The Rest Of The Word Of Wisdom: Part 1

[Calm]

But is it beef or pork?

[bdouglas]

When I was a BYU student I used to eat at the Missionary Training Center occasionally (my Dad worked there) and I noted that meat was served for breakfast (ham, sausage, or both); lunch (chicken, cold cuts); and also dinner--especially dinner when you could choose between beef, chicken or ham, or have all three if you felt so inclined.

The "eat meat sparingly bit" in the WOW has never been popular in Mormondom. However...when my dad was a mission prez and I was a teenager living in the mission home I noted with interest what the GAs would or would not eat when they visited. Two of the better known GAs to visit during my dad's tenure would not eat meat, and I concluded that they were probably more or less vegetarian. I think it is well known that Joseph Fielding Smith was a vegetarian.

[Tacenda]

I find this topic fascinating. The word of wisdom clearly and categorically advises us to eat meat sparingly. Why do we ignore it? As a branch president a few years ago I would ask every person if they kept the word of wisdom. I in turn have been asked the same as the interviewee. We're also asked in the same interview whether we're honest.

We can justify it every which way we like (I heard someone say 'well they didn't have fridges back then'). The reality is, very few of us live the word of wisdom as delivered by the prophet of the restoration. There are some 'don'ts' that we stick to like glue. But there are some don'ts and lots of 'dos' that we completely ignore.

Why are we comfortable with that? Is it because we think the second part was only applicable to the 19th C mormons but not us? Is it because we're already asked to make too many sacrifices already and can't give up the idea of a good belly busting summer BBQ (that breaks the WoW on both the season and the quantity). If the second half no longer applies, does that mean the 'run and not be weary' blessing is also discounted?

It's a very strange anomaly.

Especially when eating alot of red meat is linked to heart disease.

[Brother Ray]

Interesting take.

If you don't mind, I wanted to hold off on discussing "mild drinks" until Part 2.

Well, that's what I thought I had never heard. Is there a created divide between one part of Sec 89 and the rest, with the Traditional Foursome a matter for temple worthiness, and the rest not?

I am actually of the opinion that this is speaking of unfermented grape juice.

That's what i was taught, years ago when I first joined the church.

[Calm]

I would be surprised if it was unfermented grape juice given the dictionary definitions of "wine" in the 1828 and 1806 dictionaries.

[MiserereNobis]

I would be surprised if it was unfermented grape juice given the dictionary definitions of "wine" in the 1828 and 1806 dictionaries.

Do the LDS reconcile the Word of Wisdom prohibition against alcohol with Jesus' use of wine by saying that different dietary rules apply to different times? I guess if I were LDS I'd probably say something like that.

Us Catholics are proud of our cultural relationship to alcohol... we don't mind being winebibbers like Our Lord

Edited September 15, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[Calm]

Yep. Just as we don't abide by the dietary restrictions of the OT because God hasn't given them to us for our time.

That is why nonLDS who haven't covenanted to keep the WoW are not committing sin as well.

While I understand the use of water in the Sacrament, I miss some of the great symbolism that is often missed when one does not think of wine in connection with it.

Of course with the doctrine of transubstantiation, I think the significance of its use becomes even greater.

It is a temporary commandment, not seen as having to be held in place after Christ comes again...when he shall partake of the vine himself.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth...

Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

Of course with the doctrine of transubstantiation, I think the significance of its use becomes even greater.

Indeed. And the wine used in Mass has to have at least 12% alcohol.

[Calm]

Why the percentage requirement? Indicates a certain time period for aging?

[mrmendoza]

^{A few years ago, when I was teaching our wards Gospel doctrine class, and the subject was the WOW, I commented on the fact that many of us obviously wern't keeping the whole law as perfectily as we should. I said this while patting my very wide belly, thinking that the joke, or perhapse the condemnation, would be on me. After the class at least 4 very upset women came up to me and told me that their weight problems were NOT do to their overeating, but they had some kind of hormonal problem! I don't know about the joke, but the condemnation was definatly on me for suggesting, or so they thought, that our sisters were not as slim as they thought, I thought they should be!}

^{Overall I believe we should take ALL of the WOW a lot more seriously, while I also think that we should take ourselves a little less so.}

^Mike

[Stargazer]

This seems to be a stretch. If God meant grape juice, I'm sure he would have said grape juice. There is no wine without alcohol.

