More Word of Wisdom Discussion!

[Stargazer]

I was going to post this on the Vaping thread, but decided it would be a definite threadjack if it got any traction, so here it is on its own.

I have an LDS Facebook friend whom I've never met, but he and I have occasional discussions about British politics, since he's a Labourite and anti-Brexit, and I'm opposite.  Today he posted the following, which is actually a quote from another Facebook friend of his.  I got his permission to re-post this here (don't think it's against the rules, since Facebook isn't a message board). I've tried to entice him to come here and participate, but so far no luck.  Maybe he thinks he has enough drains on his time...

Anyway, your thoughts are solicited.  Note that I don't necessarily agree with any of this, but thought these observations were interesting and worthy of discussion.

--------------------------------------------

"Alright Latter-day Saints, let's put this to bed.

Yes, at the time that the revelation was given, the most common "hot drinks” for New Englanders were tea and coffee. So, yes, the revelation was referring to tea and coffee. But all indications suggest that the issue was the temperature of them. Avoiding "hot drinks" literally meant don't consume boiling hot beverages. This was based on pseudo-dietary science of the time that taught extreme temperature threw one's body out of balance and decreased its ability to ward off illness. The fact that Joseph Smith still drank coffee (if you ever visit Nauvoo, be sure to take a tour of the Mansion House. You'll be delighted to learn that one of the few artifacts original to the Smiths is a coffee bean grinder) tells us that it wasn't, in his mind, about prohibiting coffee or tea. It was literally about letting it cool off for a bit. Also, iced tea and iced coffee weren't things in 1833. Nobody had ice. At least not during the summer.

And the revelation wasn't about addiction, per se. Outside of being a "drunkard," there was very little concept of addictive substances in the early-1800s. Even the label "drunkard" was generally aimed at those who drank distilled, not fermented, alcohol. Whiskey and rum ("strong drink") were seen as contributing to immorality (laziness, spousal abuse, rude conduct, prostitution, etc.). Ale and wine ("mild drink") were seen as safer (and, in reality, they were safer than most of the water sources at the time). When the revelation referred to "barley ... for mild drinks," it was recommending beer. It's well-documented that Joseph Smith enjoyed wine until his last day (literally). Tobacco was viewed as an unseemly habit, but not because it was thought to be addictive (those studies didn't come out until much later). It was unseemly because it was gross and stinky (this was Emma's complaint). I mean, it wasn't but fifty years after this that we were putting cocaine into cola beverages and touting it as medicinal.

Now, there are many who will say "that's what makes this a true revelation. Even though they didn't know of the dangers of addictive substances at the time, God did, and now look at how much society would benefit by following it." While that may be true, that still doesn't mean that was the original intent of the Word of Wisdom. It's a benefit, to be sure, but c'mon, who among us is avoiding meat in the summer and only consuming it during winter or times of famine as the revelation instructs?

That said, the spirit of the word of wisdom is simple: make responsible choices. Take care of your body and mind. Let's not complicate it with unnecessary legalistic definitions, and let's stop using it as a determining factor of one's worthiness. It's not the modern Law of Moses. It's a recommendation for moderation and sensible consumption of food and beverages (from a nineteenth-century perspective)."

Edited August 19, 2019 by Stargazer

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's a recommendation for moderation and sensible consumption of food and beverages (from a nineteenth-century perspective)."

Right, the "original intent" of the word of wisdom was for 19th century saints, but we are no longer in the 19th century so we need to rely on what our current prophets advise regarding what we take into our bodies.

[provoman]

I can only shake my head when people provide their own philosophy as "the original intent" for any given revelation. 

 

[ksfisher]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This was based on pseudo-dietary science of the time that taught extreme temperature threw one's body out of balance and decreased its ability to ward off illness.

Drinking hot tea linked with elevated risk of esophageal cancer

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102028.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160615111712.htm

 

Consuming hot tea at high temperatures is associated with an increased risk for esophageal cancer in those who also drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, a new study finds.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205195627.htm

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

I can only shake my head when people provide their own philosophy as "the original intent" for any given revelation. 

