Next Mormons- Word of Wisdom

[HappyJackWagon]

I found this article fascinating about divergent attitudes and practices of Mormons regarding the Word of Wisdom.

https://religioninpublic.blog/2018/03/29/one-in-three-mormons-have-had-coffee-recently-another-quarter-drink-alcohol/

It seems that the rising generations don't necessarily take as hard a stand for complete prohibition as my, and older generations do. I have to admit I'm a little shocked by these results. What are your thoughts? Is it what you expected or do you think the survey results are out in left field?

The primary questions revolve around whether or not someone has partaken of a forbidden substance within the past 6 months. I'm not sure why that timeframe was decided upon, but I'm curious if the illustrious board participants feel that a person should be considered as a WoW adherent even if they have partaken some time in the past 6 months. For the purposes of temple recommends, is 6 months a good bar to reach, too short, or too long?

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I found this article fascinating about divergent attitudes and practices of Mormons regarding the Word of Wisdom.

https://religioninpublic.blog/2018/03/29/one-in-three-mormons-have-had-coffee-recently-another-quarter-drink-alcohol/

It seems that the rising generations don't necessarily take as hard a stand for complete prohibition as my, and older generations do. I have to admit I'm a little shocked by these results. What are your thoughts? Is it what you expected or do you think the survey results are out in left field?

The primary questions revolve around whether or not someone has partaken of a forbidden substance within the past 6 months. I'm not sure why that timeframe was decided upon, but I'm curious if the illustrious board participants feel that a person should be considered as a WoW adherent even if they have partaken some time in the past 6 months. For the purposes of temple recommends, is 6 months a good bar to reach, too short, or too long?

While I do not always agree with modern interpretations of the WoW, I do believe it is within the power of the Presidency to formulate rules for temple admittance since they hold the keys to temple recommends and attendance. Therefore, I adhere to the strictest standard imposed of no alcohol. The original WoW was expressly not given as a commandment, but nevertheless, I further impose upon myself a limitation of animal meat, which I believe the original WoW recommends to eat sparingly. I have not drank any kind of coffee or hot tea other than herbal teas since I reactivated. I further limit my intake of caffeine. I recognize there is a certain segment of the Mormon population which does not adhere to the strictest standard. I will leave it up to them whether they will compromise their integrity and honor in order to engage in poor habits. They should remember that they are supposed to be leading by example, and that dishonesty is a sin. However, if the Presidency wants to limit the question to whether there has been any alcohol use in the prior 6 months, I would not object since I don't believe the original WoW mandated a complete abstinence of all alcohol - esp beer.

[cinepro]

I don't know about the people in the survey, but I know my annual alcohol consumption has gone way down since I switched to NyQuil LiquiCaps.

 

But yeah, I find the results of that survey to be surprising bordering on shocking.  To the degree that they are reliable, it definitely changes my view of modern day "Mormons."  There is a Starbucks near my house, so I might have to see if they would be open to allowing me to review their security footage so I can help the Bishop root out this evil from amongst us.

Edited March 29, 2018 by cinepro

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

While I do not always agree with modern interpretations of the WoW, I do believe it is within the power of the Presidency to formulate rules for temple admittance since they hold the keys to temple recommends and attendance. Therefore, I adhere to the strictest standard imposed of no alcohol. The original WoW was expressly not given as a commandment, but nevertheless, I further impose upon myself a limitation of animal meat, which I believe the original WoW recommends to eat sparingly. I have not drank any kind of coffee or hot tea other than herbal teas since I reactivated. I further limit my intake of caffeine. I recognize there is a certain segment of the Mormon population which does not adhere to the strictest standard. I will leave it up to them whether they will compromise their integrity and honor in order to engage in poor habits. They should remember that they are supposed to be leading by example, and that dishonesty is a sin. However, if the Presidency wants to limit the question to whether there has been any alcohol use in the prior 6 months, I would not object since I don't believe the original WoW mandated a complete abstinence of all alcohol - esp beer.

