Storm Rider Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 4 hours ago, thatjimguy said: But are either of you perfectly obedient to the WoW? And if, by chance, perfectly obedient to the WoW, are you perfect in every other sense to the gospel? I think that is the point here. Since I will assume you are not, why don't we change the wording to the original post so maybe you could answer it for us... "Would the occasional (insert your sin here) keep you out of the Temple?" Maybe now you can answer that with a more personal touch, because I think it may be easy to answer this if you do not drink coffee in the first place. Jim, you are creating a false pretense. No bishop asks you to obey the WofW perfectly prior to entering the temple. I suspect that what you are asking with this question is the full outline of everything covered in the 89th Section? What bishops ask is "Do you keep the WofW?" There is not a standard of perfection in that question. Most people feel they observe the word of wisdom by the "don'ts" Don't drink alcohol, don't use tobacco, don't drink coffee or tea. The rest of the WofW slides into the background and is not monitored by leaders when it comes to worthiness issues. Leaders have set temple recommend questions. The answers to those questions are whatever each member can honestly, sincerely answer to what is asked. There is no grilling, in-depth pursuit of how perfect you are in your obedience. I generally have never had issues with the temple recommend interviews during my life time. However, there have been times when I have asked questions to clarify an issue. I think you will find many individuals who will not attend the temple if they have strong feelings of dislike for another member, family member, etc. I am sure you will find some members who go to the temple unworthily. I also think that some members do not attend the temple when they are perfectly worthy, but they are striving for perfection rather than understanding that what is needed is a pure heart and a willingness to take upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ each week. In reality, the Church is not so legalistic, nor should it be, when it comes to these types of issues. Make sense?
thatjimguy Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Jim, you are creating a false pretense. No bishop asks you to obey the WofW perfectly prior to entering the temple. I suspect that what you are asking with this question is the full outline of everything covered in the 89th Section? What bishops ask is "Do you keep the WofW?" There is not a standard of perfection in that question. Most people feel they observe the word of wisdom by the "don'ts" Don't drink alcohol, don't use tobacco, don't drink coffee or tea. The rest of the WofW slides into the background and is not monitored by leaders when it comes to worthiness issues. Leaders have set temple recommend questions. The answers to those questions are whatever each member can honestly, sincerely answer to what is asked. There is no grilling, in-depth pursuit of how perfect you are in your obedience. I generally have never had issues with the temple recommend interviews during my life time. However, there have been times when I have asked questions to clarify an issue. I think you will find many individuals who will not attend the temple if they have strong feelings of dislike for another member, family member, etc. I am sure you will find some members who go to the temple unworthily. I also think that some members do not attend the temple when they are perfectly worthy, but they are striving for perfection rather than understanding that what is needed is a pure heart and a willingness to take upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ each week. In reality, the Church is not so legalistic, nor should it be, when it comes to these types of issues. Make sense? I get that, but I am responding to was to the responses to the OP that did seem to hint at the idea of perfection. I found the responses just a bit too cavalier. We all have our cup of coffee in some form or another. We all sin yet enter the Temple. I'm just attempting to put us on common ground. It is only the Atonement that allows us passage.
Storm Rider Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 1 hour ago, thatjimguy said: I get that, but I am responding to was to the responses to the OP that did seem to hint at the idea of perfection. I found the responses just a bit too cavalier. We all have our cup of coffee in some form or another. We all sin yet enter the Temple. I'm just attempting to put us on common ground. It is only the Atonement that allows us passage. For me I always return to the Sacrament prayer - are willing to take upon us the name of Christ. Perfection is so far beyond any of us - leaders and members alike - that any attempt to portray ourselves as perfect or to allow others to think that we are near perfect is gross error and does harm to the Body of Christ. When you mentioned above that "We all have our cup of coffee in some form or another", I view this as saying the same thing as I just did above. We may not drink coffee, but we have our weaknesses in other areas and we have yet to overcome them. It is when we completely rely on the Blood of the Lamb and his infinite atonement that we are closest to him. For those of us that fall further behind others I do an awfully lot of relying on his mercy also. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 6 hours ago, halconero said: Now, how about we talk about whether or not the consumption of meat affects our hope in eternal life? Not in and of itself, though gluttony sure can.
halconero Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 I just like to stir the pot with that one. I mean, the best indication we have is that while it's not prohibited, it doesn't exactly please God when we use it outside of times of need. But, that's just the Mormon vegetarian talking over here. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, halconero said: I just like to stir the pot with that one. I mean, the best indication we have is that while it's not prohibited, it doesn't exactly please God when we use it outside of times of need. But, that's just the Mormon vegetarian talking over here. I Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 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. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Pa Pa said: 1- Of course it is not a test. It is not some random means of control by the Church, it is simply being obiedent to the revelation and understanding of the Word of Wisdom. For those who are not a member of the Church, they are under no such commandment. The sin lies not in the drinking of coffee, tea, smoking or alcohol, except as will all things when it exceeds moderation, but in following the commandments of God. Dietary laws have been a condition of God's people from the beginning of time. Also as D&C 89, was given to "the weak and weakest of all saints, who are of can be called saints". 2- No one can say that each of these four prohibitions do not affect health, because each renders (or has the power to) those who partake to find themselves unable too abstain from. While serving in Germany for four years, each soldier is issue a ration card every month. It created an underground black market for those who wanted more at reduced rates, and a windfall for those who did not partake to sell theirs each month. At any inspection you could and often would be asked for your ration card, to insure either you were using it, or that you were not seeking it. The four prohibitions contained in the Word of Wisdom, are the four most sought after substances on every military base in the world. 3- I am simply answering the OP. For those who find they cannot comply, in the Church or in the thread...the argument is not with me, but with the revelation and commandment within the scriptures and Church. In fact all of these things have such a great pull, that it took decades to overcome them within the Church, and nearly two centuries of unending debate. I did not grow up in the Church. I joined at the age of 21, I was able to accept it as a requirement of baptism, because I never used any of them my entire life anyway...with the exception of wine during the Sacrament (or the Lord's Supper) as we called it. Even then only by mistake as our Church offered both, and my Dad would point to the grape juice, which I took. My Father who early in life became a serious Prohibitionist, as was my family. 1- You say it is not a test but then go on to say keeping the WoW is about keeping the commandments, not necessarily about a sin in drinking coffee etc. It the prohibition, in and of itself isn't a sin, then the sin is found in lack of obedience. Hence it is an obedience test. An obedience test doesn't need to be "random" to be a test. I'll also point out that being "obedient to the revelation" was not the original intent of the WoW. It is specifically stated, as part of the revelation, that it is not given by way of commandment. 2- I think avoiding addiction is the wisdom of the WoW. But I think it is faulty to assume or act like anyone who partakes will become addicted. If we followed that logic with all addictive substances, no one would be drinking caffeinated sodas or taking a variety of prescription drugs. Again, there is great wisdom in avoiding addiction, but in many cases these prohibited substances (coffee, wine) can have health benefits in moderation. 3- There is a fascinating article about the progressive implementation and interpretation of the WoW and it's eventual use as a worthiness issue for temple participation. I'm going to have to try to find that and add as an edit. Again, the WoW was specifically NOT a commandment when it was given. That status has developed over time. So I think it is fair for you to say someone's argument is with the church, but I don't think the argument is with the revelation. The revelation does not define many of the prohibitions, nor is it a commandment. Quote ThatJimGuy- That doesn't make sense to me as there are millions of mainstream Christians that are also clean cut and healthy, yet don't believe a word of the BoM. This was in response to my statement about the WoW being used as a branding tool for the church. Coming out of polygamy, when the church was largely seen by outsiders as a s3x cult, the church wanted to redefine itself as patriotic and clean cut. While the church doesn't own a monopoly on healthy living, it is something we're known for. The WoW is part of that. The way we dress is a part of that. etc. FYI- Jim, there is nothing about the WoW in the BoM. ETA- great WoW article- The Word of Wisdom; From Principle to Requirement https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf Edited August 18, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
halconero Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 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. I don't disagree with any of those, actually. I don't equate meat eating not pleasing God with a prohibition against its use. I believe it be ordained for times of need. Nevertheless, I do believe that the Word of Wisdom teaches that God would rather us take other options when they're available. It has also been indicated by various prophets and apostles throughout this dispensation that vegetarianism is both the Millennial reality and the ideal when in times of abundance: 1
Guest Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- You say it is not a test but then go on to say keeping the WoW is about keeping the commandments, not necessarily about a sin in drinking coffee etc. It the prohibition, in and of itself isn't a sin, then the sin is found in lack of obedience. Hence it is an obedience test. This was in response to my statement about the WoW being used as a branding tool for the church. Coming out of polygamy, when the church was largely seen by outsiders as a s3x cult, the church wanted to redefine itself as patriotic and clean cut. While the church doesn't own a monopoly on healthy living, it is something we're known for. The WoW is part of that. The way we dress is a part of that. etc. FYI- Jim, there is nothing about the WoW in the BoM. ETA- great WoW article- The Word of Wisdom; From Principle to Requirement https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf I see life as a test of sorts, I see the WoW as a means for a longer happier life. I don't drink anything with caffeine, I am hyper enough already. I am not seeking to shoot down your opinions concerning the WoW, just giving my own. Living the WoW is probably the easiest commandment with a promise than an other commandment. It helps make us healthy, saves us from at least some addictions and saves us money. I heard someone say once that the money he saved on WoW prohibitions was less than tithing...another commandment.
bsjkki Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) My inactive child feels the church cares more about the rules than the people. I got this in a text. Edited August 19, 2016 by bsjkki
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 3 hours ago, bsjkki said: My inactive child feels the church cares more about the rules than the people. I got this in a text. This is the problem - God loves principle as much or more than people. We love people as much or more than principle. We need to learn to love as God loves.
Calm Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: God loves principle as much or more than people. I don't buy that at all. He sticks with principle because he knows it is the best way to achieve his work and his glory, to bring to pass not the eternal principles, but the eternal life and immortality of people. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Calm said: I don't buy that at all. He sticks with principle because he knows it is the best way to achieve his work and his glory, to bring to pass not the eternal principles, but the eternal life and immortality of people. We are both right on this. The goal of his action is as you describe - for people. But he is not willing to violate a principle to do it. God cast 1/3 of the hosts of heaven out because the principle of agency and obedience to the plan of salvation were so necessary to our progression he would sacrifice 1/3 of us rather than change them. Name one earthly parent of six children that would give up 2 of them in order to ensure the other 4 had the opportunity to progress. He was willing to allow his perfectly innocent son to suffer the most horrendous agonies and pay for his other children because the penalty for sin was fixed and could not be violated. He was willing to have the Children of Israel wipe out entire nations in order to ensure the birthright promises were fulfilled. And he will be willing to allow any one of us to apostatize and lose his presence forever rather than change an eternal law. Edited August 20, 2016 by JLHPROF
thatjimguy Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Name one earthly parent of six children that would give up 2 of them in order to ensure the other 4 had the opportunity to progress. Could you rephrase this to make sure I don't misinterpret it please?
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Could you rephrase this to make sure I don't misinterpret it please? I thought it was pretty clear (if a little hyperbolic as I often am). God cast 1/3 part of his spirit children out of his presence, removed from them the opportunity to progress or return to his presence, and did it because they refused to follow an eternal principle. And yet he has perfect love for all his children. Perhaps we need to rethink our understanding of love. Edited August 20, 2016 by JLHPROF
thatjimguy Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I thought it was pretty clear (if a little hyperbolic as I often am). God cast 1/3 part of his spirit children out of his presence, removed from them the opportunity to progress or return to his presence, and did it because they refused to follow an eternal principle. And yet he has perfect love for all his children. Perhaps we need to rethink our understanding of love. Well, I was specifically wanting to hear about the earthly parents that would give up two for the other four to progress. What example could you give me on that and define the term "give up". That really isn't clear to me.
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Well, I was specifically wanting to hear about the earthly parents that would give up two for the other four to progress. What example could you give me on that and define the term "give up". That really isn't clear to me. If you had a 15 year old, a 12 year old, and a 10 year old, and your 15 year old was bringing drugs, porn, alcohol, sneaking out, sneaking others in, or whatever principle what would you do? Do you allow it to continue until the 12 year old and the 10 year old follow the same path? Doesn't mean you stop loving the 15 year old, but you have a choice that has to be made. But we don't need to get into these personal speculative situations. We just need to look at the examples of perfect love in the scriptures - and see how different it is from what we call love. Edited August 20, 2016 by JLHPROF
thatjimguy Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: If you had a 15 year old, a 12 year old, and a 10 year old, and your 15 year old was bringing drugs, porn, alcohol, sneaking out, sneaking others in, or whatever principle what would you do? Do you allow it to continue until the 12 year old and the 10 year old follow the same path? Doesn't mean you stop loving the 15 year old, but you have a choice that has to be made. But we don't need to get into these personal speculative situations. We just need to look at the examples of perfect love in the scriptures - and see how different it is from what we call love. I get what you are saying with the wheat and the tares kind of thing. I don't know if using kids as an example as the best way to go about it. Doesn't feel right. Too many variables to work in. I was really thinking about this one for a bit because that is a tough situation. I'd hate to think that a parent would give up on a kid. But now I still have to disagree, because it just came into my head that that is why he sent Jesus anyway. Because he does love us more than principle. No, he can't give up the law, but certainly bent the rules with Jesus. We should pay for our own sins. If he loved his principles more, Jesus would not be a thing. God made a choice and chose us. Good enough for me. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 7 hours ago, thatjimguy said: But now I still have to disagree, because it just came into my head that that is why he sent Jesus anyway. Because he does love us more than principle. No, he can't give up the law, but certainly bent the rules with Jesus. We should pay for our own sins. If he loved his principles more, Jesus would not be a thing. God made a choice and chose us. Not at all. There is no law says we have to pay for our own sins. The law says the penalty has to be paid. That God cannot rob justice. THAT is why he sent Jesus. That he was willing to allow his innocent son to suffer because the penalty for law was fixed and to violate it would cause him to cease to be God. Yes, the atonement happened because God loved us. Yes Christ came because God loved us. I am not suggesting that God doesn't love us completely. But God had no choice in the payment for sin - he had a choice in how it was paid, but not in following the law. The atonement still doesn't cover the 1/3 part who never got to come to earth (although who knows what their fate in the future will be). The atonement does NOT show that God loves us more than law. Quite the opposite in fact. 1
halconero Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 Exactly. The law that Chrisf fulfilled in his mission wasn't just the law of Moses, but the laws of Mercy and Justice. His love isn't a contradiction of law, but utter compliance with the same. 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 14 hours ago, Calm said: I don't buy that at all. He sticks with principle because he knows it is the best way to achieve his work and his glory, to bring to pass not the eternal principles, but the eternal life and immortality of people. If you love me keep my commandments. 1
Honorentheos Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: This is the problem - God loves principle as much or more than people. We love people as much or more than principle. We need to learn to love as God loves. Scripture seems to indicate there is more tension here than is implied. The Sabbath being for man, not man for the Sabbath, etc. My personal opinion is this tension comes from various perspectives given in the writing of the various works by different authors rather than insight into any divine mind. Which suggests when it comes to ethics and universals, perhaps cultural markers like coffee drinking serve purposes other than guiding a person to a better ethical position. Edited August 20, 2016 by Honorentheos
Honorentheos Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 To add to the above, regardless of one's position on the coffee question, I don't think the belief in it's divine providence excuses a person from developing a cohesive ethical framework that they continue to evaluate and evolve. If one's ethical framework is delegated to what one thinks a person speaking for God has told them to do, I would be curious how they believe this really helps them become more godly in thinking and practice? Is this the nature of God as well? To simply adhere resolute to external principles without moral decision making being involved? I think the theological doors this opens all lead to serious problems.
Teancum Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 On August 16, 2016 at 4:46 PM, theplains said: I read something in the article on page 8, heading "April 2016 Conference Notebook". "A promise was given that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, if we obeyed the laws and priesthood ordinances of the gospel, we would have eternal life, the greatest of all His gifts." In light of the Word of Wisdom, does the LDS Church offer any guidelines as to whether the occasional coffee keeps you out of the temple and thus without hope for eternal life in the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom? Thanks, Jim No.
JLHPROF Posted August 20, 2016 Posted August 20, 2016 39 minutes ago, Teancum said: Quote I read something in the article on page 8, heading "April 2016 Conference Notebook". "A promise was given that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, if we obeyed the laws and priesthood ordinances of the gospel, we would have eternal life, the greatest of all His gifts." In light of the Word of Wisdom, does the LDS Church offer any guidelines as to whether the occasional coffee keeps you out of the temple and thus without hope for eternal life in the highest division of the Celestial Kingdom? No. No the Church doesn't offer guidelines? Seriously though I agree with you that drinking coffee won't keep you out of the CK. (See, we agree sometimes. )
Recommended Posts