Smoking & Temple

[bl8tant]

deseretgov, this doesn't square with my (admittedly imperfect) knowledge of the WoW. I believe that it's treated as a commandment now, though it was not originally delivered as one.

The WoW is important to our eternal salvation, as obedience to it is required to remain worthy to enter the temple, and the temple ordinances are a key part of exaltation.

[Wingnut]

deseretgov, despite the intro in verse 2, which you emphasized, the Word of Wisdom is considered commandment at this time. At the time it was first revealed and recorded, it was not considered binding. It is now, though. If it weren't, why would it be included in the temple recommend interview?

[jayanna]

The temporal welfare of our bodies is effected by taking in bad things, like tobacco.

The part that effects our eternal welfare is in:

1.addiction, that is, reaching out for anything besides the Lord to comfort us, or direct our emotional states.

2. Denying the Holy Ghost...houseroom. The word of wisdom also promises great treasures of knowledge. We cannot have these great treasures of knowledge while jonesing for crack .“Know ye not,” Paul wrote, “that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you … ?” (1 Cor. 6:19). If the Lord will not dwell in unclean temples, then neither will the Holy Ghost.

3. the things we do to continue these habits...stealing money to obtain cocaine, poisoning our children with cigarette smoke, using money that the Lord has provided for us on something that passes away...

4. When we have something that we are not willing to give up for the Lord, it is a treaure to us, a treasure that we cling to, even though it will not be available to us after we die. That idea that something besides God will make us feel better is not good because

Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. Alma 34:34.

whatever spirit possesses our bodies here will still possess our bodies later.

and

The Word of Wisdom has another promise that “I … give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them” (D&C 89:21). That is a remarkable promise.

Can you imagine a 2-year-old eating cigarette butts? I can b/c I've seen it. He was addicted at birth. His mother's milk had nicotine in it. Do you think that is pleasing to the Lord? I don't. I'm thinking He is at least as disgusted by it as I am. Do you think the Lord loves that child? I do. Do you think He loves any of us any less? I don't.

What a person eats doesn't defile them? Tell that to Adam and Eve.

Some of these things, and much more are explained by an apostle, Boyd K. Packer, in The Word of Wisdom: the Principle and the Practices 1996.

Edited August 24, 2010 by jayanna

[deseretgov]

The word of wisdom was revealed "not by commandment or constraint". If we seek to alter this by making it a commandment it is going against God's will. If God wanted it to be a commandment he would have revealed it as such not changed his mind halfway through. if any think that is taught contrary to Go'd commandments it is from a false spirit.

There isn't even an attempt at making it a commandment by changing sSection 89 or adding another official declaration or what not. it is just a policy change. A policy of men. A modern prophet cannot "trump" a dead prophet if the modern prophet has contradicted the dead one. Just ask Joseph Smith, Jr.

As far as addiction then it is not the substance that is bad it is our reaction to it. If I am addicted to non caffinated soda am I breaking the word of wisdom or not? I woudlnt be. But I would be breaking another commandment that does affect my eternal salvation, Idolatry. Soda would have become my idol as I would be seeking it rather than God.

Now about the cigarette butt eating child. Yes, I am disgusted too. And I'm not the one who will judge the eternal salvation of that child. But he will not receive the promises in the Word of Wisdom.

Yes the destroying angel will pass over those who choose to obey teh Word of Wisdom. But someone being taken by the destroying angel doesn't determine that persons salvation. It is just a means of physical death.

When the Saviour says that what you eat isn't what defiles us. I think I will believe Him.

I know I'm not going to be making any difference here and I could probably get banned so I'm just going to stop right now. If you want to discuss it further just PM me.

[Wildflower]

What I just don't get is that if the word of wisdom is considered a commandment, then why are people who eat too much meat considered worthy to go to the temple? I understand the concept of us not being commanded in all things. But if the word of wisdom is a commandment that our worthiness is judged by, then why is one aspect of it treated differently than other aspects? Its like saying its ok to disobey some of the commandments. I think it does come down to church policy, and it is a policy that to me is damaging and hypocritical. I wish it didn't bother me so much, but it does, for so many valid reasons that I will not go into here. I don't want people to think badly of me for the way I feel about this issue. I just am hurt that people who truly believe in Christ and try to follow Him and want to be baptized would be prevented from being part of the Church because they are struggling with a word of wisdom issue. I know of cases where true believers have been denied membership because of not being able to quit smoking or because of struggling with a drinking problem, and I feel it is wrong to keep them from the fold because of it. I also truly do not believe that Christ would want it that way either. There are worse sins that people commit by the way they treat people, and yet they can be baptized or go to the temple. I didn't mean to go on this much, and am not trying to be negative. This is just a very sore issue for me that has been painful and upsetting for so many reasons.