The question is "Do you keep the word of wisdom"?

I think this survey shows that there are different interpretations of what it means to "keep the WoW". Is it dishonest for a person to say they keep it because they haven't had any coffee or alcohol in the last month? Is it an individual decision on how they answer or is it an individual decision of the interviewer as to what they will accept in terms of timeframes of abstinence? There seems to be a lot of wiggle room regarding timeframes when it comes to WoW, tithing, church attendance, even chastity since there aren't any hard and fast rules about what is and what is not an acceptable timeframe. This lack of clarity inevitably leads to leaders imposing their personal interpretations on those they interview.

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The primary questions revolve around whether or not someone has partaken of a forbidden substance within the past 6 months. I'm not sure why that timeframe was decided upon, but I'm curious if the illustrious board participants feel that a person should be considered as a WoW adherent even if they have partaken some time in the past 6 months. For the purposes of temple recommends, is 6 months a good bar to reach, too short, or too long?

For some people working on the Word of Wisdom, I would be ecstatic about a 6 month gap between . . .  

I think that temple restrictions are typically applied when people are consistently not following it or have a bad problem with it. I think that most bishops would consider reinstating someone working on it after six months of abstinence, and probably less than that. 

As far as someone confessing to an isolated lapse, that probably wouldn't trigger any restrictions in most cases, unless there were concerns that it was not or would not be an isolated incident. I had a youth confess to me that he had tried alcohol at his high school, and he felt bad about it. He wasn't going to do it again, and there weren't any restrictions. Usually, I think Word of Wisdom can be repented of without confession to a priesthood leader, but that's my opinion. Regret, conviction, prayer, and cessation. 

Here'a a crazy story: a man in my ward grew up on the Navajo Nation (white family). Their bishop once was a Navajo who was an alcoholic who struggled to hold regular meetings and struggled with administering the Church there. His family was (as you can imagine) quite scandalized by an alcoholic bishop (he did strive, but was openly only successful with mixed success). Well, every single one of his children served missions and married in the temple (not a common thing in that culture). The principle could be that God's long view vastly outscopes ours. Maybe enduring an alcoholic, ill-suited bishop was a small short-term price to pay for generations to have the blessings of the covenant.

[Storm Rider]

I generally feel that almost all policies are wrong and create more problems than solve any potential problems that they attempted to overcome.  It is one of the things that I wish would change - the WofW is, and only is, what is written in the 89th Section of the D&C.  It has nothing to do with righteousness or holiness; it is a strictly telestial law.  

This scripture has led my thoughts (Matt 15:11):

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

[Kenngo1969]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

... but I'm curious if the illustrious board participants feel ...

Yep, I've always felt that sneering like this is conducive to open dialogue.  

Edited March 29, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[JarMan]

I would like to see the prohibition of coffee and tea removed from the WofW or, at least, made “advisory” rather than required. I think the other caffeinated beverages Mormons consume are more unhealthy and I think it is a major barrier—often even a deal-breaker—to many potential converts. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yep, I've always felt that sneering like this is conducive to open dialogue.  

Dang, man. Super sensitive. I wasn't sneering at anyone, simply being playful. I happen to like most everyone on this board, even those I generally disagree with. Others who are overtly hostile or ridiculously delicate, not as much.

You should probably put me on ignore.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The question is "Do you keep the word of wisdom"?

I think this survey shows that there are different interpretations of what it means to "keep the WoW". Is it dishonest for a person to say they keep it because they haven't had any coffee or alcohol in the last month? Is it an individual decision on how they answer or is it an individual decision of the interviewer as to what they will accept in terms of timeframes of abstinence? There seems to be a lot of wiggle room regarding timeframes when it comes to WoW, tithing, church attendance, even chastity since there aren't any hard and fast rules about what is and what is not an acceptable timeframe. This lack of clarity inevitably leads to leaders imposing their personal interpretations on those they interview.