An analogy would be if I offered you a sandwich and called it a "pure hamburger" but actually gave you only a bun, cheese, lettuce, and tomato but no meat. By definition, a requirement for a hamburger sandwhich is the meat, just like by definition a requirement for wine is alcohol.

As an aside, I prefer "pure" wine to regular wine -- it's better on the head the next morning if the sulfites are left out

You make a good point.

So, what is "pure" wine, as opposed to regular? Sorry, not a wine drinker.

[Stargazer]

A few years ago, when I was teaching our wards Gospel doctrine class, and the subject was the WOW, I commented on the fact that many of us obviously wern't keeping the whole law as perfectily as we should. I said this while patting my very wide belly, thinking that the joke, or perhapse the condemnation, would be on me. After the class at least 4 very upset women came up to me and told me that their weight problems were NOT do to their overeating, but they had some kind of hormonal problem! I don't know about the joke, but the condemnation was definatly on me for suggesting, or so they thought, that our sisters were not as slim as they thought, I thought they should be!

Overall I believe we should take ALL of the WOW a lot more seriously, while I also think that we should take ourselves a little less so.

Mike

I did a quick romp through Section 89 and I didn't find one word about over-eating or being overweight.

If you are perhaps trying to extend the WoW, perhaps you might be talking about what some like to call the "spirit" of the WoW. In other words, private interpretations of the scriptures, and we all know how valid private interpretations are. I am not trying to swat at you personally on this, however -- but there have been members of the Church in the past who have taken their own private interpretations and extended them to others, such as a stake president I had at one time who would not sign a temple recommend for someone who admitted to using caffeinated beverages like Coca-Cola or Pepsi. There have also been those who insisted that such things as white sugar, white flour, and chocolate were against the WoW, and judged others accordingly. This kind of shenanigan is unconscionable in my humble opinion.

[canard78]

We don't live the Law of Consecration either in its fullest. We are called to live some of the LoC just as we are called to live some of the WoW. As we become stronger in the faith, we will likely commit in personal ways to living closer to the Laws that as a Church we are not yet called to fully live due to our personal weaknesses generally speaking. The Lord is kind and does not demand we run before we can walk, either as individuals or as a Church.

Hi could you show me where the brethren have asked us to live only a part of the WoW? It's genuine request as I'd find it a relief if there were. The LoC is different. It was withdrawn and replaced by tithing. I'm not aware of a similar official stance on the WoW. To answer the 'sparingly' question, dictionary definition (in the absense of a brethren definition) talks about 'with restraint,' 'aware of the limited resource' 'in moderation.' Why would 'the big 4' be considered possible, but meat in moderation be part of a higher law? Excuse the pun, but does excessive meat signify cafeteria mormonism?

[Calm]

I am not suggesting we should not live to the fullest of our ability the WoW, just that we are currently held accountable to the Church (as opposed to the Spirit) for only the "big 4" through temple requirements and such. Church leadership leaves the rest of the WoW completely to personal choice and evaluation.

i would say excessive meat generally signifies not being as strong in following the WoW as we should, though there are times when medically speaking it may be appropriate. Having studied the Atkins diet, I don't see that as appropriate in most cases as it can be very dangerous and doesn't have long lasting effects for most people so is not of value; however if done under a doctor's care in certain cases it may be helpful. I myself cannot go vegetarian (and definitely not vegan) for some reason, it makes me very weak no matter how well balanced the meals are. I find I need either fish or beef to sustain myself. OTOH, I probably would be healthier to dispense all together with anything having to do with pork and maybe chicken (I am iffy on eggs, I think I am finding that the ones free of hormones and such are tolerable for me, same with milk where less processing makes it much more digestible).

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[canard78]

If you can't see how giving up 10% is a partial fulfillment of a Law that requires us to give 100%, I am not sure I can help you.

Calmoriah, apologies, I'm not trying to stak you. It's just an interesting topic which we don't really get to discuss in sunday school. Isn't this like saying capitalist theory is a partial fulfillment of communist theory? Communist theory says all men are equal so all give everything in and get according to their needs. Capitalist theory celebrates individual success and rewards according to skills/talents/luck, with an expectation to pay proportion of income to society as tax. Capitlism embraces inequality, Communism tries to reject it. Given they are at polar opposites of politcal theory, neither is a partial fulfillment of the other. With tithing we embrace inequality and ask only for proportional donation. Most of that tithing goes into running the church, not helping those worse off.Apologies to the OP, but it's a bit off topic. It's just that if we're going to say that 'the 4 don'ts' are like tithing and meat/fruit in season is like the LoC then I'd be interested to know if this official doctrine or speculation?(To avoid too much of a sideline I'm very happy to concede that communism doesn't work in reality. I'm an expat in china, so see it abundantly clearly. We've several branches here, but I'll save that for another day).

