If LDS can accept changing revelation…

[Snow]

Well back to the OP...

I wouldn't handle a change in the word of wisdom very well unless it were to restrict a few more things that aren't but should be restricted. (Excessive amounts of fat)

I'm always hopeful that the Sunday block will be shortened to 2 hours.

I thought "no R rated movies" was merely a suggestion and not really a commandment. I know lots of members who watch selective R rated shows. It might be nice if there were an equally strong suggestion from our leaders to check out movie rating sights online (such as screenit. com or kids-in-mind.com ) before watching any movie- even PG-13 rated movies. ESPECIALLY before watching PG-13with teenage daughters.

There's no better way to subjugate the masses than to control their diet and their sex lives.

[Maureen]

Well back to the OP...

I wouldn't handle a change in the word of wisdom very well unless it were to restrict a few more things that aren't but should be restricted. (Excessive amounts of fat)...

But if the LDS church gave you the freedom to choose for yourself what you would eat or drink then you could give yourself those restrictions. Members could decide for themselves what they deem healthy or not healthy. You would be the master of your temple.

M.

[Voyager]

But if the LDS church gave you the freedom to choose for yourself what you would eat or drink then you could give yourself those restrictions. Members could decide for themselves what they deem healthy or not healthy. You would be the master of your temple.

M.

Isn't this the way it used to be in the 19th century? You could drink and smoke in moderation. I have heard it was changed because people took it to the extreme and hurt their health.

[Voyager]

There's no better way to subjugate the masses than to control their diet and their sex lives.

That sounds like people who say banning smoking in public is totalitarian. The WofW is teaching us to treat our bodies with the respect of a temple. I do not think the Church teaches the doctrines it does about sex to exercise power. It is to protect us from the damage to our spirit, health and wellbeing of others that the doctrines are repeated from the Bible and the BofM.

[Hemidakota]

For my point, I avoid equating my opinions with God's opinions. You seem to have so such inhibition.

Beats listening Snow's postulation.

[anim82r]

The practice may change but the doctrine never does. Change in practice may be necessary depending on the state of the saints at a particular point in time.

For example, if change in practice is not acceptable, then we would all still be under Mosaic Law, etc. It is not that the doctrine changed between Moses and Jesus or between Jesus and Thomas S. Monson. It is the application of doctrine that varied.

Whatever the prophet puts forth is relevant to the times. A faithful member follows the current prophet. Of course, if one doesn't have faith in prophets, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to follow something that may not make sense at the time.

In all cases, one's personal revelation - in a plea to the Holy Ghost to understand the change in practice - is beneficial. It doesn't matter what change it might possibly be. We have discussed it here in this forum before that if the prophet asks everyone to give all their personal belongings to the church, would you do it? From all the responses, it was evident, that majority would do so after sincere and heartfelt prayer.

I don't know much about what Bible Scholars say but the prophets and some prominent Old Testament Bible characters drank wine and were drunk at times. Now, wine is forbidden in the Church.I think that's a major change. I was told that in the New Testament the wine Jesus, the apostles, and disciples used wasn't the alcoholic wine, instead they used the juice fresh from the winepress and they called this the good wine as in John 2:10. I suppose Paul was referring to this "good wine" as juices from fruits especially grapes, when he said, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." -1 Timothy 5:23. Else what does he mean with, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" or "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" and other similar passages he wrote? If Paul really meant removing from wine, then that's a change from what the Old Testament folks were doing.

So yes, Whatever the prophet puts forth is relevant to the times. So if the prophet today says drink coffee, wine, tea, cola drinks, energy drinks, then drink will I! If the prophet today says milk is forbidden then will I not drink it.

In my view, God gives commandments for two reasons. One is to keep us safe, and the other reason is to test our obedience no matter how rediculous the commandment may seem.

The problem with obeying new commandments is that we view it with our carnal mind not knowing the purposes of God. We judge it according to what we're accustomed with. My philosophy, if God said so, it is Divine and it is good. I'd say Nephi was probably in danger when he became hesitant to the command of the Spirit to kill Laban. My mom would often ask as to why Jehovah commanded Joshua and he, "Destroyed all,both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." when in the 10 Commandments He included "Thou shalt not kill." Nephi may have the same question in mind. Again, my philosophy is, if it's decreed by God it is Divine and it is good.