 

Sure, but "hot drinks" had to be interpreted so as to not forbid hot chocolate, didn't they?  I can answer "Yes" to the temple recommend question even if I eat meat every day of the year, so isn't that also subject to interpretation?  Were you aware that when the Nigerian mission was first opened and one of the first faux-Mormon congregations officially joined the Church, that they had to be told that they could start eating oatmeal again?  Because DC 89 said oats were for horses (v. 17) they assumed that they weren't for man (they seemed to have missed verse 16, which said all grains were for man).  The question "What constitutes the Word of Wisdom when it comes to temple worthiness?" is a matter of interpretation, and worthy of discussion.

As for me, even if the Word of Wisdom was declared no longer mandatory for temple worthiness, I would still never, ever start smoking or using tobacco in any form.  I'd also not drink strong drinks, though I might drink a beer occasionally.  But I hope that the Four Horsemen of the WoW are never made voluntary.  I like things the way they are.

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Drinking hot tea linked with elevated risk of esophageal cancer

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102028.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160615111712.htm

 

Consuming hot tea at high temperatures is associated with an increased risk for esophageal cancer in those who also drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, a new study finds.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205195627.htm

Yes, that puts a bit of a hole into the proposal, doesn't it?

Edited August 19, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

38 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right, the "original intent" of the word of wisdom was for 19th century saints, but we are no longer in the 19th century so we need to rely on what our current prophets advise regarding what we take into our bodies.

Absolutely. No argument here.

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I was going to post this on the Vaping thread, but decided it would be a definite threadjack if it got any traction, so here it is on its own.

I have an LDS Facebook friend whom I've never met, but he and I have occasional discussions about British politics, since he's a Labourite and anti-Brexit, and I'm opposite.  Today he posted the following, which is actually a quote from another Facebook friend of his.  I got his permission to re-post this here (don't think it's against the rules, since Facebook isn't a message board). I've tried to entice him to come here and participate, but so far no luck.  Maybe he thinks he has enough drains on his time...

Anyway, your thoughts are solicited.  Note that I don't necessarily agree with any of this, but thought these observations were interesting and worthy of discussion.

--------------------------------------------

"Alright Latter-day Saints, let's put this to bed.

Yes, at the time that the revelation was given, the most common "hot drinks” for New Englanders were tea and coffee. So, yes, the revelation was referring to tea and coffee. But all indications suggest that the issue was the temperature of them. Avoiding "hot drinks" literally meant don't consume boiling hot beverages. This was based on pseudo-dietary science of the time that taught extreme temperature threw one's body out of balance and decreased its ability to ward off illness. The fact that Joseph Smith still drank coffee (if you ever visit Nauvoo, be sure to take a tour of the Mansion House. You'll be delighted to learn that one of the few artifacts original to the Smiths is a coffee bean grinder) tells us that it wasn't, in his mind, about prohibiting coffee or tea. It was literally about letting it cool off for a bit. Also, iced tea and iced coffee weren't things in 1833. Nobody had ice. At least not during the summer.

And the revelation wasn't about addiction, per se. Outside of being a "drunkard," there was very little concept of addictive substances in the early-1800s. Even the label "drunkard" was generally aimed at those who drank distilled, not fermented, alcohol. Whiskey and rum ("strong drink") were seen as contributing to immorality (laziness, spousal abuse, rude conduct, prostitution, etc.). Ale and wine ("mild drink") were seen as safer (and, in reality, they were safer than most of the water sources at the time). When the revelation referred to "barley ... for mild drinks," it was recommending beer. It's well-documented that Joseph Smith enjoyed wine until his last day (literally). Tobacco was viewed as an unseemly habit, but not because it was thought to be addictive (those studies didn't come out until much later). It was unseemly because it was gross and stinky (this was Emma's complaint). I mean, it wasn't but fifty years after this that we were putting cocaine into cola beverages and touting it as medicinal.

Now, there are many who will say "that's what makes this a true revelation. Even though they didn't know of the dangers of addictive substances at the time, God did, and now look at how much society would benefit by following it." While that may be true, that still doesn't mean that was the original intent of the Word of Wisdom. It's a benefit, to be sure, but c'mon, who among us is avoiding meat in the summer and only consuming it during winter or times of famine as the revelation instructs?

That said, the spirit of the word of wisdom is simple: make responsible choices. Take care of your body and mind. Let's not complicate it with unnecessary legalistic definitions, and let's stop using it as a determining factor of one's worthiness. It's not the modern Law of Moses. It's a recommendation for moderation and sensible consumption of food and beverages (from a nineteenth-century perspective)."

