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

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Because you are approaching this from a very presentist perspective. D&C 89 was given during a time when pretty much everybody was already drinking, smoking, or chewing tobacco. It says "adapted to the capacity," but of what? Clearly, it is the capacity of saints to follow the principle itself--not their capacity for addiction or resistance to addiction, which D&C 89 doesn't even address or recognize. There is no internal evidence in D&C 89, or contemporary evidence, that the revelation has anything to do whatsoever with addiction. It was about conspiracies by evil men (who presumably would poison Mormon wine and liquor), and probably about the evils of the stimulatory effects of liquor, tobacco, meat, and high-temperature drinks.

[Freedom]

Because you are approaching this from a very presentist perspective. D&C 89 was given during a time when pretty much everybody was already drinking, smoking, or chewing tobacco. It says "adapted to the capacity," but of what? Clearly, it is the capacity of saints to follow the principle itself--not their capacity for addiction or resistance to addiction, which D&C 89 doesn't even address or recognize. There is no internal evidence in D&C 89, or contemporary evidence, that the revelation has anything to do whatsoever with addiction. It was about conspiracies by evil men (who presumably would poison Mormon wine and liquor), and probably about the evils of the stimulatory effects of liquor, tobacco, meat, and high-temperature drinks.

you are changing the subject. I never said that the intent was to address addiction, I said this is one of its values. The revelation certainly does not mention addiction, but clearly addiction was and is a problem. You are splitting hairs here. Your argument was that not making it a commandment was what made it adaptable to the weak, but of course, it was the principles rather than the nature of enforcement (I am repeating myself here) that was adapted to the weak. My quotes confirm that, despite being a commandment, it is still adapted to the weak. You are also reiterating my original argument. If you take away the conspiring men, then the word of wisdom looses its original purpose. It was put in place because of these people, so if these people no longer exist, and if the weak no longer exist, this commandment could very well change form. You are also contradicting your self. On the on hand you are saying it has nothing to do with addiction, and on the other hand you say it is probably about the evils of the stimulatory effects. One of the most troubling stimulatory effects of drugs is addiction.

[tyler90az]

Could conspiring men be alcohol companies, food companies and tobacco companies? It says right in the revelation, "I have warned you and forewarned you." These companies seek to do nothing but drive up profit even by addiction. It seems clear that a major component of this health code, the Word of Wisdom, is to combat addiction. Which addiction has only increased since the revelation.

The part where it says adapted to the capacity of the weakest of the weak could mean a lot of things. What i lean toward, is that this revelation unlike past health codes has restrictions on addictive substances. That was the part that was adapted to fit the weakest of the saints.

It is interesting that it was sent as a greeting and not a commandment. That seems to be because the Lord did not want anybody to fall away. That just shows his boundless love and his desire to have us all be exalted. Then when the time was right, through a Prophet, he made it a commandment.

[Freedom]

I think that the more righteous the people, the fewer the commandments. We have rules because we tend to be irresponsible. As new problem arise, new rules have to be put in place because of our own stupidity.

[The Nehor]

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

The same reason I swim and read and hug and watch YouTube videos. For the sheer pleasure of it. I assume that is why I had two ice cream sandwiches last night. Maybe we do not eat but if we don't it is because eating will be transcended not done away with. In the same way if there is no physical exertion, dancing, or sex in heaven it is because there is something more perfect to replace them all and give us a more full feeling of satisfaction then those acts did.

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.

The Book of Revelation and Lehi's dream and several other scriptures suggest that there is fruit in heaven that is spontaneously generated somehow. If it hasn't already been invented one of the first things I am doing when I get to heaven is inventing a tree that grows delicious steaks.

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.

I suspect they won't be mandatory. I would suggest that it was very unwise of Jesus to eat and drink after his resurrection if that is something to be done away. He would be giving us the wrong idea.

[The Nehor]

I think that the more righteous the people, the fewer the commandments. We have rules because we tend to be irresponsible. As new problem arise, new rules have to be put in place because of our own stupidity.

I would disagree. I think the more righteous the people the more the commandments though less of a need to put them in canon or have a prophet declare them as everyone will be instructed individually. I find the more righteous I am the more the Lord tells me when to do and not do things.

[Storm Rider]

The more righteous the individual the more they seek and reflect the being of Christ in all they think and do. The teachings of Christ were clear and are summed up in the two great commandments of loving God and loving others. All else was put aside because in focusing on them, as seen in thinking and actions of the Pharisees, one begins to think they are righteous and deny the Spirit.

It is my personal belief that every time we create a new law, a new commandment we take one step away from Christ and his gospel. Joseph said it well when he stated, "I give them correct principles and they govern themselves." Teaching a principle and declaring a commandment have nothing in common; the one reflects Christ's teachings and the other is a step back to the Law of Moses.

The Word of Wisdom was given as counsel, not commandment. In fact, it remains as such today; however, without any declared revelation it has evolved into a commandment through an acknowledged policy.

The Word of Wisdom has nothing to do with righteousness; it is simple something that we observe today. One day it will be done away with. When Christ returns he will partake of the fruit of the vine with his saints; that is wine. We have a long way to go before the saints will feel comfortable doing that. I wonder just how many of us will be prepared to partake of that Sacrament with Christ without feeling the need to tell him he cannot drink wine or that we do not drink wine?

Policy without revelation is reflective of man's desire for uniformity and a new standard. I personally think it is error and counter to the gospel of Christ, but it remains a policy of the Church for yet a little while.

[The Nehor]

The more righteous the individual the more they seek and reflect the being of Christ in all they think and do. The teachings of Christ were clear and are summed up in the two great commandments of loving God and loving others. All else was put aside because in focusing on them, as seen in thinking and actions of the Pharisees, one begins to think they are righteous and deny the Spirit.

I think Jesus disagrees with you. In any case he taught a lot more then just that. He then told his followers to search the scriptures.....odd command if they were a distraction.

It is my personal belief that every time we create a new law, a new commandment we take one step away from Christ and his gospel.

Who is we?

Joseph said it well when he stated, "I give them correct principles and they govern themselves." Teaching a principle and declaring a commandment have nothing in common; the one reflects Christ's teachings and the other is a step back to the Law of Moses.

An odd assessment as the two great commandments you want to venerate are quotations from the Law of Moses. In the D&C God spends a lot of time giving commandments.

The Word of Wisdom has nothing to do with righteousness; it is simple something that we observe today. One day it will be done away with. When Christ returns he will partake of the fruit of the vine with his saints; that is wine. We have a long way to go before the saints will feel comfortable doing that. I wonder just how many of us will be prepared to partake of that Sacrament with Christ without feeling the need to tell him he cannot drink wine or that we do not drink wine?

I agree that the Word of Wisdom is transitory but to say that obedience has nothing to do with righteousness is silly. Jesus obeyed the transitory Law of Moses.

Policy without revelation is reflective of man's desire for uniformity and a new standard. I personally think it is error and counter to the gospel of Christ, but it remains a policy of the Church for yet a little while.

If you are arguing that the policies of the church are not governed by revelation then aren't you arguing that the leadership of the Church is apostate?