The Rest Of The Word Of Wisdom: Part 1

[zerinus]

There's even more of "The Rest":

First, verses 12 and 13 are part of the same thought. 13 seems to give a clear statement of what would particularly "please" God, "that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." I've always read this a stating that meat should not be eaten except in winter, cold, or famine, and if you take 12 as some sort of license, but still want to "please" God then the only other times would be in times of celebration or "thanksgiving".

The "pleasing" bit I believed has to do with the unnecessary slaughter of animals. God cares for the life of animals, as He does for man:

D&C 49:

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

This is quite apart from the health benefits of not eating too much meat, which I am sure is very real.

[zerinus]

If you can first define how the church defines "sparingly" then we know who falls

under the judgement of the destroying angel.

Gail

The Church hasn't defined "sparingly," it is left to your decision. But the D&C makes it clear that it means very sparingly!

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I like spareribs myself.

[zerinus]

You make a good point.

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

I think pure wine means without additives. Most commercial wine has some of those I believe, and in the days of Joseph Smith it might have been worse.

[zerinus]

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

D&C 59:

20 And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

Those early Saints were not worried about additives per say, but about poison deliberately added by our enemies. Most modern wines have sulfates added as a preservative. Totally harmless to most people, but there are some that become violently ill or have an allergic reaction with them.

Edited September 16, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

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.)

Yes, but with alcohol, reasonable amount can very easily be extended to unreasonable amount. Also, one man's reasonable amount may be another man's unreasonable amount. We also don't want people to come to Church on Sunday with "reasonable amount" of alcohol flowing through their veins. All of that could easily happen if the rules were relaxed.

[Calm]

Oops, stalk not stak

I will try and remember to come back to this when I have more time. I think I am not probably communicating well what I am thinking, definitely not in a complete form. Feel free to remind me if it seems like I've forgotten as my memory does have major issues these days.

[zerinus]

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.

When the revelation was first given, it was not given as a commandment because many Church members were used to (or possibly addicted to) those substances; and to have given it as a commandment would have made all of them instant sinners and disobedient to the commandments. So a time was required for Church members to adjust to the the new advice given. But after a period of time the salient points of it were made a commandment. I can illustrate the point with an example from secular society. Marijuana is declared in most countries to be illegal, whereas tobacco is legal; while tobacco is more harmful to your health than marijuana. So why the difference in the law? The answer is that tobacco has been legally consumed in most countries long enough that too many people are hooked on it already, and it is not reasonable and practical to suddenly make it illegal. But with progressive negative advertising, and the numbers of tobacco consumers gradually declining, a time may come when it becomes practicable to make it illegal. If tobacco had been a new drug, without the consumption history behind it, I am sure it would have been declared illegal from the start.

[zerinus]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "low-carb" diet. Do you mean a meat rich diet?

[Calm]

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.

I would do a lot of study prior to embarking on any diet out of the ordinary. Many can be dangerous for your health and rebound weight gain when you go back to regular diets may set you back even worse than you were prior to the extreme diet. You can often cut down on carbs without having to increase meat protein in most cases by going for lower carb/high fiber vegetables to fill you up. If you need more calories, you can pick that up from vegetable protein like legumes or animal protein like cheese and eggs, eggs no longer being connected to high cholesterol.

Weight Watchers dieters tend to have better success both short and long term than Atkins dieters, btw, studies have shown.

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

zerinus:

Those early Saints were not worried about additives per say, . . .

But the Lord seems to have been!

[Calm]

BTW, with my daughter being diabetic I have learned a bit more about ketosis than most people know. Putting one's body into a state where it is poisoning oneself to lose weight is not generally a good idea. Going into ketosis for a diabetic is an emergency situation. I find it hard to believe that people intentionally do this, but the idea of losing weight fast is very appealing.

Forgot to add my link:

http://www.webmd.com...bohydrate-diets

What Are the Risks Linked to High Protein, Low-Carb Diets?