:)

[Moksha]

There's no better way to subjugate the masses than to control their diet and their sex lives.

So how are we doing with the subjugation? Is my belt needing to be loosened a sign of a needed crack down?

[carlimac]

That sounds like people who say banning smoking in public is totalitarian. The WofW is teaching us to treat our bodies with the respect of a temple. I do not think the Church teaches the doctrines it does about sex to exercise power. It is to protect us from the damage to our spirit, health and wellbeing of others that the doctrines are repeated from the Bible and the BofM.

The church teaches what it does about sex because it's God's commandment. Has nothing to do with any other power but God's.

[Snow]

But if the LDS church gave you the freedom to choose for yourself what you would eat or drink then you could give yourself those restrictions. Members could decide for themselves what they deem healthy or not healthy. You would be the master of your temple.

M.

As it turns out Maureen, I as a member of the LDS Church have complete freedom to choose for myself what I do and don't eat and drink.

Seems like you might know that by now, eh?

[Snow]

That sounds like people who say banning smoking in public is totalitarian. The WofW is teaching us to treat our bodies with the respect of a temple. I do not think the Church teaches the doctrines it does about sex to exercise power. It is to protect us from the damage to our spirit, health and wellbeing of others that the doctrines are repeated from the Bible and the BofM.

I appreciate your point of view. Not everyone would agree.

[Snow]

Beats listening Snow's postulation.

Frankly dear, if you are going to try and insult me, you'll have to do better.

Saying that it is better to claim that God agrees with you than to listen to me, all the while responding to my posts, is nonsensical. Responding to me means that you are "listening" to me. Beyond that, there's the matter of grammar.

[ronism99403]

Jesus is the Word. So sure, we are given the word precept upon precept from Mosaic Law down to the Restoration and up until today. You might say, oh, but Mosaic Law is completely different doctrine from what we practice today. I say, nope, not so. It is the same doctrine applied in the timeframe of human frailty. Different times required different application... of the same doctrine. Because the doctrine is Jesus.

Sure, tomorrow there might be women in the priesthood. But, what is the eternal doctrine of the priesthood? From my understanding - the priesthood is the authority given by God to man to administer the church ordinances. Man - meaning human, not humans with male reproductive organs. It has always been selective - as evidenced by the Levites up until today - and predicated by worthiness.

When I received my endowments at the temple, I was ministered to by women holding Priesthood authority. So, it wouldn't come to me as a surprise if women are given priesthood authority outside the temple tomorrow. Because, the doctrine of the Priesthood does not say that the requirements for who can hold it is set in stone.

.

As a former Protestant Christian, it was emphasized to me again and again that Jesus is God's fully revealed perfect word. We were taught to filter everything in the scriptures through the lens of God's perfect revelation, Jesus. For example, based on what we know about Jesus' character in the Gospel accounts the Old Testament Scriptures claiming that God commanded genocide were wrong. Such a thing directly contradicts the body of Christ's teaching and life's example. For me Jesus is the doctrine.

However, I became a Mormon, and I did so because added revelation further clarified who Jesus was for me. I liked the distinctive Mormon flavor found in some of the Churches proscriptions. A peculiar people, afterall, but it is not that important in my mind. And I fully anticipate a possible change via revelation in woman's priesthood status, and I even have hope that 100 years down the road the Church's stance on gay people will change.

Edited June 10, 2010 by ronism99403

[Hemidakota]

However, I became a Mormon, and I did so because added revelation further clarified who Jesus was for me. I liked the distinctive Mormon flavor found in some of the Churches proscriptions. A peculiar people, afterall, but it is not that important in my mind. And I fully anticipate a possible change via revelation in woman's priesthood status, and I even have hope that 100 years down the road the Church's stance on gay people will change.

If it has not changed now, it wouldn't change in the future. What you are seeing is a eternal fact.

