More Word of Wisdom Discussion!

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Aren't you currently serving as a stake president?

Released as bishop 3 years ago...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71033-sam-young-is-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209854726

 

[MustardSeed]

I have followed the wow with cultural exactness.  It has *not* protected me from literal faint or pain and at times my pain has stopped me from my duties.  I am by and large fairly healthy.  But I don’t think absence of coffee or tea has made the difference there, as I have not known people to be sick from them.  But I do believe I have more peace by being obedient. Being a rule follower, I’d be broken with guilt if I enjoyed a coffee. 

Fwiw. 

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You can still get Postum (since 1895) in the original or coffee flavors:

 

Thank you for letting me know.  I knew they had stopped making it but I hadn't heard that are now making it again. Now I'll have to buy it to see if I like it as much as I did before I knew about Kaffree Roma, which is also some pretty good stuff!

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus and Joseph Smith both drank actual alcoholic wine.  Jews sometimes added water to it.

Yeah, I know, but the fermented wine still wasn't and isn't the "best" wine available and it's usually fresher when people, like Jesus, make it themselves.

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Where is that?  The Holy Land?

Yeah, and other places like that where the water is not filtered and open to animals and even people doing all kinds of thing in it.  I'm sure glad I wasn't born in those old days when water wasn't as pure as it is available now.

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On what do you base your supposition that the wine at Cana was unfermented?

Their culture back then and the fact that it was made fresh and my own experiences tasting the two kinds.  And also as I said it is my own personal opinion  that the unfermented wine is the "best" wine. 

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think it probably was fermented.  The fact that the bridegroom was asked why he saved the "good" wine (John 2: 10) for the last is an indication that Jesus not only changed the water to grape juice, but that he also caused it to instantly turn to the fermented alcohol-containing beverage. It would still be a miracle to change water to grape juice; but it makes it even more so a miracle to change it to wine, which would normally require a lot of time for the fermentation process to produce the alcohol. 

No, not really.  Some people just have a hard time calling unfermented juice "wine" because that's the modern way the word "wine" is defined, but back then unfermented juice was also called wine and lots of people actually preferred it to be unfermented.

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-historical-and-scriptural-facts-about-fermented-drinks-bible

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

.....................................

Yeah, and other places like that where the water is not filtered and open to animals and even people doing all kinds of thing in it.  I'm sure glad I wasn't born in those old days when water wasn't as pure as it is available now......................

Today, the vast majority of Israelis drink water which comes from water purification (desalination) plants along the Mediterranean coast.  They use a lot of grey water for agriculture.

[etana]

On 8/21/2019 at 10:24 AM, Ahab said:

No, not really.  Some people just have a hard time calling unfermented juice "wine" because that's the modern way the word "wine" is defined, but back then unfermented juice was also called wine and lots of people actually preferred it to be unfermented.

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-historical-and-scriptural-facts-about-fermented-drinks-bible

I doubt that "Mitz" (Juice) was ever confused for "Yayin (Wine). The Jews have two completely separate words to describe the two (as does Greek) and i suspect Aramaic did as well.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, etana said:

I doubt that "Mitz" (Juice) was ever confused for "Yayin (Wine). The Jews have two completely separate words to describe the two (as does Greek) and i suspect Aramaic did as well.

The text in the link I provided states:

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Albert Barnes wrote, “The wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol. It was the common drink of the people and did not produce intoxication.” And Adam Clarke, commenting on Genesis 40:11, wrote, “From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape without fermentation. The saky, or cupbearer, took the bunch [of grapes], pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of his master. This was anciently the yayin [wine] of the Hebrews, the oinos [wine] of the Greeks, and the mustum [wine] of the ancient Latins.” Clarke’s comments agree with the Scripture that declares “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, ‘Do not destroy it, for a blessing is in it’ ” (Isaiah 65:8, NKJV).

[etana]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The text in the link I provided states:

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Albert Barnes wrote, “The wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol. It was the common drink of the people and did not produce intoxication.” And Adam Clarke, commenting on Genesis 40:11, wrote, “From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape without fermentation. The saky, or cupbearer, took the bunch [of grapes], pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of his master. This was anciently the yayin [wine] of the Hebrews, the oinos [wine] of the Greeks, and the mustum [wine] of the ancient Latins.” Clarke’s comments agree with the Scripture that declares “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, ‘Do not destroy it, for a blessing is in it’ ” (Isaiah 65:8, NKJV).

I don't know who your sources are or how they justify those statements. Colour me skeptical that ancients would not use the word juice when talking about juice.