High protein, low-carb diets can cause a number of health problems, including:

• Kidney failure. Consuming too much protein puts a strain on the kidneys, which can make a person susceptible to kidney disease.
  
• High cholesterol . It is well known that high-protein diets (consisting of red meat, whole dairy products, and other high fat foods) are linked to high cholesterol. Studies have linked high cholesterol levels to an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
  
• Osteoporosis and kidney stones. High-protein diets have also been shown to cause people to excrete a large amount of calcium in their urine. Over a prolonged period of time, this can increase a person's risk of osteoporosis and kidney stones. This is especially true if the protein is not balanced with enough good vegetables, especially green cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli.
  
• Cancer. One of the reasons high-protein diets increase the risks of certain health problems is because of the avoidance of carbohydrate-containing foods and the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and antioxidants they contain. It is therefore important to obtain protein from a diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Not only are your needs for protein being met, but you are also helping to reduce the risk of developing cancer.
  
• Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). Low-carb diets can cause the body to go into a dangerous metabolic state called ketosis since your body burns fat instead of glucose for energy. During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day.
  

• 
  

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

I would do a lot of study prior to embarking on any diet out of the ordinary. Many can be dangerous for your health and rebound weight gain when you go back to regular diets may set you back even worse than you were prior to the extreme diet. You can often cut down on carbs without having to increase meat protein in most cases by going for lower carb/high fiber vegetables to fill you up. If you need more calories, you can pick that up from vegetable protein like legumes or animal protein like cheese and eggs, eggs no longer being connected to high cholesterol.

Very well said. I agree entirely.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I doubt many LDS would rush out and become alcoholics if the WoW restrictions were repealed.

For the average man and woman a single glass of wine with a meal a couple of times a week wouldn't make a dig deal. Men because they are generally bigger physically make that maybe two glasses. But that would be it. As a wise man once taught me. With the first drink man drinks the drink; the second drink, the drink drinks the drink; and the third drink, the drink drinks the man. But under no conditions should anyone drive or operate heavy equipment while under the influence of alcohol. Call a cab, or get a designated driver. BUT DON'T DRIVE.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

I doubt many LDS would rush out and become alcoholics if the WoW restrictions were repealed.

For the average man and woman a single glass of wine with a meal a couple of times a week wouldn't make a dig deal. Men because they are generally bigger physically make that maybe two glasses. But that would be it. As a wise man once taught me. With the first drink man drinks the drink; the second drink, the drink drinks the drink; and the third drink, the drink drinks the man. But under no conditions should anyone drive or operate heavy equipment while under the influence of alcohol. Call a cab, or get a designated driver. BUT DON'T DRIVE.

Don't forget that I am a convert to the Church, and I used to both drink and smoke before I joined. While I can assure you that I was no "alcoholic," I can equally assure you that once you take your first glass, it is too easy to take the second, and before you know it you have passed "reasonable" limit.

There is also a "culture" associated with drinking that a Latter-day Saint should not cultivate or be associated with. Visiting the bar is not something that LDS should be engaged in. I remind you of D&C 89:5, "neither [is it] meet in the sight of your Father". There is a lot more to the prohibition of drinking than you seem to think.

I am very glad that I don't drink any more, even in "reasonable" amounts. I am not aware that it ever did me any good, only plenty of harm.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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

A dieting regime that has at the heart of it the breaking of the Word of Wisdom would appear to me to be very suspect indeed.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I chose not to drink alcohol, and I'll stand by that commitment.

I'm a convert too. Though I never was a smoker my father smoked. I'm well acquainted with alcohol. For most people a glass or two of wine with a meal once of twice a week won't make them an alcoholic. Simple physiology makes that highly unlikely. I don't recommend anyone drink, you can live a long and prosperous life without it, but if an occasional glass of wine makes a meal more enjoyable. It may even have some limited benefits. Then I don't have a problem with it for them.