I think the bolded part is the whole point of the WoW. It wasn't about creating new commandments or worthiness qualifications.

I will admit that I no longer follow the modern interpretation of the WoW with exactness. Yet I'm healthier now than I've ever been in my adult life...by far. So while I no longer qualify for a TR, I believe I am following the spirit of the WoW and am quite happy with my level of health and fitness. I am in no way an addict to any substance and anything I do partake of is done legally and in moderation. I think God wants us to be happy and healthy, and use wisdom in what we eat and drink and is likely displeased at the way the church as created new commandments and worthiness tests.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

--------------------------------------------

"Alright Latter-day Saints, let's put this to bed.

Yes, at the time that the revelation was given, the most common "hot drinks” for New Englanders were tea and coffee.

It appears that the exegesis of "hot drinks" which the Church uses today originated with Hyrum Smith (and, apparently, with Joseph).

Also consider these remarks by Brigham Young:

Quote

“This Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of hot drinks and tobacco. I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee-the beverages in common use. And the Lord said hot drinks are not good for the body nor the belly.” (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, selected and arranged by John A. Widtsoe, p.182)

A few more bits (same link):

Quote

“Hot drinks” were officially defined as tea and coffee in a general conference in the very early days of the Mormon Church. Elder John A. Widtsoe, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reported the following:

Quote

“The Word of Wisdom contains certain very important warnings. It declares that alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee are not good for the body. The revelation says “hot drinks,” but before the revelation was a year old, “hot drinks” were defined to include tea and coffee” (Elder John A. Widtsoe, Conference Report, April 1926).

And Victor L. Ludlow has further clarified that the “hot drinks” referred to in the Word of Wisdom do not apply to the herbal teas.

Quote

“The Word of Wisdom counsels against drinking “hot drinks,” which have been identified by early Church leaders as coffee and tea. “Tea” refers to the standard tea derived from the tea plant, sometimes called black tea or green tea. The Word of Wisdom has not been interpreted as proscribing herbal teas, stating that “all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man (D&C 89:10)” (Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel, p.434).

Now, what is the difference between green and black tea? They both come from the same camellia sinensis plant. The only difference between the two is that black tea is further processed by fermentation.

Also, it is my understanding that iced tea is usually derived from the same plant (camellia sinensis).  

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So, yes, the revelation was referring to tea and coffee. But all indications suggest that the issue was the temperature of them.

I'm not sure about that.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Avoiding "hot drinks" literally meant don't consume boiling hot beverages.

That's not what Hyrum said.  Or Brigham Young.  Or John A. Widtsoe.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This was based on pseudo-dietary science of the time that taught extreme temperature threw one's body out of balance and decreased its ability to ward off illness.

Or . . . not.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The fact that Joseph Smith still drank coffee (if you ever visit Nauvoo, be sure to take a tour of the Mansion House. You'll be delighted to learn that one of the few artifacts original to the Smiths is a coffee bean grinder) tells us that it wasn't, in his mind, about prohibiting coffee or tea. It was literally about letting it cool off for a bit.

Joseph Smith also imbibed at Carthage.  The application of the Word of Wisdom was originally not by commandment.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Also, iced tea and iced coffee weren't things in 1833. Nobody had ice. At least not during the summer.

Hence the one-to-one correlation between "hot drinks" and tea/coffee.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And the revelation wasn't about addiction, per se.

I think avoiding addiction is part of the Word of Wisdom.  

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Outside of being a "drunkard," there was very little concept of addictive substances in the early-1800s.

Perhaps addictive behaviors were then, as sometimes now, seen as moral/character failings, rather than the result of chemical dependency.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Even the label "drunkard" was generally aimed at those who drank distilled, not fermented, alcohol. Whiskey and rum ("strong drink") were seen as contributing to immorality (laziness, spousal abuse, rude conduct, prostitution, etc.). Ale and wine ("mild drink") were seen as safer (and, in reality, they were safer than most of the water sources at the time).

I wonder if "mild drinks" also operated as an alternative where clean drinking water was scarce.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

When the revelation referred to "barley ... for mild drinks," it was recommending beer.

