Is The Word Of Wisdom Active Inactive At The Second Coming?

[bu11fr0g]

"And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined."

This reads to me that alcoholic wine will be served. The word of wisdom was inactive at most other times, when would it become inactive again?

[guerreiro9]

bu11fr0g you stole my thunder, I was going to make this topic my first thread as soon as I reached the magical 25 post mark . The Word of Wisdom is a topic that has occupied much of my thoughts over the last few years, and I have a few comments that I wanted to share.

Unfortunately I have to go to work so my very short answer is in my opinion yes and no, I'll try to comment on my reasoning as soon as I can.

[CASteinman]

Since Adam, God has always given some instructions about things to eat and things not to eat.

Adam could eat of every tree but one.

Noah was told that he could eat animals now.

Moses was told that some animals could not be eaten.

Peter was told that they could be eaten

Joseph Smith was given the word of Wisdom.

Not sure then what the future will hold.

[KevinG]

O'douls and Fre will be very popular.

[CV75]

"And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined."

I think the reference is symbolic of a rich spiritual feast and precious blessings, and not of a literal feast.

[Freedom]

"And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined."

This reads to me that alcoholic wine will be served. The word of wisdom was inactive at most other times, when would it become inactive again?

The author of what ever scripture you are reading generally references examples that are familiar to their audience. Today, we hear references to cars, cell phones and airplanes. To understand a passage, it is ideal to understand the significance of the examples to the original audience.

[BCSpace]

D&C 89:4 could imply a temporary condition, "last days", for the WoW. Also, it seems likely a resurrected body would be immune to any harmful effects of most if not all ingested items.

[CV75]

D&C 89:4 could imply a temporary condition, "last days", for the WoW. Also, it seems likely a resurrected body would be immune to any harmful effects of most if not all ingested items.

But it still has taste buds! Yeech!

[Mark Beesley]

D&C 89:4 could imply a temporary condition, "last days", for the WoW. Also, it seems likely a resurrected body would be immune to any harmful effects of most if not all ingested items.

I've always found the whole concept of resurrected beings eating and drinking to be problematic.

Why do we eat? To restore cells that have died. But, no death after resurrection, so no need to restore cells.

What do we eat? Plants and animals that we have killed. But, no death after resurrection so we can't kill anything to eat it.

I realize I have no idea what the economy of heaven is, what resurrected bodies look like or require (if anything) for sustenance. And I know Jesus ate after His resurrection. But, He also retained the scars of crucifixion. I suspecti that eating and drinking as we currently understand those activities may not be what we will experience in the hereafter.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[CV75]

I've always found the whole concept of resurrected beings eating and drinking to be problematic.

Why do we eat? To restore cells that have died. But, no death after resurrection, so no need to restore cells.

What do we eat? Plants and animals that we have killed. But, no death after resurrection so we can't kill anything to eat it.

I realize I have no idea what the economy of heaven is, what resurrected bodies look like or require (if anything) for sustenance. And I know Jesus ate after His resurrection. But, He also retained the scars of crucifixion. I suspecti that eating and drinking as we currently understand those activities may not be what we will experience in the hereafter.

Brainstorming: I can envision an immortal soul (the body/element and spirit inseparably connected) shedding and growing individual component cells throughout its system while the being exists as an indestructible and glorified whole. This helps me envision immortal beings eating food cultivated and transported from “mortal” worlds (as the resurrected Jesus did), or even foods designed from the eternal elements (which now that I think of it, is fundamentally the same thing!).

[SamIam]

I've always found the whole concept of resurrected beings eating and drinking to be problematic.

Why do we eat? To restore cells that have died. But, no death after resurrection, so no need to restore cells.

What do we eat? Plants and animals that we have killed. But, no death after resurrection so we can't kill anything to eat it.

I realize I have no idea what the economy of heaven is, what resurrected bodies look like or require (if anything) for sustenance. And I know Jesus ate after His resurrection. But, He also retained the scars of crucifixion. I suspecti that eating and drinking as we currently understand those activities may not be what we will experience in the hereafter.

You make a couple of interesting points - especially the potential that if you can't kill it you can't eat it. It reminds me of the verse you referenced of the resurrected Savior eating when he visits the Apostles from Luke 24:

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: ^ahandle me, and see; for a ^bspirit hath not ^cflesh and bones, as ye ^dsee me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and ^awondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

I guess part of the rush to get to creating worlds may be fueled by a hangering for a good porter house steak.