[Bob Crockett]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The text in the link I provided states:

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Albert Barnes wrote, “The wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol. It was the common drink of the people and did not produce intoxication.” And Adam Clarke, commenting on Genesis 40:11, wrote, “From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape without fermentation. The saky, or cupbearer, took the bunch [of grapes], pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of his master. This was anciently the yayin [wine] of the Hebrews, the oinos [wine] of the Greeks, and the mustum [wine] of the ancient Latins.” Clarke’s comments agree with the Scripture that declares “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, ‘Do not destroy it, for a blessing is in it’ ” (Isaiah 65:8, NKJV).

This doesn't make a lot of sense.  First, one doesn't "mix" alcohol with wine. The story of Jesus' first miracle indicates that wine was always fermented.  Wine is not grape juice.

Fermenting led to purification. Wine naturally became fermented.   Middle-easterners rarely drank water. 

You get your quotes from this website:  https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-historical-and-scriptural-facts-about-fermented-drinks-bible.  But this website uses the falsity of these quotes to distinguish the truth of the matter, and that was that NT wine was fermented. 

Jesus himself drank wine (Lk. 22:18; Matt. 11:18-19; 26:27-29), and was charged with drinking too much by his accusers, as the website says.

[Islander]

I am a convert to the church so it always stroke me that the emphasis is on the use of coffee/tea and alcohol. Personally, the former is rather a laxative for me and the latter I find pretty repulsive. But how about the rest of the revelation? I am still to see an overweight latterday saint have his/her temple recommend denied for being fat and obviously not adhering to the entire word of wisdom. Why make this particular portion of the revelation of such monumental import and disregard or ignore so many others? I believe it provides a false sense of piety and self righteousness that is just window dressing for many other more critical and tangible flaws in people. But they think that as long as they "comply" with this one, they are in the good. How about the rest: 

"Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;"

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, Islander said:

I am a convert to the church so it always stroke me that the emphasis is on the use of coffee/tea and alcohol. Personally, the former is rather a laxative for me and the latter I find pretty repulsive. But how about the rest of the revelation? I am still to see an overweight latterday saint have his/her temple recommend denied for being fat and obviously not adhering to the entire word of wisdom. Why make this particular portion of the revelation of such monumental import and disregard or ignore so many others? I believe it provides a false sense of piety and self righteousness that is just window dressing for many other more critical and tangible flaws in people. But they think that as long as they "comply" with this one, they are in the good. How about the rest: 

"Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;"

We aren't supposed to follow the word of wisdom.  We're supposed to follow the prophet.  Priorities.

[Islander]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We aren't supposed to follow the word of wisdom.  We're supposed to follow the prophet.  Priorities.

So, are we speaking of situational or selective applications of revelation here? That is a dangerous path. Rabbi in Israel created 613 commandments that were added to the Mosaic Law just to get around it. They equally modified the law of God to suit their needs. Jesus railed against such "partial" and grossly incorrect application of the law in His time and called the pharisees and scribes "hypocrites". All I am saying is that why the emphasis on just one part of the revelation (is not a commandment, by the way) and not the entire word as given to us by the Lord Himself?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Islander said:

 All I am saying is that why the emphasis on just one part of the revelation (is not a commandment, by the way) and not the entire word as given to us by the Lord Himself?

And I'm explaining that whatever the current prophet wants to enforce, ignore or add is the only part that matters.  Prophet's choice.

At least that's what we're supposed to think.

[Hamba Tuhan]

In the April 1867 General Conference, Pres Brigham Young called on the Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom and, in doing so, formulated its observance as abstention from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. He stated that he was doing so in response to divine inspiration:

Quote

I said to the Saints at our last annual Conference, the Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks. This is what the Spirit signifies through me. If the Spirit of God whispers this to his people through their leader, and they will not listen nor obey, what will be the consequences of their disobedience? Darkness and blindness of mind with regard to the things of God will be their lot; they will cease to have the spirit of prayer, and the spirit of the world will increase in them in proportion to their disobedience until they apostatize entirely from God and his ways.

This is no new or strange thing that you are required to do. Thirty-five years ago we were called upon to reform in our lives, by giving heed to the same Words of Wisdom; and if any man comes to you and tells you that you must have a little tea and a little coffee, by the same rule he may urge you to take a little tobacco and a little intoxicating liquor, or a little of any other substance which is hurtful to man. This destroys their claim and right to the spirit of revelation, and they go into darkness.

You can certainly think Brigham was lying or mistaken, but there is nothing at all mysterious or odd about the current emphasis within the 'Word of Wisdom'; it was given to us by a man we acknowledge to have been a prophet.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It was given to us by a man we acknowledge to have been a prophet.