Or allowing it, yes.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's well-documented that Joseph Smith enjoyed wine until his last day (literally). Tobacco was viewed as an unseemly habit, but not because it was thought to be addictive (those studies didn't come out until much later). It was unseemly because it was gross and stinky (this was Emma's complaint). I mean, it wasn't but fifty years after this that we were putting cocaine into cola beverages and touting it as medicinal.

Okay.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Now, there are many who will say "that's what makes this a true revelation. Even though they didn't know of the dangers of addictive substances at the time, God did, and now look at how much society would benefit by following it." While that may be true, that still doesn't mean that was the original intent of the Word of Wisdom.

I'm not sure strict originalism was or is intended when construing D&C 89.  Hence we have verse 3 ("Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints...").  And 1 Nephi 19:23 ("{F}or I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning").  And D&C 98:12 ("For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept...").  And D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant...").

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's a benefit, to be sure, but c'mon, who among us is avoiding meat in the summer and only consuming it during winter or times of famine as the revelation instructs?

I concede that I do not understand why this provision is not enforced.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That said, the spirit of the word of wisdom is simple: make responsible choices.

I agree.  However, life in 2019 is much, much more complex than it was in 1833.  Folks back then had quite limited options as to what they could take into their bodies.  Today, there are all sorts of legal and illegal substances that are unhealthy, that are addictive, mind-altering, etc.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Take care of your body and mind. Let's not complicate it with unnecessary legalistic definitions, and let's stop using it as a determining factor of one's worthiness.

I think the the proscription against coffee and tea is the only part of the Word of Wisdom that is unusual.  All the others make a lot of sense.  

Teetotaling is a perfectly valid approach to alcohol.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Here:

  Quote

No amount of alcohol is good for your overall health, global study says
By Sandee LaMotte, CNN
Updated 1:09 PM ET, Fri August 24, 2018

If you're one of the third of all humankind who drinks alcohol, take note: There's no amount of liquor, wine or beer that is safe for your overall health, according to a new analysis of 2016 global alcohol consumption and disease risk.

Alcohol was the leading risk factor for disease and premature death in men and women between the ages of 15 and 49 worldwide in 2016, accounting for nearly one in 10 deaths, according to the study, published Thursday in the journal The Lancet.

For all ages, alcohol was associated with 2.8 million deaths that year.

Those deaths include alcohol-related cancer and cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, intentional injury such as violence and self-harm, and traffic accidents and other unintentional injuries such as drowning and fires.

Here's a link to the study itself.

  Quote

"The most surprising finding was that even small amounts of alcohol use contribute to health loss globally," said senior study author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. "We're used to hearing that a drink or two a day is fine. But the evidence is the evidence."

Hmm.  I've never framed consumption of alcohol as per se unsafe.  

I thought this rebuttal (quoted in the article) was rather weak:

  Quote

"This study is a stark reminder of the real, and potentially lethal, dangers that too much alcohol can have on our health and that even the lowest levels of alcohol intake increase our risks," Helen Stokes-Lampard, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK, said in a statement. She was not involved in the study.

However, countered David Spiegelhalter, the Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention.

"There is no safe level of driving, but governments do not recommend that people avoid driving," Spiegelhalter, who also was not involved in the research, said in a statement. 

C'mon.  Driving - transporting ourselves from place to place - is a necessity.  Hence taking the risks associated with driving is a necessity.

Drinking, on the other hand, is not a necessity.

  Quote

The countries with the highest percentage of men and women who reported drinking in the previous year were Denmark, Norway and Germany. Although they didn't make the top 10, 85.3% of men and 81.3% of women in the UK said they had tippled in the previous 12 months. In the US, 68.8% of men and 56.8% of women said they had done so.

Countries with the lowest percentage of drinking citizens were typically Arab and Middle Eastern nations.

FWIW, according to this article, Utah (67.7% of which identify as LDS) ranks 48th for alcohol consumption in the U.S.  Idaho (26.4% LDS) ranks 41st.

I am not interested in condemning people who choose to imbibe.  But for my religious beliefs, I would probably consume alcohol.

Thoughts?

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's not the modern Law of Moses.

And it's not really applied that way, either.

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's a recommendation for moderation and sensible consumption of food and beverages (from a nineteenth-century perspective)."

It was a recommendation.  It became more than that over time.  

The Saints are much, much better off with the Word of Wisdom than without it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the bolded part is the whole point of the WoW. It wasn't about creating new commandments or worthiness qualifications.