[gabelpa]

We have been given guidance over and above the Word of Wisdom. Or perhaps, less than it.. I view the Word of Wisdom as the Higher law, and what we are asked of, drugs, coffe tea, tobacco, etc, as the Mosaic law. Right now, we are commanded to follow the lesser law for Temple worthiness, but not the Word of Wisdom as it exists in D&C 89. If we follow what is in D&C 89, we will be keeping with what we have been asked to do for Temple worthiness, as it stands today. Some cannot abide this, so need to follow the lesser law.

[hordak]

I'm going to half agree with desertgov on this. Nothing entering the body can defile it, and the WoW is for temporal salvation. He is absolutely correct.

However as others have mentioned it is now a commandment and defiance, particularly for the sake of defiance could chase away the spirit, but it's not the substance itself, (like a how oil and water don't mix) but the reason for it.

This is why brother Jones who took Nyquil Saturday night can bless sacrament Sunday morning while brother Smith who had a beer cannot. This is why sister Jones can take Oxicotin for her bad back every day but if sister Smith told the bishop she took it once in a while for the high she would loose her TR.

If the spirit was non compatible with the substance themselves then much of our early revelation would be suspect and anyone who got an answer to Moronis promise while not following the WoW would have to be looked at with sceptically.

Nothing entering the body can defile it spiritually. It is the purpose, that has the consequences.

[MarginOfError]

Just some interesting things you might like to know about the Word of Wisdom

• When originally written, Section 89 started at what we know as verse 4. Verses 1 - 3, which include the statement that it is not given by command or constraint, were added by the publication committee of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. So if you really want to go back to the "original revelation," make sure you consider that detail. (McCue, Dialogue 14:3).
• As early as the 1830's, alcohol consumption was used as grounds for excommunication.
• In 1851, Brigham Young said to a large gathering of saints, "that the members of the Church had sufficient time to be taught the import of this revelation, and that henceforth it was to be considered a divine commandment. This was first put before the male members of the congregation and then before the women and by unanimous vote accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol 1, 98).
• Young would repeat those sentiments many times throughout his presidency. Application of his statement was applied inconsistently, with some being excommunicated for disobedience, others given some flexibility.
• In the early 1900's, stake presidents were advised to deny temple recommends to violators of the Word of Wisdom, but with leniency shown to old men who used tobacco and old women who drank tea.
• Heber J. Grant formalized that these restrictions should apply to all, including the elderly when he became president of the Church.

The Church took a long time formalizing and applying this code to everyone, in large part due to the unwillingness of many of the members, including those in the Quorum of the Twelve, to give up the vices they were subject to. In the end, it was Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant who provided the most effort to formalize the Word of Wisdom into our code of conduct. Joseph F. Smith was one of those present at the 1851 meeting when Brigham Young charged the saints to adhere.

Considering the whole body of work and all of the history, it appears not as though the change came when the Word of Wisdom was changed from counsel to commandment, but rather when it was made from commandment to counsel. In many ways, it appears more like Moses coming down from the mountain. The law was given, it was observed that the people were not yet ready to live it, so a lesser law (standard) was set to prepare the people to rise to the actual commandment.

While I agree with hordak that it is not what goes into the body that defiles a person, deliberately defying and teaching against the prophets and apostles will defile a person. The standard for the contemporary saints has been made clear, and I denounce anyone who says that the current standards are the standards of men. The standards of men are what prevented the adoption of the Word of Wisdom for nearly 100 years.

[jayanna]

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

D&C 29:34

from the teachings of Brigham Young:

With God, and also with those who understand the principles of life and salvation, the Priesthood, the oracles of truth and the gifts and callings of God to the children of men, there is no difference in spiritual and temporal labors—all are one. If I am in the line of my duty, I am doing the will of God, whether I am preaching; praying, laboring with my hands for an honorable support; whether I am in the field, mechanic’s shop, or following mercantile business, or wherever duty calls, I am serving God as much in one place as another; and so it is with all, each in his place, turn and time (DBY, 8).

In the mind of God there is no such a thing as dividing spiritual from temporal, or temporal from spiritual; for they are one in the Lord [see D&C 29:34–35] (DBY, 13).