Hanging out in bars has no appeal to me. They're actually pretty somber places. Alcohol is a known depressant after all. Here in California most of the better quality restaurants have a selection of beers and wines to chose from. So it's a simple matter of just not ordering them. Smoking in most public places is forbidden.

The WoW isn't a hobbyhorse of mine. To get sanctimonious over it just causes ill feelings, and changes no ones behaviors. Live your own life, and don't try to tell me how I'm not knowledgeable about the WoW.

[zerinus]

double post

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I'm a convert too. Though I never was a smoker my father smoked. I'm well acquainted with alcohol. For most people a glass or two of wine with a meal once of twice a week won't make them an alcoholic. Simple physiology makes that highly unlikely. I don't recommend anyone drink, you can live a long and prosperous life without it, but if an occasional glass of wine makes a meal more enjoyable. It may even have some limited benefits. Then I don't have a problem with it for them.

Who are "them"? I am talking about LDS. I am not talking about "them".

Hanging out in bars has no appeal to me. They're actually pretty somber places. Alcohol is a known depressant after all. Here in California most of the better quality restaurants have a selection of beers and wines to chose from. So it's a simple matter of just not ordering them. Smoking in most public places is forbidden.

The WoW isn't a hobbyhorse of mine. To get sanctimonious over it just causes ill feelings, and changes no ones behaviors. Live your own life, and don't try to tell me how I'm not knowledgeable about the WoW.

I am not "telling" you anything. I am replying to your posts. Why are you so upset about people replying to your posts?

[thesometimesaint]

Who are "them"? I am talking about LDS. I am not talking about "them".

I am not "telling" you anything. I am replying to your posts. Why are you so upset about people replying to your posts?

Don't forget that I am a convert to the Church, and I used to both drink and smoke before I joined. While I can assure you that I was no "alcoholic," I can equally assure you that once you take your first glass, it is too easy to take the second, and before you know it you have passed "reasonable" limit.

There is also a "culture" associated with drinking that a Latter-day Saint should not cultivate or be associated with. Visiting the bar is not something that LDS should be engaged in. I remind you of D&C 89:5, "neither [is it] meet in the sight of your Father". There is a lot more to the prohibition of drinking than you seem to think.

I am very glad that I don't drink any more, even in "reasonable" amounts. I am not aware that it ever did me any good, only plenty of harm.

"Who are "them"? I am talking about LDS. I am not talking about "them"."

Members of the Church have covenanted with God to not drink alcohol. That has nothing to do with physiology.

"There is a lot more to the prohibition of drinking than you seem to think".

Please tell me what part of the WoW prohibitions don't I know?

I am very glad that I don't drink any more, even in "reasonable" amounts. I am not aware that it ever did me any good, only plenty of harm.

It is good that you personally don't imbibe.

There a moderate positive effects of drinking moderate amounts of alcohol. No one that I know of has ever suggested that drinking alcohol to excess is good for you.

Edited September 16, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

There a moderate positive effects of drinking moderate amounts of alcohol.

The question for me is if the negative and positive effects of drinking are taken together in total and not just one aspect looked at it at a time, what the overall effect would be for most people.

And since the positive beneficial effects can be duplicated by other foods, for me the only significant positive effect might be the effect it has on taste as I hear it can enrich tastes through its chemical interactions plus there can be positive social benefits from the relaxation/disinhibiting effect it can have in small amounts, I think.

Unfortunately, many of those who probably benefit from the social aspect of alcohol the most are likely to also overindulge due to want to suppress nervousness.

Edited September 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

There a moderate positive effects of drinking moderate amounts of alcohol.

There are no "moderate positive effects of drinking moderate amounts of alcohol" in Mormonism.

[JarMan]

Yes, but with alcohol, reasonable amount can very easily be extended to unreasonable amount. Also, one man's reasonable amount may be another man's unreasonable amount. We also don't want people to come to Church on Sunday with "reasonable amount" of alcohol flowing through their veins. All of that could easily happen if the rules were relaxed.

That's essentially my point.

[zerinus]

That's essentially my point.

Thank you.