Word Of Wisdom - A Spiritual Commandment

[pmccombs1]

I rather liked this statement in so many ways -- but it is rather a strange and somewhat negative one -- by the use of the word "only"

Making bad men behave well -- and good men behave better -- is what it is all about. It is not an "only" or "merely" thing. It is the Work of God. I am thankful for it.

Oh, I think behavior is a superficial thing. I hope the work of God is to change men's souls, then the behavior will follow.

Edited August 22, 2012 by pmccombs1

[pmccombs1]

OK just as long as boiled to mushy with a lumpy coating of Velveeta is considered a sin.

Got it!

[CASteinman]

I disagree.

Well of course you do. You reject their authority! I am aware of that.

Doesn't change the fact that they are the Authorities for the Church.

A process was established by modern day revelation to ensure, by common consent, that the authorities spoke for God and that people would hear His voice and accept it. The Lord does not give what we will not accept, and has not asked us to follow blindly.

That is right. But it has been accepted by common consent.

Now, I admit this is a bit weird to consider at first -- how did people long dead, consent for me?

Well, they did not really do that as far as I can tell. But I consented when I was taught and agreed to live the commandment and was baptized.

You don't have to follow blindly, with vision or in any way. But if you do follow blindly, or with vision or in any way, you will be blessed.

[CASteinman]

My way? Ha! I would return the commandment to its former "recommendation" status. When the Lord makes me prophet, that's what I'll do. And it will be indisputable!

Well.. don't forget, the 12 have to agree as well, but that should be easy with those powers of persuasion!

[CASteinman]

It's fantastic when steamed right, with a bit of salt and a sprinkle of parmesan cheese!

The truth is, I think we really ought to focus more on the "dos" of the WoW and not just on the "don'ts".

This post is dead on... and now I want to go out and get some broccoli and cheese for dinner ....

[CASteinman]

OK just as long as boiled to mushy with a lumpy coating of Velveeta is considered a sin.

Its been a while, but I am pretty sure I read in the Book of Mormon that those people in the building in Lehi's vision were eating mushy broccoli with Velveeta. And who can say which came first -- eating that stuff or their propensity to sin? One begets the other...

[KevinG]

Its been a while, but I am pretty sure I read in the Book of Mormon that those people in the building in Lehi's vision were eating mushy broccoli with Velveeta. And who can say which came first -- eating that stuff or their propensity to sin? One begets the other...

I really hope MrsG doesn't read this thread. She is an excellent cook other than her treatment of broccoli.

[Glenn101]

I think that the references that have been produced should be sufficient for anyone. But obedience to any of the commandments is optional. However, the consequences are not.

Glenn

[volgadon]

Velveeta is a sin. Brocoli though is merely a byproduct of the gall of bitterness.

[CASteinman]

Oh, I think behavior is a superficial thing. I hope the work of God is to change men's souls, then the behavior will follow.

This is a Faith vs Works argument. Which I consider to be a bad argument as Faith produces Works and Works produce Faith.

In the end though, we are judged by our works. Lots of people like to say that we will be judged by the intent of our hearts, but Jesus never actually said so.

Sometimes I think I would prefer that the intent of my heart was the criteria and other times.. I'm pretty sure that would not help me much.

[halconero]

Question, has anyone ever read the promises at the end of D&C 89 in relation to our ability to enter the temple?

I personally believe that God gave this in preparation to make a temple attending people. One of the requirements for the priests of the temple in the Old Testament and Jesus' time was to subscribe to a law quite similar to the Word of Wisdom.

[volgadon]

While behaviour might be a superficial thing, it is one of the main ways in which we interact with the world around us. We can't divorce ourselves from our behaviour, placing a premium on inwardness. No man, after all, is an island, complete in and of itself.

It is in deeds that man becomes aware of what his life really is, of his power to harm and to hurt, to wreck and to ruin; of his ability to derive joy and to bestow it upon others; to relieve and to increase his own and other people's tensions. It is in the employment of his will, not in reflection, that he meets his own self as it is; not as he should like it to be. In his deeds man exposes his immanent as well as his suppressed desires, spelling even that which he cannot apprehend. What he may not dare to think, he often utters in deeds. The heart is revealed in the deeds.

The deed is the test, the trial, and the risk. What we perform may seem slight, but the aftermath is immense. An individual's misdeed can be the beginning of a nation's disaster. The sun goes down, but the deeds go on.

-Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism, p. 82.

[CASteinman]

Question, has anyone ever read the promises at the end of D&C 89 in relation to our ability to enter the temple?

I personally believe that God gave this in preparation to make a temple attending people. One of the requirements for the priests of the temple in the Old Testament and Jesus' time was to subscribe to a law quite similar to the Word of Wisdom.

I have noticed that as well.

[Storm Rider]

We obey the WofW because the prophet tells us to. Is it a commandment like, "Thou shalt not kill"? Hmm, God wrote that and we don't have that anywhere in the LDS Church. One of the chief teachings of the Church is that God talks today to prophets; when there is a revelation it is brought before the Church and confirmed as such and added to our OPEN canon. It confuses me when this bedrock teachings of the Church is so quickly and easily cast aside for a new teaching. Our prophets create policies and once the policy is created it is law. I personally dislike when leaders create policies, but once the prophet speaks the thinking is done and we obey. However, I think it is gross error in teaching to then re-frame these policies as a commandment or a revelation.

I propose that the Blacks and the priesthood as the prima facie example for how problems are created by policies that would never exist if we had revelation to guide these significant church directions.

These kind of topics quickly anger some members of the Church. They think it belittles prophets or denies the Church's truthfulness. I disagree; I believe that discussions such as these can strengthen the saints because it addresses topics truthfully and it assists in gaining an exact understanding of things. Truth is not something to play with and I refuse to re-frame history to comfort the weak. Even though some leaders have called it a commandment, it is not, it is a policy. There are several articles that address how the WofW came to be as we know it today. It is clear that it was not by revelation, but by some leaders hearkening back to earlier statements that conflict with the actual Revelation found in the 89th Section, by agreement with Protestant ministers position on alcohol, and national politics. Regardless of how it developed, the Church teaches us that obedience to the WofW is a requirement of all worthy members.

[CASteinman]

Even though some leaders have called it a commandment, it is not,

And in announcing that you contradict the plain words of the Prophets and Apostles even while proclaiming that they can do this. Scripture says "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways".

I personally dislike when leaders create policies

I think that's the way it is for many people. They reject the words of the prophets and apostles because they "personally dislike" them.

I refuse to re-frame history to comfort the weak.

Seems uncharitable. But everyone is different.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[Storm Rider]

And in announcing that you contradict the plain words of the Prophets and Apostles even while proclaiming that they can do this. Scripture says "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways

This type of discussion just borders on the absurd and stupid, but let's play. Were they speaking as prophets or as men? If they were speaking as prophets, i.e. those who receive revelation, then they would acknowledge it. In this situation, not a single one did so. They all went back to a what Brigham may have said and then made an assumption. What is a fact is that the Word of Wisdom is found in the 89th Section of the D&C. This is our canon, this has been accepted as scripture. Do you agree? Good, it is a word of wisdom, NOT BY COMMANDMENT. You might want to read scripture, take off that sanctimonious, self-righteous cape you wear, before writing. Above all, use truth and history as they are rather than create some gibberish to placate the minds of the ignorant.

I think that's the way it is for many people. They reject the words of the prophets and apostles because they "personally dislike" them.

Reject the words of the prophets; which prophecy are we talking about here? You name it, we will discuss it. However, there is no prophecy being discussed, but a policy developed without any revelation. The prophets declare it so; do you now disagree with those prophets or not? Speak up and state the case; are the heavens closed or open. Do we receive revelation or not? The prophets have told us this is not revelation. Do you want to recreate it so that it is easier for you to believe or to be obedient? Which is it?

Seems uncharitable. But everyone is different.

Uncharitable? How uncharitable? Please define charity and how it applies to my statement? I reject any attempt to lie, mis-characterize, or anything but state the truth. Do you disagree with stating the truth? Why? Do you like bedtime stories and telling your children about Santa Claus; are they truth? I have committed to living my life in truth; why should I lie about the development of the Word of Wisdom to placate stupid people that deny history, the words of the prophet just so they can feel better about being obedient? Do you always have trouble with obedience and thus need to believe in something that is blatantly not true to assuage your conscience? As for me and my house, we just serve the Lord. If the prophet says do this, we do this. HOWEVER, we don't lie about it and say it is a revelation when it is not. It is a policy, nothing more and nothing less.

[Kenngo1969]

... The prospect of living righteously is a possibility for some of us, right up until it becomes a commandment. Taboos and neuroses seem to go hand in hand; prohibiting a thing appears to be a sure way to make it especially problematic until the culture assimilates it. And then you have people who only obey "because they promissed," or out of tradition, and not because they understand the doctrine and desire to be godly. ...