I will admit that I no longer follow the modern interpretation of the WoW with exactness.

Would following it with exactness make you less healthy, do you think?

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet I'm healthier now than I've ever been in my adult life...by far. So while I no longer qualify for a TR, I believe I am following the spirit of the WoW and am quite happy with my level of health and fitness. I am in no way an addict to any substance and anything I do partake of is done legally and in moderation. I think God wants us to be happy and healthy, and use wisdom in what we eat and drink and is likely displeased at the way the church as created new commandments and worthiness tests.

I tend to think that the portion of the Word of Wisdom that was made a criterion for temple worthiness was made so for a wise reason and was in accordance with God's will concerning the matter. We may not see this now, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.

It's not just a health law, in other words.  In my humble opinion.

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The question "What constitutes the Word of Wisdom when it comes to temple worthiness?" is a matter of interpretation, and worthy of discussion.

And that question is answered in Church materials. 

I just am not particular to "well what it really meant is *insert personal philosophy*" discussions.

I appreciate your comments on the other discussion, particular your beer in chili comment.

I also appreciate other comments that suggested avoid cooking with alcohol just to be safe. 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

And that question is answered in Church materials. 

I just am not particular to "well what it really meant is *insert personal philosophy*" discussions.

I appreciate your comments on the other discussion, particular your beer in chili comment.

I also appreciate other comments that suggested avoid cooking with alcohol just to be safe. 

I regard respectful discussion over matters of practice to be healthy in a spiritual sense, so while I am also not particular to personal philosophy discussions (if "particular" is the word you meant to use), it helps me formulate methods of approach and explanation to non-members and possibly less-active members with regard to these subjects.

 

[cherryTreez]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sure, but "hot drinks" had to be interpreted so as to not forbid hot chocolate, didn't they?  I can answer "Yes" to the temple recommend question even if I eat meat every day of the year, so isn't that also subject to interpretation?  Were you aware that when the Nigerian mission was first opened and one of the first faux-Mormon congregations officially joined the Church, that they had to be told that they could start eating oatmeal again?  Because DC 89 said oats were for horses (v. 17) they assumed that they weren't for man (they seemed to have missed verse 16, which said all grains were for man).  The question "What constitutes the Word of Wisdom when it comes to temple worthiness?" is a matter of interpretation, and worthy of discussion.

As for me, even if the Word of Wisdom was declared no longer mandatory for temple worthiness, I would still never, ever start smoking or using tobacco in any form.  I'd also not drink strong drinks, though I might drink a beer occasionally.  But I hope that the Four Horsemen of the WoW are never made voluntary.  I like things the way they are.

My mom tells me that I breaking the wow by not making my son eat wheat.  He is very intolerant to wheat. She thinks he will be blessed if he follows it word for word.  She sees it as black and white.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, cherryTreez said:

My mom tells me that I breaking the wow by not making my son eat wheat.  He is very intolerant to wheat. She thinks he will be blessed if he follows it word for word.  She sees it as black and white.  

Do not let her watch him unsupervised.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

............................Hence the one-to-one correlation between "hot drinks" and tea/coffee.............................

What about a cup of hot postum?

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

My mom tells me that I breaking the wow by not making my son eat wheat.  He is very intolerant to wheat. She thinks he will be blessed if he follows it word for word.  She sees it as black and white.  

Well, I hope you continue to respectfully defy her in this!  

And just because "wheat is for man" does not mean man MUST eat wheat.  "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground..." does NOT mean that one MUST eat grain.  But spelt is grain, too, and while I don't know if it is an allergen for those with wheat intolerance, it would be a nifty substitute.  "that which yieldeth fruit" would include strawberries, and so does this mean that people who are allergic to strawberries MUST eat strawberries in order to comply with the WoW?  And if we MUST eat wheat, must we eat it every day, every week, once a year, or is there some other required schedule?

Good heavens.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Stargazer

[MustardSeed]

At what degree is hot not hot?  😕

I envy those who can in good conscious live their lives and be non apologetic about being extremely healthy but unconventional.  

Im a rule follower.  Still healthy, but I could be much healthier if I ate less red meat, less sugar, and no soda.  I don’t see a single issue with a cup of unadulterated coffee or a once a week wine but I’ve never tried either one because I like to belong, I like to be obedient and I like to keep my promises. But I am not critical of anyone who partakes- so long as they are honest about it.