Anything that pertains to the building up of the Lord’s kingdom on earth, whether it be in preaching the Gospel or building temples to his name, we have been taught to consider a spiritual work, though it evidently requires the strength of the natural body to perform it (DBY, 13).

We cannot even enter the temple when it is built, and perform those ordinances which lead to spiritual blessings, without performing a temporal labor. Temporal ordinances must be performed to secure the spiritual blessings the Great Supreme has in store for his faithful children. Every act is first a temporal act. The Apostle says, faith comes by hearing [see Romans 10:17]. What should be heard to produce faith? The preaching of the Word. For that we must have a preacher; and he is not an invisible spirit, but a temporal, ordinary man like ourselves, and subject to the same regulations and rules of life. To preach the Gospel is a temporal labor, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is the result of a temporal labor. To be baptized is a temporal labor, both to the person administered to and the administrator. I am a living witness to the truth of this statement, for I have made my feet sore many a time, and tired myself out traveling and preaching, that by hearing the Gospel the people might have faith. The blessings we so earnestly desire will come to us by performing the manual labor required, and thus preparing all things necessary to receive the invisible blessings Jehovah has for his children (DBY, 13–14).

Pres. Young says that baptism is temporal, which it is, even for the dead, those endowments and sealings we do in the temple are temporal, even for the dead....but they effect our spirits for eternity. They have to be performed temporally, seen and recorded temporally, or they are not in effect eternally. They have to be accepted by the participants spiritually as well, both temporal and spiritual have to be present to be fully acceptable to the Lord.

the destrying angel spoken of in D&C 89 is not just killing people with temporal death, it is destroying with a spiritual death, as explained:

The Lord promises us that we “shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures” (D&C 89:19). We will be taught important truths by the Holy Ghost through revelation. The Lord also promises that the destroying angel shall pass us by. Elder Spencer W. Kimball said that in our time this means we will be saved from spiritual death: “For observing the Word of Wisdom the reward is life, not only prolonged mortal life but life eternal” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 211).

Lastly there are other temporal laws that have an effect on us spiritually, the law of chastity and the law of tithing being two of them.

[hordak]

Just some interesting things you might like to know about the Word of Wisdom

• When originally written, Section 89 started at what we know as verse 4. Verses 1 - 3, which include the statement that it is not given by command or constraint, were added by the publication committee of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. So if you really want to go back to the "original revelation," make sure you consider that detail. (McCue, Dialogue 14:3).
• As early as the 1830's, alcohol consumption was used as grounds for excommunication.
• In 1851, Brigham Young said to a large gathering of saints, "that the members of the Church had sufficient time to be taught the import of this revelation, and that henceforth it was to be considered a divine commandment. This was first put before the male members of the congregation and then before the women and by unanimous vote accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol 1, 98).
• Young would repeat those sentiments many times throughout his presidency. Application of his statement was applied inconsistently, with some being excommunicated for disobedience, others given some flexibility.
• In the early 1900's, stake presidents were advised to deny temple recommends to violators of the Word of Wisdom, but with leniency shown to old men who used tobacco and old women who drank tea.
• Heber J. Grant formalized that these restrictions should apply to all, including the elderly when he became president of the Church.

The Church took a long time formalizing and applying this code to everyone, in large part due to the unwillingness of many of the members, including those in the Quorum of the Twelve, to give up the vices they were subject to. In the end, it was Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant who provided the most effort to formalize the Word of Wisdom into our code of conduct. Joseph F. Smith was one of those present at the 1851 meeting when Brigham Young charged the saints to adhere.

Considering the whole body of work and all of the history, it appears not as though the change came when the Word of Wisdom was changed from counsel to commandment, but rather when it was made from commandment to counsel. In many ways, it appears more like Moses coming down from the mountain. The law was given, it was observed that the people were not yet ready to live it, so a lesser law (standard) was set to prepare the people to rise to the actual commandment.

While I agree with hordak that it is not what goes into the body that defiles a person, deliberately defying and teaching against the prophets and apostles will defile a person. The standard for the contemporary saints has been made clear, and I denounce anyone who says that the current standards are the standards of men. The standards of men are what prevented the adoption of the Word of Wisdom for nearly 100 years.

I wouldn't say it's the teachings of men, but i would point out that Herber J Grant was a staunch prohibitionist, before becoming the Prophet and history has shown that a prophets personal views can lead to policy/ doctrine being emphasized, even long after their time until being reversed by revelation. The current emphasis on the WoW could change just as the priesthood ban.

