SettingDogStar Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 I’ve heard debate recently on whether or not the first 3 verses of the Word of Wisdom were actually part of the revelation. Some claim they were a header and thus should not be considered as actual scripture, while others say that it was always meant to be there and part of the revelation received. If, in fact, it was a header then it would ruin any arguement using “not by commandment or constraint” as justification for considering the WoW not binding. I always assumed it was and thus I always thought it was interesting that it eventually became a commandment. And clarification would be good!! (As also the Mild Drinks is Barley was always an interesting thing to think about)
Jason_Allred Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 Doesn't really matter to me because we believe in continuing revelation. It appears that it was not initially revealed as a commandment, but then subsequent prophets elevated it to a commandment. The text states that it was a principle "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." So it was purposefully "adapted" for the saints of that time period. It has since been "adapted" to the saints in our day. Further, the text states that the reason it was given was because of the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." Since "conspiring men" change their tactics, then the application of the principle is likewise "adapted" to counter it That's what revelation is--understanding how an eternal principle should apply to the current circumstances.
SettingDogStar Posted August 18, 2019 Author Posted August 18, 2019 33 minutes ago, Jason_Allred said: Doesn't really matter to me because we believe in continuing revelation. It appears that it was not initially revealed as a commandment, but then subsequent prophets elevated it to a commandment. The text states that it was a principle "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." So it was purposefully "adapted" for the saints of that time period. It has since been "adapted" to the saints in our day. Further, the text states that the reason it was given was because of the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." Since "conspiring men" change their tactics, then the application of the principle is likewise "adapted" to counter it That's what revelation is--understanding how an eternal principle should apply to the current circumstances. Sure, I’m fine with continuing revelation and such. I’m just curious about the origin of the first three verses is all and if they were considered as part of the original revelation or not.
carbon dioxide Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said: I’ve heard debate recently on whether or not the first 3 verses of the Word of Wisdom were actually part of the revelation. Some claim they were a header and thus should not be considered as actual scripture, while others say that it was always meant to be there and part of the revelation received. The way I read it, the first 3 verses are an introduction by the Lord to the revelation but its not the revelation itself. What is called the actual revelation called the Word of Wisdom starts in verse 4. I would call the introduction scripture as well and the intent given at the time. Parts were changed later and other parts have remained the same. When asked if a member is living the Word of Wisdom, the issue of eating good things and eating meat sparingly is not brought up. Those parts still remain counsel and not commandment.
SettingDogStar Posted August 18, 2019 Author Posted August 18, 2019 24 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The way I read it, the first 3 verses are an introduction by the Lord to the revelation but its not the revelation itself. What is called the actual revelation called the Word of Wisdom starts in verse 4. I would call the introduction scripture as well and the intent given at the time. Parts were changed later and other parts have remained the same. When asked if a member is living the Word of Wisdom, the issue of eating good things and eating meat sparingly is not brought up. Those parts still remain counsel and not commandment. But from my reading they actually weren’t part of the dictated revelation and were actually added as a header during publication explaining what the Word of Wisdom was. In other words, they seemingly weren’t from Gods mouth. I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s why i asked if anyone knows if they were actually dictated from the spirit or just added later as a header.