Edited July 17, 2012 by SamIam

[ERayR]

I've always found the whole concept of resurrected beings eating and drinking to be problematic.

Why do we eat? To restore cells that have died. But, no death after resurrection, so no need to restore cells.

What do we eat? Plants and animals that we have killed. But, no death after resurrection so we can't kill anything to eat it.

I realize I have no idea what the economy of heaven is, what resurrected bodies look like or require (if anything) for sustenance. And I know Jesus ate after His resurrection. But, He also retained the scars of crucifixion. I suspecti that eating and drinking as we currently understand those activities may not be what we will experience in the hereafter.

Speak for yourself hoss. I eat because I like the taste of food.

[altersteve]

The Word of Wisdom, as a whole, has never been completely "inactive." God has always commanded His people to take care of their bodies.

[cinepro]

bu11fr0g you stole my thunder, I was going to make this topic my first thread as soon as I reached the magical 25 post mark . The Word of Wisdom is a topic that has occupied much of my thoughts over the last few years, and I have a few comments that I wanted to share.

Unfortunately I have to go to work so my very short answer is in my opinion yes and no, I'll try to comment on my reasoning as soon as I can.

Be sure to read this article. It's a very interesting history of the cultural context in which the WoW was received:

http://www.mormonstudies.net/dialogue/bush_19thcentury_wow.pdf

[guerreiro9]

As promised I have returned (I’m sure the anticipation has been killing you )

bu11fr0g, I hope you don’t mind if I derail your thread slightly. If you feel I am too far off of the subject another thread can be created.

Cinepro,

Thank you for the link; it was indeed an interesting article.

A few years ago I tore my Achilles tendon while playing basketball, and was forced to wear a walking cast for several months. At about this same time I became very busy at work drafting an important proposal (for NASA incidentally). In order to increase our effectiveness, the proposal staff was sequestered in a single room and provided with a near endless supply of caffeinated beverages, donuts, chips, snacks, and very tasty but definitely unhealthy meals. Needless to say my will power was not equal to the task and I indulged myself more than I should have.

At the end of the proposal I was about 40 pounds over what I would consider an appropriate weight for myself, and to put it bluntly I felt like complete crap.

For the first time in my life I felt like I was getting old and I was no longer the “invincible” youth I had once been. At other times in my life when I had needed to get in shape, I had done it almost exclusively through hard exercise, but the walking cast made that a virtual impossibility. If I wanted to get in shape this time I was going to have to do it through diet alone, which would require that I become very conscious about what I put in my body.

As luck, chance, or providence would have it, I was assigned to teach a lesson on the Word of Wisdom in the Gospel Principals class the following Sunday. I began to search for all the literature I could find on the Word of Wisdom at the same time I was searching for all the literature I could find on nutrition. I came to a few conclusions about the Word of Wisdom that I had not previously encountered which I will summarize below.

· The dietary restrictions currently required of members of the Church of Jesus Christ for full fellowship in the church have been improperly attributed to D&C Section 89. The current dietary restriction which I refer to as “The Lower Law of Wisdom” should be more properly attributed to Prophets from the early 20

th

century particularly Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant.

· God does not consider the use of the currently restricted substances as inherently sinful, and their use in moderation would be in accordance with his eternal principles.

· God has at various times in the past given dietary commandments which are in accordance with, but more restrictive than the principles on which they are founded.

· God has given dietary and physical commandments (circumcision) whose benefit was not directly in the physical compliance with the commandment, but in the culture that the commandment created.

· The promises given in D&C 89 for obedience to the “Word of Wisdom” are only in effect if all of the principles are adhered to, otherwise you have no promise.

· A nonmember of the Church may receive the promises of D&C 89 while partaking of the restricted substances in moderation while a member in full fellowship may not receive the promises.

· Even if a member in full fellowship does not receive the full blessings of the principle given in D&C 89 they will receive blessings for being obedient to the current commandments of God.

· God’s principles are eternal, even though his commandments are not. Because as demonstrated by Jesus we will be able to eat in the next life, we will be expected to do so in accordance with God’s principles (Heaven is not entirely made of chocolate upon which we can gorge ourselves).