One thing i have never understood was the whole "saints were not ready for the change" idea when one considers that fact many of our members are converts.

I mean Joseph was visited by Jesus and God in person, angels, old apostles, receives revelation, translates the plates, and the papyrus. But the WoW would be "too much".

Meanwhile Mr Smith is visited by 2 19 year old missionaries and has a few discussions and is expected to live the WoW?

I would think, , it would be much easier for the early saints who lived through "more" miraculous times to accept it then the average convert or member today.

(It would depend on which part of the WoW. Science today tells us tobacco is bad so it's easier to accept but science tells us tea is good, so that is harder to accept today)

I'm not saying the current application isn't divinely inspired, just pointing out one (and not you in particular) needs to "hang their hat" on the God head, Prophets and doctrine in general and not the current application of said doctrine. Some day the application of the WoW, or current parts of it, might be changed and people putting more faith in the application of doctrine, then in revelation has been known to cause problems. Ala Fundamentalist Mormons.

So is the WoW doctrine members should follow? At this time yes.

Is it an eternal law that will last forever and all will be judged on? I wouldn't count on it.

[MarginOfError]

I wouldn't say it's the teachings of men, but i would point out that Herber J Grant was a staunch prohibitionist, before becoming the Prophet and history has shown that a prophets personal views can lead to policy/ doctrine being emphasized, even long after their time until being reversed by revelation. The current emphasis on the WoW could change just as the priesthood ban.

One thing i have never understood was the whole "saints were not ready for the change" idea when one considers that fact many of our members are converts.

I mean Joseph was visited by Jesus and God in person, angels, old apostles, receives revelation, translates the plates, and the papyrus. But the WoW would be "too much".

Meanwhile Mr Smith is visited by 2 19 year old missionaries and has a few discussions and is expected to live the WoW?

I would think, , it would be much easier for the early saints who lived through "more" miraculous times to accept it then the average convert or member today.

(It would depend on which part of the WoW. Science today tells us tobacco is bad so it's easier to accept but science tells us tea is good, so that is harder to accept today)

I'm not saying the current application isn't divinely inspired, just pointing out one (and not you in particular) needs to "hang their hat" on the God head, Prophets and doctrine in general and not the current application of said doctrine. Some day the application of the WoW, or current parts of it, might be changed and people putting more faith in the application of doctrine, then in revelation has been known to cause problems. Ala Fundamentalist Mormons.

So is the WoW doctrine members should follow? At this time yes.

Is it an eternal law that will last forever and all will be judged on? I wouldn't count on it.

I'm in full agreement with you, hordak (if you can believe it). One of my pet peeves is when people make the claim that Christ never drank wine because it would have been against his code of health. What a bunch of rubbish! I do not believe that the Word of Wisdom is immutable and eternal law. I think it is practical law that hinges on a very important phrase in D&C 89:

In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days

In other words, the Word of Wisdom was given to protect the saints from those who would push these products for their own personal gain, the well-being of an individual be damned. The Word of Wisdom was a law for the last days. If there are to be changes in the application of the law, I expect it to happen only when there are changes in the evils and designs of conspiring men (my own interpretation there).

[Wildflower]

I see temple recommend holders who stuff their faces with meat, unsparingly, while knowing and even openly admitting that they are going overboard. They are knowingly going against the word of widsdom, but they don't really care because it is not enforced. These behaviors result in disease, premature death, and extreme pain of loved ones who have lost someone too soon. A person could have one cup of coffee or a cup of green tea every day, and they will be doing less damage to their health than the gluttonous meat eaters, but they cannot go to the temple. It is wrong, and I can't wait to see policies change on these issues. And they will, someday. I just wish it were sooner rather than later. For the record, I live in obedience to the word of wisdom. But I disagree with the hypocritical way it is enforced. I see members do damage to their bodies, flat out disobeying what is in those verses, and doing so knowingly, but they do not get held back in the church the way other disobeyers do. If a person can't be baptized because they drink tea, then why aren't tea drinking members excommunicated? I know someone who wanted to be baptized for years but was not allowed to because she just couldn't quit smoking. She finally quit and was baptized. But she wasn't able to quit for very long and now she is back to smoking. But at least now she can at be accepted as a member of the church, which she should have way before she was finally allowed to get baptized. She goes to the 12 step meetings and her struggle with smoking will probably be lifelong. She should not have been denied membership because of this struggle. Period. She believed, and she was doing her best, going to church and everything else she could do. What is sad is that most people in that situation would have felt so rejected eventually that they would have given up, and that is a tragedy.

[jayanna]

I think that if you make a covenant, and break it, you are much worse off than if you had never made that covenant in the first place.

Those that make that covenant, and the WoW is a covenant, and then break it, are not only doing something bad for them, but will be held accountable on judgement day for not keeping the covenant.

A covenant is when the Lord says 'if you do x then I will promise you XYZ'.

Not 'allowing' someone to get baptized or go to the temple is not a church leaders way of saying 'you're not good enough' it's their way of protecting you from committing something that is much worse...that is, making covenants that you are not yet able to keep.

Sending you to get your endowments and making certain covenants while you are addicted would be setting you up to fail. For example, expecting a vow of chastity when you are obviously addicted to sx.

First get rid of the addiction, then be ready to accept the covenant. That's why our leaders have so many ways to help poeple recover from addictions. They don't want you to have that addiction, but until you are ready to let it go, they can't help you. You have to have Godly sorrow before you are ready to start the road to recovery.

Those church members/temple recommend holders who break the law of health will be held accountable. Not only are they not keeping their temple, they are breaking a covenant, and being a bad example for their children, etc. They will be held accountable for it, if they do not repent.

The three fold mission of the church does not include 'enforcing' God's laws, or policing them. Ex. is usually done to protect others from following harmful teachings/behaviors.

Our church leaders are here to help us prepare, to lift, to inspire, to serve, not to punish. They want to make sure that when we make a covenant, that we are fully prepared to keep it.:)

[xenic101]

On a very similar note...

My family recently went historical site seeing (details removed to protect the guilty, or innocent, I'm not judging)

While at one certain site owned and maintained by the LDS church, we arrived as the site 'caretakers' were just finishing a round of cleaning off the picnic tables. As I was dragging the cooler with our lunch to a table, I saw the expected missionary name tag, so they were a senior missionary couple watching over the site. (there is a landmark, building with restrooms and a utility room and several picnic tables, lovely place. No tours or anything though, just a stroll around and look kind of place) At some point while we were eating, the guy of the couple climbed onto a riding lawnmower and proceeded to cut the grass in the surrounding field.

Later that day while driving, the wife asked me about the word of wisdom...she said the guy was smoking while he was cutting the grass. He wasn't 'hiding' it but was being discreet. The odds of her mistaking some other activity for smoking are pretty small.

I don't know, it's not between me and him. I'd much rather overlook someone having a vice, struggling with a commandment, or otherwise not being a perfect Mormon than get uppity about it and let it affect me, I have enough trouble worrying about those in my stewardship. Everyone else falls under "love one another" and that's where I draw the line.

[jayanna]

On a very similar note...

My family recently went historical site seeing (details removed to protect the guilty, or innocent, I'm not judging)

While at one certain site owned and maintained by the LDS church, we arrived as the site 'caretakers' were just finishing a round of cleaning off the picnic tables. As I was dragging the cooler with our lunch to a table, I saw the expected missionary name tag, so they were a senior missionary couple watching over the site. (there is a landmark, building with restrooms and a utility room and several picnic tables, lovely place. No tours or anything though, just a stroll around and look kind of place) At some point while we were eating, the guy of the couple climbed onto a riding lawnmower and proceeded to cut the grass in the surrounding field.

Later that day while driving, the wife asked me about the word of wisdom...she said the guy was smoking while he was cutting the grass. He wasn't 'hiding' it but was being discreet. The odds of her mistaking some other activity for smoking are pretty small.

I don't know, it's not between me and him. I'd much rather overlook someone having a vice, struggling with a commandment, or otherwise not being a perfect Mormon than get uppity about it and let it affect me, I have enough trouble worrying about those in my stewardship. Everyone else falls under "love one another" and that's where I draw the line.

I have also been to a church historical site, I also saw a lot of older couple missionaries there...however, I entered one building with my children and asked if my daughter could use the restroom...they were very hateful toward me, that is when I noticed their nametags...they were just a littttllllle different...I realized that another church also had property at the same historical site. The two were not divided by any physical barrier or marked in any way, so I did not notice the change immediately.

Your missionaries may have been from that other church.

Sorry, I'm off topic, I'll stop now.

Edited September 4, 2010 by jayanna