Popular Post JAHS Posted August 18, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 18, 2019 (edited) According to the Joseph Smith Papers Section 89 heading "The revised heading in the 2013 edition deletes the last sentence of the earlier heading, which stated that the first three verses of the revelation were written by Joseph Smith. " That last sentence stated exactly: "The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet" "The sources for this change include the versions of the revelation in Revelation Book 1, page 167, and Revelation Book 2, pages 49–50, which treat the opening statement as part of the revelation." So according to those sources it was decided that those first three sentences were actually part of the revelation and not just an "inspired introduction" Edited August 18, 2019 by JAHS 5
Sanpitch Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 From my reading of history, the coffee, tea, tobacco thing was not dictator by revelation, it was an issue that was brought up in conference and voted on by the people that decided that to go to the temple the people had to be free of those things. Seems this was back in about Wilford Woodruffs? day. Does anyone have conflicting evidence, I would like to know. s
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted August 18, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 18, 2019 1 hour ago, JAHS said: According to the Joseph Smith Papers Section 89 heading "The revised heading in the 2013 edition deletes the last sentence of the earlier heading, which stated that the first three verses of the revelation were written by Joseph Smith. " That last sentence stated exactly: "The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet" "The sources for this change include the versions of the revelation in Revelation Book 1, page 167, and Revelation Book 2, pages 49–50, which treat the opening statement as part of the revelation." So according to those sources it was decided that those first three sentences were actually part of the revelation and not just an "inspired introduction" This part of the revelation has always been a sticking point for me. If anything should contradict it, then I have felt it should be by revelation. A policy should never contradict scripture...ever. If a revelation has been received then add to scripture, which we so strongly believe in. The heavens are not closed and God still talks through his prophets. No, a policy is not God talking to his prophets. Policy comes from the Leadership. I recognize they mean well, but they create problems when they create policy that affects scripture. If I could wave a wand and make one thing right today in the Church I would delete all policies that contradict scripture and move forward. 5
JAHS Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: This part of the revelation has always been a sticking point for me. If anything should contradict it, then I have felt it should be by revelation. How do you know it was not by revelation? Revelations don't always have to be canonized into scripture in order to be call revelation. "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) He does specify "voice" in this scripture and not just printed words in scripture.
JAHS Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Sanpitch said: From my reading of history, the coffee, tea, tobacco thing was not dictator by revelation, it was an issue that was brought up in conference and voted on by the people that decided that to go to the temple the people had to be free of those things. Seems this was back in about Wilford Woodruffs? day. Does anyone have conflicting evidence, I would like to know. s The whole thing was at first a gradual increase in the insistence for church members to adhere to the Word of Wisdom. It was Heber J Grant's administration when observing the Word of Wisdom was made mandatory for temple attendance in 1921. I don't see anything about it being voted on in conference. 1
Storm Rider Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 22 minutes ago, JAHS said: How do you know it was not by revelation? Revelations don't always have to be canonized into scripture in order to be call revelation. "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) He does specify "voice" in this scripture and not just printed words in scripture. I have this idea that when God speaks to his prophet to talk to us, the prophet is good at letting us know. If I believed every word that came out of the mouth of those called a prophets, seers, and revelators was from God, then I would have serious issues about some of the things that have occurred in the Church. The fact that I recognize prophets to be men who are willing to serve without losing their humanity empowers me to believe in them as prophets. If God is talking, then I am listening. When he is not talking then I understand that man is talking. I also believe that we recognize and acknowledge that scripture is not closed; that many things will yet be revealed. If that is so, then I am more confident that when the Lord has something to say we will have scripture to prove it. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 Apparently it doesn't matter. The WoW is whatever the current Presidency says it is. Revelation is irrelevant. 4
SettingDogStar Posted August 19, 2019 Author Posted August 19, 2019 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Apparently it doesn't matter. The WoW is whatever the current Presidency says it is. Revelation is irrelevant. I mean that’s one way to look at it!
clarkgoble Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 4 hours ago, Storm Rider said: A policy should never contradict scripture...ever. How do you deal with he Old Testament? Not trying to be snarky, it seems to me pretty difficult to say policy never contradicts scripture since the application of a particular scripture is frequently unclear. Thus the NT conflict between Peter, Paul and others. 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Apparently it doesn't matter. The WoW is whatever the current Presidency says it is. Revelation is irrelevant. I know you're being snarky, but I don't think that quite follows. Further of course there are epistemological issues. Not all revelations are equally clear - something frequently left out of these discussions particularly of scripture. We have to interpret them and then we have to figure out which parts are inspired. (For instance I don't think everything Paul wrote is inspired - and he clearly wasn't the head of the Church so I also have questions about its authority.) 2
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 1 minute ago, clarkgoble said: We have to interpret them and then we have to figure out which parts are inspired. (For instance I don't think everything Paul wrote is inspired - and he clearly wasn't the head of the Church so I also have questions about its authority.) Which brings up the opinion vs doctrine vs revelation debate all over again. Like nailing jello to a wall. I get that God wants us to exercise faith. But making us guess his will seems counterproductive. 3
clarkgoble Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which brings up the opinion vs doctrine vs revelation debate all over again. Like nailing jello to a wall. I get that God wants us to exercise faith. But making us guess his will seems counterproductive. I think this is where the pragmatist can offer a lot of explanation since the issue would be vague revelations and we have to work with the vagueness and discover both how to communicate with God on our own as well as better discover what God's will is. Clarity and determination make life easy, but I'd argue they work fundamentally against the skills and motivation this life is attempting to develop. Certainly God could clearly designate in detail what's right or wrong. But that was exactly the state of affairs before we were born. What's the point of this life then? 1
JAHS Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which brings up the opinion vs doctrine vs revelation debate all over again. Like nailing jello to a wall. I get that God wants us to exercise faith. But making us guess his will seems counterproductive. We do and accept what the current 15 apostles and prophets tell us and if it's wrong it's on their heads. We can use our own spirit of discernment to decide how we apply what they say to us according to our own individual situations. It's easy for me, but then that's just me.