I think the most important principle I learned from this entire experience was that there exists a strong link between our physical health and our spiritual health. As I began to improve my diet in order to lose weight it brought me more in compliance with section 89. I began to eat more fruits and vegetables, and ate meat in more moderation. The effects on my physical health were very noticeable, but the effects on my spiritual health were staggering. I felt more spiritual and closer to god than I had in a long time. As I have tried to maintain this lifestyle over the last few years I have continued to see this correlation.

I apologize again bu11fr0g, for slightly derailing your thread, but I am very interested in hearing the comments on some of the conclusions I have come to.

[BCSpace]

D&C 89:4 could imply a temporary condition, "last days", for the WoW. Also, it seems likely a resurrected body would be immune to any harmful effects of most if not all ingested items.

I've always found the whole concept of resurrected beings eating and drinking to be problematic.

Why do we eat? To restore cells that have died. But, no death after resurrection, so no need to restore cells.

What do we eat? Plants and animals that we have killed. But, no death after resurrection so we can't kill anything to eat it.

I realize I have no idea what the economy of heaven is, what resurrected bodies look like or require (if anything) for sustenance. And I know Jesus ate after His resurrection. But, He also retained the scars of crucifixion. I suspecti that eating and drinking as we currently understand those activities may not be what we will experience in the hereafter.

Well, as you know, the resurrected Christ ate. The premortal Christ also appeared to the brother of Jared and looked like a man. Since I think it highly unlikely that spirits would appear looking different than what they are, I believe there is a direct correspondence, cell by cell at least, between the spirit body and the physical body. Also, there is no mention of loss of any bodily function in the resurrection, just a restoration and a perfection. Therefore, I believe all that our bodies can do now can be done after the resurrection and that would imply a necessity of their use.

Recall the dead looking upon the long absence of their bodies as a bondage (D&C 138:50). Seems to me like everything our bodies do and feel brings us pleasure and perhaps the ability to fully experience the universe.

Edited July 18, 2012 by BCSpace

[Cobalt-70]

D&C 27 said that there were people trying to poison Mormons through their sacramental wine; therefore they were to be careful. However, "the hour cometh that I [that is, Jesus] will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni...," as well as a long list of the prophets, "[a]nd also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world." So when Jesus arrives, we're going to have a big wine-drinking party.

[Freedom]

Something else to consider is that the WoW is given for the weakest. If there are no week, there would be no need for the restrictions because we would govern ourselves and addiction would not become a problem if we enjoyed a glass of wine from time to time.

[Cobalt-70]

Something else to consider is that the WoW is given for the weakest. If there are no week, there would be no need for the restrictions because we would govern ourselves and addiction would not become a problem if we enjoyed a glass of wine from time to time.

I disagree. D&C 89 was "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints" because it was explicitly not a commandment or a set of "restrictions." Those who were strong enough to follow the guideline could do so, and get the blessings, but those who were not strong enough would not be condemned thereby. At least, that is what D&C 89 says. Of course, that has all changed, now that a health code similar to (but not quite the same as) D&C 89 has become uniform and mandatory for baptism and for good standing in the church. There is no longer any accommodation for "the weak."

Edited July 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Freedom]

I disagree. D&C 89 was "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints" because it was explicitly not a commandment or a set of "restrictions." Those who were strong enough to follow the guideline could do so, and get the blessings, but those who were not strong enough would not be condemned thereby. At least, that is what D&C 89 says. Of course, that has all changed, now that a health code similar to (but not quite the same as) D&C 89 has become uniform and mandatory for baptism and for good standing in the church. There is no longer any accommodation for "the weak."

I disagree with that reading. To me, the standards were set for the weakest. It does not say it was set this way because it was not a commandment. The word of Wisdom is a 19th century commandment and there is no reason to assume that it is an eternal commandment.

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

3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

So the principles with promise, not the nature of the enforcement, is adapted to the capacity of the weak; furthermore, it was put in place in response to conspiring men. If you take away the weak, and the conspiring men, I can see a time when this commandment may be changed or done away with.

On the other hand, it could become even more strict - baring someone from membership in the church for eating too much meat or telling vulgar jokes. Who knows.

[Cobalt-70]

I disagree with that reading. To me, the standards were set for the weakest. It does not say it was set this way because it was not a commandment. The word of Wisdom is a 19th century commandment and there is no reason to assume that it is an eternal commandment.

Look at the text itself: "A Word of Wisdom,...--to be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint...." (D&C 89:1).