[Suzie]

If it has not changed now, it wouldn't change in the future. What you are seeing is a eternal fact.

I don't want to sound disrespectful but there is no way you know this for a fact. It's unlikely? Sure it is, but other than that, we just don' know (I'm not saying I particularly want a change in these things eh)

[Hemidakota]

Good morning Suzie. For this aspect, I respectfully tell you "I do know." It wouldn't change. This is not my opinion that I am sharing here either.

Regards to the priesthood, the sealed companions, will share the same priesthood together [hence: Kings and Queens, Priest and Priestess] as Joseph stated.

There is no allowance for H/L to continue in that style of life with any of three glories assigned. Each is bound by laws. To live in any of those glories, one must abide its laws and boundaries.

[Suzie]

Good morning Suzie. For this aspect, I respectfully tell you "I do know." It wouldn't change. This is not my opinion that I am sharing here either. .

Let me understand this for a moment. So it wasn't revealed to the Prophet as far as I am concerned (I never heard him claiming that it is an "eternal fact" as a matter of fact Pres. Hinckley said the Lord is the only one who can decide that, making no statement of this being a "fact" for eternity) but you claim you KNOW?

That's a hard pill to swallow.

[Hemidakota]

It doesn't mean Suzie, the prophet did not receive it. Nor does it mean any of the brethren have not receive it. It is just not recorded. There is alot specific stuff that is not recorded.

If you doubt it, you are entitled to the same revelation sister.

[Suzie]

It doesn't mean Suzie, the prophet did not receive it. Nor does it mean any of the brethren have not receive it. It is just not recorded. There is alot specific stuff that is not recorded.

Again, how do you know these things for a fact?

[Hemidakota]

Personal revelation = I do know

Again, you have the same opporunity to seek the same.

[MarginOfError]

Don't get too tangled up with Hemi here Suzi. Let's just reiterate that as much as Hemi may think his personal revelations are binding on the church, they are not. What he has stated is merely his personal belief, and any statement otherwise is patently false.

[Hemidakota]

Hopefully they are not MOE but then again, as I stated, you have prayer as an avenue to seek the same information.

[Maureen]

As it turns out Maureen, I as a member of the LDS Church have complete freedom to choose for myself what I do and don't eat and drink.

Seems like you might know that by now, eh?

I definitely believe that you make your own choices Snow; but other members almost seem lost without having specific rules given to them.

M.

[Dravin]

I definitely believe that you make your own choices Snow; but other members almost seem lost without having specific rules given to them.

M.

I took it as a comment on the attitude that the church somehow keeps people from making their own choices or makes them for them. If the Church tells me not to murder ultimately the choice to not do so is mine to make. Likewise with the Word of Wisdom.

It's like the old exchange:

Person: You're Mormon, you can't drink beer!

LDS: No, I choose not to drink beer.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

I took it as a comment on the attitude that the church somehow keeps people from making their own choices or makes them for them. If the Church tells me not to murder ultimately the choice to not do so is mine to make. Likewise with the Word of Wisdom.

It's like the old exchange:

Person: You're Mormon, you can't drink beer!

LDS: No, I choose not to drink beer.

I completely agree. I hate those t-shirts that say "I can't. I'm Mormon." Instead, they should say "I don't. I'm Mormon" or "I won't. I'm Mormon."

[Maureen]

I took it as a comment on the attitude that the church somehow keeps people from making their own choices or makes them for them. If the Church tells me not to murder ultimately the choice to not do so is mine to make. Likewise with the Word of Wisdom.

It's like the old exchange:

Person: You're Mormon, you can't drink beer!

LDS: No, I choose not to drink beer.

What about the many posts that question the specifics of the WofW or tithing - like, some drink coke, some say coke is evil, some tithe on net income, others testify that gross is the only way. Everyone has there own rules based on "church rules". Some members go through pangs of guilt because they believe they are not "doing enough" or not "doing it correctly". If the choices were truly left up to each individual, then members do not have to compare their level of faith based on how other members define the rules. Define your own rules with gospel standards in mind and live by them.

M.