It was given to us by a man we acknowledge might occasionally been a prophet once or twice on a good day when he said things we like.

Fixed it for you.

Sorry, kind of crabby tonight.  The doublespeak on Brigham by members is a bit more annoying than usual.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

It was given to us by a man we acknowledge might occasionally been a prophet once or twice on a good day when he said things we like.

Mate, I'm not one whom you will find gainsaying any of the Latter-day prophets ...

But yeah, it seems to me that the key for both 'fundamentalists' and budding apostates alike when it comes to determining if a prophet was/is speaking as a man is to consider how much they like or agree with what he said or is saying.

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It was given to us by a man we acknowledge might occasionally been a prophet once or twice on a good day when he said things we like.

Fixed it for you.

Sorry, kind of crabby tonight.  The doublespeak on Brigham by members is a bit more annoying than usual.

So you don’t think that Brigham Young or the leading quorums are prophets?

[Rain]

12 hours ago, Islander said:

I am a convert to the church so it always stroke me that the emphasis is on the use of coffee/tea and alcohol. Personally, the former is rather a laxative for me and the latter I find pretty repulsive. But how about the rest of the revelation? I am still to see an overweight latterday saint have his/her temple recommend denied for being fat and obviously not adhering to the entire word of wisdom.

This is not obvios, just as someone smelling of smoke is not obviously breaking the WoW.  It may be probable that the one who smells like smoke is a smoker and the overweight person does not eat healthily, but it is not obvious since the one who smells could hang around smokers and the other could have some real problems such as lupus or thyroid problems. 

Quote

Why make this particular portion of the revelation of such monumental import and disregard or ignore so many others?

What part is an overweight person disregarding? 

Quote

I believe it provides a false sense of piety and self righteousness that is just window dressing for many other more critical and tangible flaws in people. But they think that as long as they "comply" with this one, they are in the good.

What overweight person who is overweight because of eating do you know who thinks this? I don't know of a single one.

Quote

How about the rest: 

"Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;"

I know few people who would eat enough fruit and herbs to be overweight.

And many (not all) people are more overweight because of chips, cookies, brownies and not so much meat.

Don't get me wrong. One should be a healthy eater. Definitely!  I just find it odd that fat people get dragged into this. 

While we are at this - why are we letting the oatmeal, cornbread or rye bread  eaters in the temple? 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Rain

[Rain]

Though we have talked about this before here many times, just how are we going to regulate this for temple attendance?

BMI? Because that is a joke. You can have drastically different fitness levels with BMI.

Body fat%?  Do we need everyone to go in and get the expensive accurate measures every reccomend signing or do we do the somewhat inaccurate scale or handheld versions in the bishop's office? Or maybe the bishop just looks at you and decides "you need to be measured first".

And is body fat% cutoff the same for women as men?

What about just weight?  We laughed at the allowed amounts years ago when my 6'6" husband saw the charts for his work health program.  It was based on you only being 4 pounds more per inch after a certain height. I knew him at that weight and there was no way he was overweight then and he wasn't  heavily muscled to account for that weight.

Maybe we should look at specific food instead?  How about sugared soda pop? As a type 1 diabetic (got it at age 9 when I was thin as a rail) and am overweight. Sugared soda didn't get me overweight, but it seriously messes with blood sugars so I avoid it.

Maybe chocolate milk, cake, cookies?  Good. Didn't like them anyway.

How about bacon?  I love bacon, but I don't eat it often so I can do that. Other people though that might be a struggle for.

Or maybe just calories eaten?  How do we figure that out?  My husband was trying to lose weight so he cut out the calories.  Wasn't losing anything, so I looked at his calories and was sure his body was trying to go to starvation mode. He raised the calories and started to lose weight.

How about overall fitness?  My husband has a heart defect so he sees a cardiologist once a year.  Every time a new doctor or a doctor who doesn't know him well sees him they get excited about his weight and tell him he has to exercise and eat right. You know, because it is "obvious" by his looks and weight he doesn't eat right or exercise. He explains what he eats and how much he exercises and they don't completely believe him.  Then they start looking at blood pressure, heart rate etc which fit with his exercise and eating. 

So just how are we going to regulate which bodies are going to get into the temple based on something to do with weight?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So you don’t think that Brigham Young or the leading quorums are prophets?

I do.

I dislike the hypocrisy with which Brigham Young is honored.  Members reject huge amounts of his discourses, label them as opinions, and assign blame for many early doctrines they disavow today.

And then call him a prophet.