The loose and left-to-the-general-discretion-of-the-bishop guideline in our stake (promulgated by the stake president) is six months of compliance with the TR questions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I found this article fascinating about divergent attitudes and practices of Mormons regarding the Word of Wisdom.

https://religioninpublic.blog/2018/03/29/one-in-three-mormons-have-had-coffee-recently-another-quarter-drink-alcohol/

It seems that the rising generations don't necessarily take as hard a stand for complete prohibition as my, and older generations do. I have to admit I'm a little shocked by these results. What are your thoughts? Is it what you expected or do you think the survey results are out in left field?

The primary questions revolve around whether or not someone has partaken of a forbidden substance within the past 6 months. I'm not sure why that timeframe was decided upon, but I'm curious if the illustrious board participants feel that a person should be considered as a WoW adherent even if they have partaken some time in the past 6 months. For the purposes of temple recommends, is 6 months a good bar to reach, too short, or too long?

I think it depends on the bishop, the interviewee, the Spirit and the transparency they allow between them. I'm wondering if someone is going to drink coffee, why they would only do so every 6 months. I can't think of anything I partake of that infrequently. I mean, if it's good, why not partake regularly; if it's not, why bother?

[Scott Lloyd]

Obedience to the Word of Wisdom is a mark of the latter-day covenant people. 

From then-Elder Russell M. Nelson in general conference of October 1988:

“The Word of Wisdom is a spiritual law. To the obedient He proclaimed: ‘I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.’ (D&C 89:21.)

“At the first passover, the destroying angel did pass over houses that were marked with blood on the doorposts. In our day, the faithful keep the Word of Wisdom. It is one of our signs unto God that we are His covenant people.”

Edited March 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

For some people working on the Word of Wisdom, I would be ecstatic about a 6 month gap between . . .  

I think that temple restrictions are typically applied when people are consistently not following it or have a bad problem with it. I think that most bishops would consider reinstating someone working on it after six months of abstinence, and probably less than that. 

As far as someone confessing to an isolated lapse, that probably wouldn't trigger any restrictions in most cases, unless there were concerns that it was not or would not be an isolated incident. I had a youth confess to me that he had tried alcohol at his high school, and he felt bad about it. He wasn't going to do it again, and there weren't any restrictions. Usually, I think Word of Wisdom can be repented of without confession to a priesthood leader, but that's my opinion. Regret, conviction, prayer, and cessation. 

Here'a a crazy story: a man in my ward grew up on the Navajo Nation (white family). Their bishop once was a Navajo who was an alcoholic who struggled to hold regular meetings and struggled with administering the Church there. His family was (as you can imagine) quite scandalized by an alcoholic bishop (he did strive, but was openly only successful with mixed success). Well, every single one of his children served missions and married in the temple (not a common thing in that culture). The principle could be that God's long view vastly outscopes ours. Maybe enduring an alcoholic, ill-suited bishop was a small short-term price to pay for generations to have the blessings of the covenant.

This is kind of a wow moment for me...gives one pause.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obedience to the Word of Wisdom is a mark of the latter-day covenant people. 

From then-Elder Russell M. Nelson in general conference of October 1988:

[I lost my copy-and-paste. Please bear with me while I find it again.]

I found out that Captain Crunch was one listed to stay away from..what ya gonna do???

[Gray]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I found this article fascinating about divergent attitudes and practices of Mormons regarding the Word of Wisdom.

https://religioninpublic.blog/2018/03/29/one-in-three-mormons-have-had-coffee-recently-another-quarter-drink-alcohol/

It seems that the rising generations don't necessarily take as hard a stand for complete prohibition as my, and older generations do. I have to admit I'm a little shocked by these results. What are your thoughts? Is it what you expected or do you think the survey results are out in left field?

The primary questions revolve around whether or not someone has partaken of a forbidden substance within the past 6 months. I'm not sure why that timeframe was decided upon, but I'm curious if the illustrious board participants feel that a person should be considered as a WoW adherent even if they have partaken some time in the past 6 months. For the purposes of temple recommends, is 6 months a good bar to reach, too short, or too long?