Edited August 19, 2019 by MustardSeed

[cherryTreez]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do not let her watch him unsupervised.

He is 14 and knows to not trust grandma. She got him sick twice before I figured it out. I watched her bring him food with this look on her face. I stopped him from eating it and she got upset with me. 

I don't get it. She watched him suffer and be very sick for years. We went to doctor after doctor. We all prayed and we so thankful that we found the problem. She didn't like the solution to the problem. I cannot understand it. I was so thankful it was only changing his diet and it made my boy better. 

[cherryTreez]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I hope you continue to respectfully defy her in this!  

And just because "wheat is for man" does not mean man MUST eat wheat.  "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground..." does NOT mean that one MUST eat grain.  But spelt is grain, too, and while I don't know if it is an allergen for those with wheat intolerance, it would be a nifty substitute.  "that which yieldeth fruit" would include strawberries, and so does this mean that people who are allergic to strawberries MUST eat strawberries in order to comply with the WoW?  And if we MUST eat wheat, must we eat it every day, every week, once a year, or is there some other required schedule?

Good heavens.

Yes. I refuse. He throws up horribly when he eats wheat.  He was skinny and had other health problems from it. He learned to read labels at a very young age. He refuses homemade food unless itself me and my one sister. He will question me at times when I make something new or it looks too good.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

He is 14 and knows to not trust grandma. She got him sick twice before I figured it out. I watched her bring him food with this look on her face. I stopped him from eating it and she got upset with me. 

I don't get it. She watched him suffer and be very sick for years. We went to doctor after doctor. We all prayed and we so thankful that we found the problem. She didn't like the solution to the problem. I cannot understand it. I was so thankful it was only changing his diet and it made my boy better. 

I know of a case where a grandma loved using coconut oil while braiding her daughter’s hair. It was a cultural thing so she wanted to do it for grandchildren too. One of her grandchildren had a severe coconut allergy. Grandma knew all this but was convinced it was not that bad. While she was watching the kids overnight she used coconut oil on the granddaughter while braiding her hair and spotted the reaction in the skin. She stopped but just put the girl to bed with the coconut oil still on her figuring it would clear up and her parents would never know. The girl was dead by morning. The family never spoke or interacted with grandma again. Grandma is somehow convinced she is the victim in the situation because she cannot see her other grandkids anymore. Some people’s brains are just broken.

Edited August 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I was going to post this on the Vaping thread, but decided it would be a definite threadjack if it got any traction, so here it is on its own.

The "order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days" (verse 2) is ongoing. Section 89 can be the springboard for any number of valid instructions coming to us under the auspices of those whose right it is to exercise the keys to do so.

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know of a case where a grandma loved using coconut oil while braiding her daughter’s hair. It was a cultural thing so she wanted to do it for grandchildren too. One of her grandchildren had a severe coconut allergy. Grandma knew all this but was convinced it was not that bad. While she was watching the kids overnight she used coconut oil on the granddaughter while braiding her hair and spotted the reaction in the skin. She stopped but just put the girl to bed with the coconut oil still on her figuring it would clear up and her parents would never know. The girl was dead by morning. The family never spoke or interacted with grandma again. Grandma is somehow convinced she is the victim in the situation because she cannot see her other grandkids anymore. Some people’s brains are just broken.

That is the worst story i"ve ever heard Nehor...congratulations....

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

I can only shake my head when people provide their own philosophy as "the original intent" for any given revelation. 

 

Because of course it is only our own interpretation that is correct in deciding what the original intent was, right?  

How do you get out from under that problem?

 

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because of course it is only our own interpretation that is correct in deciding what the original intent was, right?  

How do you get out from under that problem?

 

Not sure what you mean. I am asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom. I answer as I see fit. I do not get into the weeds about what the original intent was.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I can only shake my head when people provide their own philosophy as "the original intent" for any given revelation. 

19 minutes ago, provoman said:

Not sure what you mean. I am asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom. I answer as I see fit. I do not get into the weeds about what the original intent was.

That first quote of course is yours too- though I copied it from my answer

Sorry I took this to mean that you knew the original intent and others did not.  My error.

Interesting exercise though in how we each give our own interpretations to words, isn't it? 

Even if one takes the church's explanations literally word by word there is still room for misinterpretation