sunstoned Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 7 hours ago, Jason_Allred said: Doesn't really matter to me because we believe in continuing revelation. It appears that it was not initially revealed as a commandment, but then subsequent prophets elevated it to a commandment. The text states that it was a principle "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." So it was purposefully "adapted" for the saints of that time period. It has since been "adapted" to the saints in our day. Further, the text states that the reason it was given was because of the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." Since "conspiring men" change their tactics, then the application of the principle is likewise "adapted" to counter it That's what revelation is--understanding how an eternal principle should apply to the current circumstances. Could you point out to me the revelation the elevated it to a commandment? I'm not interested in BYs opinion. Many of his opinions have turned out wrong. History has given us a very good example in the priesthood ban of what can happen when we make assumptions of what God thinks. 1
RevTestament Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 9 hours ago, JAHS said: According to the Joseph Smith Papers Section 89 heading "The revised heading in the 2013 edition deletes the last sentence of the earlier heading, which stated that the first three verses of the revelation were written by Joseph Smith. " That last sentence stated exactly: "The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet" "The sources for this change include the versions of the revelation in Revelation Book 1, page 167, and Revelation Book 2, pages 49–50, which treat the opening statement as part of the revelation." So according to those sources it was decided that those first three sentences were actually part of the revelation and not just an "inspired introduction" 11 hours ago, SettingDogStar said: And clarification would be good!! Further, the WoW is one large chiasmus, of which the first 3 verses are a part. Eliminating them would destroy the chiastic structure of the revelation - indicating that they were part of the original revelation.
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 9 hours ago, JAHS said: We do and accept what the current 15 apostles and prophets tell us and if it's wrong it's on their heads. I'd really love to know where such an idea comes from doctrinally. I can't imagine standing before the judgement bar of Christ and using the "I was just following orders" excuse. We aren't under 8 and they aren't our parents. 4
JAHS Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I'd really love to know where such an idea comes from doctrinally. I can't imagine standing before the judgement bar of Christ and using the "I was just following orders" excuse. We aren't under 8 and they aren't our parents. No doctrine. My opinion. I simply trust and have faith that all 15 of them would not do anything to jeopardize my eternal life.
SettingDogStar Posted August 19, 2019 Author Posted August 19, 2019 57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I'd really love to know where such an idea comes from doctrinally. I can't imagine standing before the judgement bar of Christ and using the "I was just following orders" excuse. We aren't under 8 and they aren't our parents. Prophets have led men astray before and taught innaccurate doctrines. It’s unwise to put total and complete faith in any mortal being. I wouldn’t want to have that excuse either, because it’s one that wouldn’t work. 1
hoo rider Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 38 minutes ago, JAHS said: No doctrine. My opinion. I simply trust and have faith that all 15 of them would not do anything to jeopardize my eternal life. Kind of interesting to compare your opinion to 2 Nephi 28:31: Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 46 minutes ago, JAHS said: No doctrine. My opinion. I simply trust and have faith that all 15 of them would not do anything to jeopardize my eternal life. They aren't accountable for your salvation or eternal life. You are.
JAHS Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 14 minutes ago, hoo rider said: Kind of interesting to compare your opinion to 2 Nephi 28:31: Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. I am not trusting man I am trusting God to inspire his prophets to lead correctly 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: They aren't accountable for your salvation or eternal life. You are. Of course I am. If I commit sin it is all my fault and no one else's.
Recommended Posts