[canard78]

Oops, stalk not stak

[JarMan]

The whole reason the part about meat being used sparingly is in the WOW, in my opinion, is to prove a point. The WOW could have said that alcohol was to be used sparingly. I think there's ample evidence that alcohol in reasonable amounts is not harmful, and can even be beneficial to health and longevity. But it's clear how poorly we follow the directive on meat, and I think that if we had a similar directive on alcohol, that we would have similar results. Without a total prohibition on alcohol, in other words, we would essentially have none. (It's probably good that I'm LDS since alcoholism runs in my family.)

[canard78]

That's an interesting take on things. It would be quite a way of making a point. So God made a commandment that he didn't intend us to keep, and so as a result we don't have to worry about it.

Shouldn't we even 'try' to live it, to be able to show Him right that we can't do something in moderation? Isn't it a pretty poor reflection on us as saints that we need such strong lines and will ignore any that are slightly vague. Are there any other decoy commandments like that?

In case you're wondering, I'm very happy living the WoW. The thought of consuming alchohol/tobacco/coffee turns my stomach. It seems one of the best laws we have.

[CV75]

When you as a Latter-day Saint are asked in a worthiness interview if you "keep the Word of Wisdom", do you consider these verses covering the consumption of animal flesh when answering "Yes" or "No"? And if you do consider these verses when so answering, how much consumption would you call "sparingly"?

I believe how well we keep the Word of Wisdom is rewarded in two different ways: policy as reflected in the Church worthiness questions administered by an authorized servant, and sanctification as reflected in our relationship with the Lord and the companionship of the Holy Ghost as we strive to live by the spirit and the letter of the law.

Under inspired guidance the worthiness interviews focus on a certain level of worthiness and expression of testimony that will enable us to benefit from baptism, callings, temple attendance, missions, etc. and not hinder others from the attainment of these blessings. The member answers these questions (“Do you abide by the Word of Wisdom?”) as best he is able, and the inspired interviewer assesses his answer and acts accordingly to recommend, instruct, discuss or discipline.

Once these blessings are obtained, especially the companionship of the Holy Ghost, each individual can continue to progress in the other areas as quickly as they are able and fine-tune their obedience accordingly (“…in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.”)

[thesometimesaint]

That's an interesting take on things. It would be quite a way of making a point. So God made a commandment that he didn't intend us to keep, and so as a result we don't have to worry about it.

Shouldn't we even 'try' to live it, to be able to show Him right that we can't do something in moderation? Isn't it a pretty poor reflection on us as saints that we need such strong lines and will ignore any that are slightly vague. Are there any other decoy commandments like that?

In case you're wondering, I'm very happy living the WoW. The thought of consuming alchohol/tobacco/coffee turns my stomach. It seems one of the best laws we have.

I think that God intends for us to follow every commandment he gives. IE; He intends for us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect. Are we going to be perfect in this life? Probably not, but we are to keep repenting of our wrongs and doing what we can to be more like Christ.

Through modern day revelation we are Commanded to abstain from alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco. Other things are to our skill, and judgement.

The WoW does make us a "peculiar" people.

[Stargazer]

That's an interesting take on things. It would be quite a way of making a point. So God made a commandment that he didn't intend us to keep, and so as a result we don't have to worry about it.

Shouldn't we even 'try' to live it, to be able to show Him right that we can't do something in moderation? Isn't it a pretty poor reflection on us as saints that we need such strong lines and will ignore any that are slightly vague. Are there any other decoy commandments like that?

In case you're wondering, I'm very happy living the WoW. The thought of consuming alchohol/tobacco/coffee turns my stomach. It seems one of the best laws we have.

God didn't give a commandment he didn't intend us to keep. The Word of Wisdom was a "greeting" and explicitly not a commandment, by its own terms. The fact that the Church later chose to treat part of it (the Fabulous Foursome) as a commandment, is beside the point. Nothing would have stopped the Lord from issuing the WoW as a commandment from the start. I assume He knew what would be done with it in the end.