\

If the italicized and bolded portion of the excerpt from your post is directed at me, pmccombs1, you're seriously seriously misreading me if you think that is what I'm advocating. It most assuredly is not. However, that having been said, do you think that Adam was not blessed, simply because he obeyed the law of sacrifice without understanding why he should obey it at first? If so, then you need to reread Moses 5.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[canard78]

Check the quotes above. They are all referenced. They distinctly say that it is a commandment.

Thanks for the quotes, it's useful to see where it became mandated.

The point made by others above is that by the church's own definition, those statements don't constitute doctrine:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[Saints Alive]

The more I have learned about the history of the WoW I have come to believe that it was never meant to be a commandment. It is a cultural standard that slowly, through personal beliefs became commandment, sort of like those who say caffeine is "against the WoW for them." I never had the taste for tea, coffee (other than in tiramisu), or hard alcohol anyway so its never been an issue for me one way or the other. I would like to see wine used in sacrament as it was before the church alined itself with prohibition but I doubt that will ever happen due to practical reasons.

[Kenngo1969]

... I would like to see wine used in sacrament as it was before the church alined [sic] itself with prohibition but I doubt that will ever happen due to practical reasons. [Emphasis added].

Prohibition was enacted in (I believe, going from memory here) 1918. It was repealed (again, going from memory) in 1933. Both predate receipt of the Word of Wisdom, and of the command to avoid using wine for the sacrament, by a considerable time. (Regarding the latter, See Doctrine & Covenants 27:1-4. Why do you, apparently, doubt the "official story" as to why the use of wine for the sacrament was discontinued?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Saints Alive]

Prohibition was enacted in (I believe, going from memory here) 1918. It was repealed (again, going from memory) in 1933. Both predate receipt of the Word of Wisdom, and of the command to avoid using wine for the sacrament, by a considerable time. (Regarding the latter, See Doctrine & Covenants 27:1-4. Why do you, apparently, doubt the "official story" as to why the use of wine for the sacrament was discontinued?

Wine was used for sacrament meetings up until prohibition. D&C 27 only forbids purchasing wine from enemies of the church, it does not forbid its use. In fact Utah had many thriving wineries until prohibition.

Here: http://palatepress.com/2010/02/wine/utah-land-of-wine-and-honey/

Is the link if you are interested in the history of vineyards / wineries in Utah. BY even created a special wine making mission in southern Utah.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Kenngo1969]

Wine was used for sacrament meetings up until prohibition. D&C 27 only forbids purchasing wine from enemies of the church, it does not forbid its use. In fact Utah had many thriving wineries until prohibition.

Here: http://palatepress.c...wine-and-honey/

Is the link if you are interested in the history of vineyards / wineries in Utah. BY even created a special wine making mission in southern Utah.

Even given all of that, there are very practical reasons (which perhaps you have implicitly acknowledged) why wine is not used for the Sacrament today. I'm sure you can imagine what they are (we'd have to make Nursery three hours instead of just two, and I don't know about your Ward, but in mine, the folks who work in the Nursery do a yeoman job already). I suppose we could have a separate Sacrament meeting for adults only, but there would still be a challenge for many young families to get reliable child care during this time ...

[Saints Alive]

Would there be challenges, yes. Are they insurmountable, no. But as I said, I doubt it will ever change.

[halconero]

The more I have learned about the history of the WoW I have come to believe that it was never meant to be a commandment. It is a cultural standard that slowly, through personal beliefs became commandment, sort of like those who say caffeine is "against the WoW for them." I never had the taste for tea, coffee (other than in tiramisu), or hard alcohol anyway so its never been an issue for me one way or the other. I would like to see wine used in sacrament as it was before the church alined itself with prohibition but I doubt that will ever happen due to practical reasons.

You know...the more I study the revelation itself, and learn the history of it, the opposite becomes true for me. I am becoming more and more convinced that the Word of Wisdom is a law designed to help shape a temple attending people.

[Kenngo1969]

You know...the more I study the revelation itself, and learn the history of it, the opposite becomes true for me. I am becoming more and more convinced that the Word of Wisdom is a law designed to help shape a temple attending people.

I'm reminded, too, of one of the covenants we make when we're endowed. True, someone could point to the "not by commandment or constraint" language in Section 89 and say that the Word of Wisdom, thus, is not integral to that, but then it says in Section 1 that we are to give heed to the words of Joseph (and, by implication and extension) his successors as though they came from the Lord's own mouth ...

Edited December 26, 2012 by Kenngo1969