[SamIam]

Since I think it highly unlikely that spirits would appear looking different than what they are, I believe there is a direct correspondence, cell by cell at least, between the spirit body and the physical body.

While this quote is not exactly confirming of your observation it is in the ball park of potential compatibility.

"My position is, which I declare to the Latter-day Saints, it is beyond the power of man, without revelation from God, with all his science to know whether these particles that compose our bodies go into other creatures to form a component part of their bodies, or whether they merely pass into the already organized body to resuscitate it and contribute to its sustenance. I declare to the Latter-day Saints, and to all living upon the earth who have intelligence to understand that the particles that comprise the component parts of our bodies will never enter into other bodies to form the elements of their bodies, but these very identical particles that now compose our bodies will be resurrected and come together by the power of the trump of God and will re-unite and form the body—excepting the blood, which will not be necessary to our existence in an immortal state, and then be prepared to receive the spirit, preparatory to their exaltation."

Would not the particles that compose the body of our Savior, according to their intelligence, oppose the idea of becoming a part of any other body but His? Again: Would not the Saints, who are faithful in magnifying the Priesthood of the Son of God, object to the particles which now compose their bodies, and which they have sanctified through obedience to that Priesthood, entering into and forming parts of other bodies than their own-bodies which their spirits had not possessed and of which they knew nothing in this life?

Although some may think that the substances of which our bodies are composed are borrowed for our use during this mortal existence, it is not so, neither will they be thrown off at death, never to be restored; and though in the resurrection the bodies of the righteous will be raised immortal and free from all corruption, they will be none the less tangible or perceptible to the touch of those who are permitted to handle them. (The Resurrection-A Discourse by Brigham Young, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, at the General Conference, October 8th 1875)

[Freedom]

Look at the text itself: "A Word of Wisdom,...--to be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint...." (D&C 89:1).

I see that, but this is not related to the matter of it being for the weak. The fact that the principle and promise was adapted to the weakest has no bearing on the fact that it is not given by commandment. As I stated, how it was enforced is a separate matter from the nature of the principles. The principles, which are now a commandment, are adapted to the weak. They are still adapted for the weak. They are designed to protect the weak from falling into addiction. Otherwise, why would President Kimball state the following:

As the Lord said of the Word of Wisdom, these regulations, too, are “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints” (D&C 89:3). We believe everyone can live them without anxiety or hardship.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/04/on-my-honor?

So again, the matter of it being adapted to the capacity of the weak applied today, despite it being a commandment.

And Hinckley states:

Let us now return to our homes with determination to live the gospel more fully. There is nothing the Lord expects of us that we cannot do. His requirements are essentially so easy. For instance, He said concerning the Word of Wisdom that it is “a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” (D&C 89:3.)

We can observe that Word of Wisdom. We receive numerous letters inquiring whether this item or that item is proscribed by the Word of Wisdom. If we will avoid those things which are definitely and specifically defined, and beyond this observe the spirit of that great revelation, it will not involve a burden. It will, rather, bring a blessing. Do not forget: it is the Lord who has made the promise.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/11/let-us-move-this-work-forward

[Cobalt-70]

I see that, but this is not related to the matter of it being for the weak. The fact that the principle and promise was adapted to the weakest has no bearing on the fact that it is not given by commandment. As I stated, how it was enforced is a separate matter from the nature of the principles. The principles, which are now a commandment, are adapted to the weak. They are still adapted for the weak. They are designed to protect the weak from falling into addiction. Otherwise, why would President Kimball state the following:

The difference in what we are saying is that I am saying the principle was to be adapted to the capacity of the weakest of saints. You are saying that the principle already was adapted to protect the weakest saints by restricting their ability to govern themselves in moderation. Given that the whole preamble of D&C 89 is for the purpose of making it clear that this is a principle and a word of wisdom, not a commandment or set of restrictions, I think your proposed reading is quite a stretch.

[Freedom]

D&C 89 has become uniform and mandatory for baptism and for good standing in the church. There is no longer any accommodation for "the weak."

This is where you are stretching. It was, from the beginning, designed for the weak, not to exempt the weak. The strong do not need this because they would not fall victim to the risks. If it is no longer designed to accommodate the weak, then you have to explain the quotes I provided. One of the values of the Word of Wisdom is that it protects even the very weak from becoming addicted to harmful drugs. I am confused why you would call this a stretch.