And I know the living prophet is the only one that matters.  But for some reason we don't see members disavowing a single word Presidents Hinckley or Monson ever taught.  And nobody thinks anything President Nelson teaches today could possibly be wrong even though he could be disavowed 5 years from now.

Remember when members stood for truth instead of just agreeing with the current position?  Yeah, me neither.

[Rain]

 

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 ...

And nobody thinks anything President Nelson teaches today could possibly be wrong even though he could be disavowed 5 years from now.

...

I get what you are saying, but this is not quite true, even for believing members.

 

[Rain]

Double post

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Rain

[blueglass]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the April 1867 General Conference, Pres Brigham Young called on the Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom and, in doing so, formulated its observance as abstention from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. He stated that he was doing so in response to divine inspiration:

You can certainly think Brigham was lying or mistaken, but there is nothing at all mysterious or odd about the current emphasis within the 'Word of Wisdom'; it was given to us by a man we acknowledge to have been a prophet.

If the historical record is clear that prophets and apostles after Brigham ignored the wow commandment and did have a lil coffee, tea, beer, spirits and tobacco do the consequences he proclaimed still hold weight?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, blueglass said:

If the historical record is clear that prophets and apostles after Brigham ignored the wow commandment and did have a lil coffee, tea, beer, spirits and tobacco do the consequences he proclaimed still hold weight?

Yes.  He's the Presiding High Priest.  

God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

With these things in mind, how would you characterize the recent changes tot he CHI?  As a "doctrine," a "principle" or an "application?"

For me, I think the Word of Wisdom is "doctrine."  The "principles" we glean from the Word of Wisdom pertain to healthy living, abstaining from certain specified things (coffee, tea, tobacco), and so on.  The "application" of the Word of Wisdom will proscribe things like heroin and cocaine, because using such substances cannot be squared with either the "principles" or the "doctrine" arising from the Word of Wisdom.

Take pornography as another example.  Is pornography specifically prohibited in scripture?  No, but using it cannot be squared with the Law of Chastity (any more than using heroin can be squared with the Word of Wisdom).  Plus it has been specifically and emphatically and repeatedly condemned by modern prophets and apostles.  So the "application" of the Law of Chastity to the viewing of pornography is fairly clear-cut, even though we're speaking of principally of "application" (of a "principle" gleaned from a "doctrine").

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 31, 2020 by smac97

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I do.

I dislike the hypocrisy with which Brigham Young is honored.  Members reject huge amounts of his discourses, label them as opinions, and assign blame for many early doctrines they disavow today.

And then call him a prophet.

And I know the living prophet is the only one that matters.  But for some reason we don't see members disavowing a single word Presidents Hinckley or Monson ever taught.  And nobody thinks anything President Nelson teaches today could possibly be wrong even though he could be disavowed 5 years from now.

Remember when members stood for truth instead of just agreeing with the current position?  Yeah, me neither.

Which doctrines that Brigham taught do you honor and sustain?  surely some things he taught were good.  Brigham found a way to sift through the doctrine which Joseph taught and his behavior.  In his response to a preacher's railings and ad hominem attack against Joseph, he responded, "As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He said, "I have done."

I think the same can be said of the word of wisdom commandment of 1867.  If Brigham, and Woodruff, and many other prophets and apostles after 1867 did not follow the word of wisdom we should not judge them for the hypocrisy but rather sift out the weakness in ourselves and strive for better obedience to the pure doctrine. 

[blueglass]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  He's the Presiding High Priest.  

God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

With these things in mind, how would you characterize the recent changes tot he CHI?  As a "doctrine," a "principle" or an "application?"

For me, I think the Word of Wisdom is "doctrine."  The "principles" we glean from the Word of Wisdom pertain to healthy living, abstaining from certain specified things (coffee, tea, tobacco), and so on.  The "application" of the Word of Wisdom will proscribe things like heroin and cocaine, because using such substances cannot be squared with either the "principles" or the "doctrine" arising from the Word of Wisdom.

Take pornography as another example.  Is pornography specifically prohibited in scripture?  No, but using it cannot be squared with the Law of Chastity (any more than using heroin can be squared with the Word of Wisdom).  Plus it has been specifically and emphatically and repeatedly condemned by modern prophets and apostles.  So the "application" of the Law of Chastity to the viewing of pornography is fairly clear-cut, even though we're speaking of principally of "application" (of a "principle" gleaned from a "doctrine").

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm ok with this.  If I understand correctly, through an evolutionary process, "a rough stone rolling" with environmental, societal corrections, and self-reflection with God's help the doctrines will become more pure and refined over time.  I think you are saying that with medical science the word of wisdom could be updated yearly with some items added and others removed. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by blueglass