkers and teetotalers.

[Alan]

https://www.lds.org/...romise?lang=eng

Barley Water

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Barley_water

I'm quite sure there was no barley water in Kirtland, Independence or Nauvoo. Plenty of beer though. There was even a brewery, as there was in Salt Lake City. Joseph is known to drink beer, well after the WoW revelation.

Now, it wouldn't have been as alcoholic as it is nowadays (up tp 8%) but it was beer nevertheless.

[Calm]

I'm quite sure there was no barley water in Kirtland, Independence or Nauvoo.

Why so certain? It has been around for quite sometime and was popular in Britain so was likely brought over with other Bristish foods. Edited January 23, 2013 by calmoriah