Nobody has yet demonstrated one way or another that Sec. 89 is treated wholly as a commandment, or partially as a commandment and partially as "advice'. I assume that no such evidence exists, therefore, because I can't find any either.

And there is a tendency to alcoholism in my male line as well -- and like you I am quite happy with the Word of Wisdom.

I just want to be able to persuade my wife that she should be cool with the idea of me doing one of those low-carb diets, like Atkins, so I can shed significant weight. I weigh enough, by the way, to comprise two height-weight proportionate people of my height. This is not good for my health, or so I have been told. But should I break the "commandment" or disrgard the "advice" of the WoW along with it? That is MY question.

[CV75]

But should I break the "commandment" or disrgard the "advice" of the WoW along with it? That is MY question.

Yes--it was given for for man, not man for it--like the Sabbath.

[zerinus]

There have been lots of discussion here on this board about whether or not caffeine is what makes the consumption of coffee and black tea contrary to the Word of Wisdom, and I don't want to chase down that particular rabbit trail at this time.

But there's more to the Word of Wisdom (Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants). In particular for the purposes of this thread, examine these verses from that section:

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be aused, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

...

15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

When you as a Latter-day Saint are asked in a worthiness interview if you "keep the Word of Wisdom", do you consider these verses covering the consumption of animal flesh when answering "Yes" or "No"? And if you do consider these verses when so answering, how much consumption would you call "sparingly"?

If you're not LDS, nevertheless please feel free to weigh in on your understanding of this.

I'm talking Part 1 because there's an additional aspect I wanted to reserve for a separate topic.

I believe that for the purpose of a temple recommend interview, it is sufficient to abstain from tea, coffe, alcohol and tobacco, and other harmful drugs; but to observe the Word of Wisdom strictly, it should be followed to the letter, including abstaining from meats altogether, or using them (very) sparingly. Furthermore, as the population of the world increases, and food resources become increasingly scare, that kind of diet may become inevitable for the great majority of the inhabitants of the world (according to a recent study). It takes a lot more vegetable food resources to create a pound of meat than if the the vegetarian source was consumed directly. They reckon in 25 years time, with population increased and arable land diminished, meat products could become so expensive that few people could afford to eat them.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[mrmendoza]

I did a quick romp through Section 89 and I didn't find one word about over-eating or being overweight.

If you are perhaps trying to extend the WoW, perhaps you might be talking about what some like to call the "spirit" of the WoW. In other words, private interpretations of the scriptures, and we all know how valid private interpretations are. I am not trying to swat at you personally on this, however -- but there have been members of the Church in the past who have taken their own private interpretations and extended them to others, such as a stake president I had at one time who would not sign a temple recommend for someone who admitted to using caffeinated beverages like Coca-Cola or Pepsi. There have also been those who insisted that such things as white sugar, white flour, and chocolate were against the WoW, and judged others accordingly. This kind of shenanigan is unconscionable in my humble opinion.

Are you suggesting that we NOT take the spirit of the law into consideration? Perhaps I took the the "eat meat sparingly" passage a little too broadly, but I'm of the impression that if we ate more grains, and less meat and potatoes,fried in anamal fat (more Meat) we might not be as overweight as many of us are! I know I wouldn't be! But I'm not a fanatic about it. I stoped smoking and drinking all the expressly forbidden stuff but am weak on the meat part. But as I said in my post I think some of us take ourseleves a little too seriously.

My overuse of meat and grease has I'm sure greatly contributed to my present eschmic heart disease, which may not have been so bad had I applied the "spirit" of the law a little more!

Mike

[zerinus]

I am wondering if there is any GA advice as to whether the sparing consumption of flesh is to be considered part of the mandatory observance of the WoW, or is it covered under the original "To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint" observance.

I looked up the Church Handbook of Instructions, and this is all the advice that it gives (in both volumes) on the interpretation of the WoW:

The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

No mention is made about the eating of meats etc. One possible reason might be determining what is meant by "sparingly". If it had said that tobacco should be used sparingly, the Church would have a had time legislating against it. The point is that tobacco is bad for you period, whether you use it much or little. But you can't say the same thing about meat. So it is left to your own decision how you want to apply it.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus