Hamba Tuhan Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It does not take a written revelation to change canonized scripture. Or, more to the point, to clarify it.
sunstoned Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: So you do accept the original Word of Wisdom as coming from the Lord through revelation? Is that what you're saying? I give props to JS for stating that the original WoW was from God. Say what you will about Joseph, either you believe him or you don't. But he was always clear and you knew where he stood. Leaders that followed him, not so much. To answer your question, I follow the original word of wisdom. I think it is inspired.
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 1 minute ago, sunstoned said: To answer your question, I follow the original word of wisdom. I think it is inspired. So you drink no 'hot drinks' whatsoever?
sunstoned Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: So you drink no 'hot drinks' whatsoever? Not very hot. Medium warm for my tea and soup. I don't touch coffee. Not that I think it is bad. It is just so pedestrian when compared to the refined beverage of tea (IMO). I also look to the example set by Joseph Smith through the lens of "not by commandment" but "a word of wisdom". We all know what he consumed. It is okay as it was in moderation. I think JS also had something to say about not being commanded in all things. In contrast, it seems the modern church wants to control as much of our lives as possible. Right down to the number of ear rings we wear or the soft drinks we consume. None of it is really doctrine, it is just talk. When a Mormon celebrity like Mitt is caught pounding a Diet Coke, the back peddling from SLC began. Now we have caffeinated beverages at BYU. Go figure.
Calm Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 59 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I give props to JS for stating that the original WoW was from God. Say what you will about Joseph, either you believe him or you don't. But he was always clear and you knew where he stood. Leaders that followed him, not so much. To answer your question, I follow the original word of wisdom. I think it is inspired. His brother, Hyrum, is the one who clarified what "hot drinks" meant while Joseph was alive. Do you think Joseph just kept his mouth shut about what God said rather than correct his own brother (who didn't appear to have a huge ego, so wouldn't likely be emotionally scarred if Joseph said he had erred). 1
sunstoned Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 4 hours ago, Calm said: His brother, Hyrum, is the one who clarified what "hot drinks" meant while Joseph was alive. Do you think Joseph just kept his mouth shut about what God said rather than correct his own brother (who didn't appear to have a huge ego, so wouldn't likely be emotionally scarred if Joseph said he had erred). I can only guess since I wasn't there. I think a lot was going on at the time and the WoW was given "not by commandment". So it may not have been a the highest priority. This much is clear, the coffee and tea along with alcohol and tobacco continued to be consumed by the saints including Joseph Smith and other church leaders. 1
smac97 Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not aware of any claims in the early church that the coffee and tea specifically was revelatory. The "revelatory" term used was "hot drinks." Hyrum Smith explained that, at that time, "hot drink" was a reference to coffee and tea. The Church has adopted this construction. 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think it was based on a Hyrum Smith statement if I remember correctly, but not a revelation. I don't think we can parse it out that way. Hyrum Smith's statement was about the term used in the revelation. 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, this is more a general commentary on early Mormon church history. We have a small group of people, very untrained educationally and with a wide disparity of theological ideas and backgrounds. And yet the revelations didn't come through "a small group." They came through Joseph Smith. 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: In 1833 when the WoW text was produced, "Was produced?" What does that mean? 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: there were roughly 2k - 3k members, think 4-5 wards worth of people. And the leaders were just trying to figure out how to run things. Joseph was taking ideas he had and running with them. Any idea that was proposed would be considered. Picture Oliver or Sidney or W.W. Phelps or Emma in this case coming to Joseph with an idea about something and him saying, ok, lets take the ball and run with it. Or I'll go pray about it and then he'd formalize the inspiration in a text and they would run with it. It was very fluid and ad hoc. Hmm. I'm not sure this is an accurate characterization of Joseph Smith's prophetic activities. 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Its like your bishop having an open playing field for however he wants to run the ward, no handbook, just a small group of people spit-balling and coming up with ideas on how to manage a new religion. So in your view, revelation from God is "just a small group of people spit-balling?" I guess we'll have to disagree about that. 15 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Would have been quite exciting, but no ideas were rigorously considered after thorough research, debate, trial and error, etc. I think of this as the wild wild west, for religious creation. It's a matter of faith, I suppose. Joseph Smith was obviously influenced by events surrounding him. The impetus for the Word of Wisdom, for example, arose after he considered some of his experiences and observations in his home: Quote According to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, the Word of Wisdom was received in 1833 as a revelation from God. After Smith's death, Brigham Young stated that the revelation was given in response to problems encountered while conducting meetings in the Smith family home: Quote When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet [Joseph Smith] entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry. So Joseph Smith's environment frequently precipitated revelations. No surprise there. But you seem to be ascribing divine revelations to some sort of mundane, let's-throw-this-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks, "spit-balling," "wild wild west" groupthink. I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree. Thanks, -Smac
hope_for_things Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Based on my observation, the Saints tend to project their own personal experiences with revelation onto the prophets. I certainly do this. I refuse to believe that the prophets are in receipt of less, less varied or less frequent revelation than I am. I think this is a good point. Inspiration is largely a subjective observation, for example, what I consider inspired might not be what you consider inspired. In many ways the whole Alma 32 method about whether something bears good fruit or not is also a subjective evaluation. If I'm allergic to apples then the fruit may not be good to me.
smac97 Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: Quote His brother, Hyrum, is the one who clarified what "hot drinks" meant while Joseph was alive. Do you think Joseph just kept his mouth shut about what God said rather than correct his own brother (who didn't appear to have a huge ego, so wouldn't likely be emotionally scarred if Joseph said he had erred). I can only guess since I wasn't there. Sage words. 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: I think a lot was going on at the time and the WoW was given "not by commandment". Yes. 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: So it may not have been a the highest priority. And perhaps it was presented "not by commandment" as a preparatory kind of thing, with the Lord intending to gradually strengthen it over time, and to do so by revealing further light and knowledge about it to His ordained servants. 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: This much is clear, the coffee and tea along with alcohol and tobacco continued to be consumed by the saints including Joseph Smith and other church leaders. Yes. Apparently "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints" was not just florid prose. The Word of Wisdom was meant to be . . . "adapted." In 2017, I think we have far more many options for consuming addictive, mind-altering, and/or unhealthy substances. The Word of Wisdom, implemented incrementally over a long period of time, has been an important bulwark against such things. Latter-day Saints still struggle to adhere to the Word of Wisdom, though. We are not really in a position to judge or condemn our predecessors regarding their observance. And I am glad of that. I think we should focus on our own behavior and carry on. Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 8 hours ago, Calm said: His brother, Hyrum, is the one who clarified what "hot drinks" meant while Joseph was alive. Do you think Joseph just kept his mouth shut about what God said rather than correct his own brother (who didn't appear to have a huge ego, so wouldn't likely be emotionally scarred if Joseph said he had erred). Here is how Hyrum put it: "Again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. There are many who wonder what this can mean, whether it refers to tea or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea and coffee." Note that he's giving this as his interpretation ("I say"), not as some kind of divine message. And nothing in what he's saying would go against the practice of taking coffee or tea warm instead of hot.
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: How about any hint of a revelation? There is nothing on this. Just like there was nothing about the restriction of blacks and the Priesthood. And look where that got us. There was no written revelation to repeal it. Should we put the ban back in place just to be safe?
hope_for_things Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The "revelatory" term used was "hot drinks." Hyrum Smith explained that, at that time, "hot drink" was a reference to coffee and tea. The Church has adopted this construction. Quote I think it was based on a Hyrum Smith statement if I remember correctly, but not a revelation. I don't think we can parse it out that way. Hyrum Smith's statement was about the term used in the revelation. Was Hyrum Smith giving his opinion of what hot drinks were defined as or was he issuing another revelation, which hasn't be added to the canon anytime. Surely you see the difference between a statement by a leader, and something that's in our canon? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And yet the revelations didn't come through "a small group." They came through Joseph Smith. Well, some revelations were received in group settings, or between multiple people at the same time, the Vision was received by Rigdon and Smith in tandem. Also, other early leaders were highly influential on the texts, given authority from Smith to edit and revise, and were a part of the process intimately. The concept that some people have that Smith was a Dictaphone for the words of deity and that these words were merely recorded by passive scribes is not supported by the evidence. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: So in your view, revelation from God is "just a small group of people spit-balling?" I'm trying to describe how I envision the early Mormon church setting. Revelation from God can take many forms throughout history. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: So Joseph Smith's environment frequently precipitated revelations. No surprise there. But you seem to be ascribing divine revelations to some sort of mundane, let's-throw-this-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks, "spit-balling," "wild wild west" groupthink. Yes, the environment is a huge factor. Don't we often say by small and simple means, and often explain how uneducated Smith was? My characterization in that sense seems quite compatible.