I never would have guessed so many active members are drinking coffee, alcohol, etc. But then I don't suppose that's the kind of detail people tend to share in Sunday school

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The primary questions revolve around whether or not someone has partaken of a forbidden substance within the past 6 months.

Those numbers seem high to me. I would be interested to see what specific questions were asked. 

For example, I have never had a cup of coffee in my life, but I've had a slice of tiramisu before. Does that count as 'partaking of a forbidden substance'? 

In fact, true story: I was helping set up for a RS activity one night, and it was just the Bishop, his First Counselor, and myself all setting up tables / chairs for a dinner they were planning. I was still new to the ward, and the three of us were just chatting as we worked; while we were talking, I mentioned how I had eaten at this Italian place downtown and had tried the tiramisu for dessert (nom nom nom).

Anyway, it was right at that moment that an older lady from the ward walked in and, upon hearing what I was saying, chastised me for doing so: "Don't you know they make that with coffee?" she said. She then proceeded to make sure I knew what was what and walked back out the door (leaving the three of us alone again). Bishop turned to me and said, "Wow. I sure am glad she walked in right when she did, because I was just about to say that I love the tiramisu at that place." 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Amulek

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Those numbers seem high to me. I would be interested to see what specific questions were asked. 

For example, I have never had a cup of coffee in my life, but I've had a slice of tiramisu before. Does that count as 'partaking of a forbidden substance'? 

In fact, true story: I was helping set up for a RS activity one night, and it was just the Bishop, his First Counselor, and myself all setting up tables / chairs for a dinner they were planning. I was still new to the ward, and the three of us were just chatting as we worked; while we were talking, I mentioned how I had eaten at this Italian place downtown and had tried the tiramisu for dessert (nom nom nom).

Anyway, it was right at that moment that an older lady from the ward walked in and, upon hearing what I was saying, chastised me for doing so: "Don't you know they make that with coffee?" she said. She then proceeded to made sure I knew what was what and walked back out the door (leaving the three of us along again). Bishop turned to me and said, "Wow. I sure am glad she walked in right when she did, because I was just about to say that I love the tiramisu at that place." 

 

This sounds like an urban legend. 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I never would have guessed so many active members are drinking coffee, alcohol, etc. But then I don't suppose that's the kind of detail people tend to share in Sunday school

Yeah, kind of surprising. When my daughter arrived at BYU-I, she heard from several other students that green rea was not against the word of wisdom, only black tea. And I know a church employee who enjoys a cup of coffee pretty regularly. 

But, yes, the percentages of active members are kind of startling. 

[strappinglad]

I await the survey that asks active members if they have had extra-marital sex in the last 6 months. That should be a nail in the coffin.

( I also await the inevitable joke about the " extra " in extra- Marital . )

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I never would have guessed so many active members are drinking coffee, alcohol, etc. But then I don't suppose that's the kind of detail people tend to share in Sunday school

I am no longer allowed to tell the story about how I accidentally got drunk at work once or how I paid for my first set of temple worker clothing with my lottery winnings. They are clearly just trying to shut this kind of talk down.

[The Nehor]

After someone in my area was recently excommunicated for trigamy and it just did not seem odd I am beginning to suspect I might just be jaded. The numbers do not surprise me.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This sounds like an urban legend. 

Nope. As much as I would like to be legendary, it's absolutely a true story. Happened about six years ago. 

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This sounds like an urban legend. 

Our bishop in Idaho growing up drank coffee. And had a mustache (my dad was a clerk). 

He was California, though. (Everyone says, "Oh, okay, that explains it.).  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

Our bishop in Idaho growing up drank coffee. And had a mustache (my dad was a clerk). 

He was California, though. (Everyone says, "Oh, okay, that explains it.).  

We Californians are a shifty bunch. 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

We Californians are a shifty bunch. 

Not shifty. Just flaky and tacky . . .