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Was Hyrum Smith giving his opinion of what hot drinks were defined as or was he issuing another revelation, which hasn't be added to the canon anytime. Surely you see the difference between a statement by a leader, and something that's in our canon? Well, some leaders have emphasized canon over individual statements from church leaders, but the problem is there is no consistent rule for determining anything. 1
JLHPROF Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 42 minutes ago, Gray said: Here is how Hyrum put it: "Again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. There are many who wonder what this can mean, whether it refers to tea or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea and coffee." It's ironic that when a Church leader makes a interpretive statement of scripture outside of official channels we say it's just his opinion and isn't binding. Except in this case. Because this particular case happens to fit with what our current teachings are. We really do have serious double standard issues. Perhaps if Brigham had said it instead of Hyrum we would be ok to ignore it.
Jeanne Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 I will admit that I have not read every post here..just page 2. But I have a question and an observation..my opinion. My question is: Does the WOW still keep people out of the Temple who are otherwise worthy to attend?? I am talking coffee/tea..tobacco perhaps I can understand. But if people are trying to keep the WOW as they are in trying to be better people in other areas of gospel principles, are they being denied Temple attendance? My observation is that this is a silly thing to keep one from attendance..and another thing, the Saints would have never made it across those plains without some warm/hot to sustain. To me, this is such a silly thing...especially when non coffee drinkers consume more chocolate than Carter's has pills.
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, Gray said: Well, some leaders have emphasized canon over individual statements from church leaders, but the problem is there is no consistent rule for determining anything. I like to think this is intentional so the saints have to pray for understanding.
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: I will admit that I have not read every post here..just page 2. But I have a question and an observation..my opinion. My question is: Does the WOW still keep people out of the Temple who are otherwise worthy to attend?? I am talking coffee/tea..tobacco perhaps I can understand. But if people are trying to keep the WOW as they are in trying to be better people in other areas of gospel principles, are they being denied Temple attendance? My observation is that this is a silly thing to keep one from attendance..and another thing, the Saints would have never made it across those plains without some warm/hot to sustain. To me, this is such a silly thing...especially when non coffee drinkers consume more chocolate than Carter's has pills. Think of it as a sign of the covenant if you do not believe it has any real health value but yeah, it keeps people out of the Temple.
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I like to think this is intentional so the saints have to pray for understanding. Sure, why not?
Jeanne Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Think of it as a sign of the covenant if you do not believe it has any real health value but yeah, it keeps people out of the Temple. Sad.
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's ironic that when a Church leader makes a interpretive statement of scripture outside of official channels we say it's just his opinion and isn't binding. Except in this case. Because this particular case happens to fit with what our current teachings are. We really do have serious double standard issues. Perhaps if Brigham had said it instead of Hyrum we would be ok to ignore it. I don't know, does context matter? Does it make a difference if they say, "I say it's this" vs "The Lord revealed to me that it's this"?
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: Sad. Are you using Trump’s signature appraisal of a situation ironically here?
JLHPROF Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Gray said: I don't know, does context matter? Does it make a difference if they say, "I say it's this" vs "The Lord revealed to me that it's this"? No. Brigham said that about several things (most notably Adam-God) and it is dismissed as at best his opinion or at worst pure heresy. Hyrum gave no indication of any inspiration behind his interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, nor was he in a position of authority sufficient to do so. It was his opinion and interpretation of scripture but we just ran with it.
Jeanne Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Are you using Trump’s signature appraisal of a situation ironically here? Idunno...I am just saying if a person is trying to achieve a goal such as WOW changes...why would one think that a Temple experience would not help?
Gray Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No. Brigham said that about several things (most notably Adam-God) and it is dismissed as at best his opinion or at worst pure heresy. Hyrum gave no indication of any inspiration behind his interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, nor was he in a position of authority sufficient to do so. It was his opinion and interpretation of scripture but we just ran with it. Oh I see what you mean. Yes, good point.
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Idunno...I am just saying if a person is trying to achieve a goal such as WOW changes...why would one think that a Temple experience would not help? I have seen Priesthood leaders renew recommends for people struggling with the Word of Wisdom for that very reason but it is their call. Taken to extremes though would you suggest that someone trying to stop committing adultery should also be allowed to go to help with the struggle?
Recommended Posts