The Word of Wisdom and common sense!

[Maureen]

The closest thing you are going to get to a “hotline” is a sincere prayer to Heavenly Father. And if Heavenly Father feels you have a valid point He will let his Prophet know that a change needs to be made.

Warning: It may take more than one prayer.

I think I'm going to give this a try. It sure won't hurt. :)

M.

[Dravin]

I for one would happily drink tea if I could because of the reported health benefits. Health logic would decree I would. But if the Lord doesn't want me drinking it...logic won't help.

Exactly. What Maureen is decrying as pointless revelation that could be filled with a generic, "Go forth and be healthy" I see as revealing something that I would not be able to know for myself. That tea is something I should avoid, and while something like chewing tobacco is obvious today, was it an obvious logical conclusion for some St. George Farmer in 1902? And both the Word of Wisdom and "Go forth and be healthy" both teach the principle of taking care of your body.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Exactly. What Maureen is decrying as pointless revelation that could be filled with a generic, "Go forth and be healthy" I see as revealing something that I would not be able to know for myself. That tea is something I should avoid, and while something like chewing tobacco is obvious today, was it an obvious logical conclusion for some St. George Farmer in 1902? And both the Word of Wisdom and "Go forth and be healthy" both teach the principle of taking care of your body.

Dravin, you don't give the human mind much credit. And I'm positive that the WofW was not strictly adhered to when it was first given or even decades later - strict adherence to the WofW didn't happen until 1921.

So Dravin, are you saying that you would prefer to be told what to eat and drink, instead of deciding for yourself. If the WofW became null and void tomorrow would you be lost?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, I actually mentioned such previously. Of course how much that bothers you depends on how you mentally classify the law, for instance going 5 over the speed limit is illegal but that generally doesn't bother people who do it, particularly if they only do it occasionally. Same with seat-belts, though i'm personally borderline neurotic about seat-belts.

It's a Class-A misdemeanor in Utah, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2500 fine. (I just handled one of these cases a few weeks ago.)

One may argue that morally it's the equivalent of seat-belt legislation. But legally--this kind of thing can get you into a world of hurt, if you get caught.

[Dravin]

Dravin, you don't give the human mind much credit. And I'm positive that the WofW was not strictly adhered to when it was first given or even decades later - strict adherence to the WofW didn't happen until 1921.

No it wasn't. It was initially counsel that was decided upon by the Church to adhere to. I'm not entirely sure of the pertinence there, the counsel contained in the Word of Wisdom was valid long before it was adopted as binding.

So Dravin, are you saying that you would prefer to be told what to eat and drink, instead of deciding for yourself. If the WofW became null and void tomorrow would you be lost?

Of course I'm not, what I'm saying is if the Word of Wisdom wasn't given I certainly wouldn't logically conclude because of my belief that the body is a temple and my love of God that I should be avoiding tea, coffee and alcohol.

Are you completely lost about what you should eat and drink? Yet you've failed to conclude that you should be avoiding tea, coffee and alcohol. Science and logic does not conclude that I should avoid tea, coffee, and alcohol. If I should be avoiding it I'm glad that God told me as it's not a conclusion I'd be reaching on my own. I'm not sure where you get the idea that such means I can't figure out I shouldn't eat 20 deep fried snickers a day and I need and want God to point that out to me.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

It's a Class-A misdemeanor in Utah, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2500 fine. (I just handled one of these cases a few weeks ago.)

One may argue that morally it's the equivalent of seat-belt legislation. But legally--this kind of thing can get you into a world of hurt, if you get caught.

Actually I'm not arguing moral or legal equivalence. I'm just pointing out that people classify laws as "big", "little" and "in between" in their own minds. The consequences for circumventing copy protection can be hefty but quite a few people write it off as a "little" law and so break it without qualms when a "big" law, like say a requirement to pay income tax, they'd never think to violate.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dravin

[bytor2112]

Yes, that is somewhat how I see it.

I see the body as a temple that should be taken care of. I also see coffee, tea and alcohol as having health benefits taken in moderation. And I also see the benefits of taking prescription drugs when prescribed by a doctor.

M.

I think it has more to do with addiction and the fact that many become addicted to coffee and tea and use it as an aid to get through the day rather than leaning on Heavenly Father.

Alcohol for some is occaisional and in moderation, but for others it is recreation, addiction, self destruction and destroys the lives of those closest to the alcoholic. I guess that Heavenly Father sees it as "if it's not good for all, then it should be good for none". If it is HIS "work and glory to bring to pass out immortality and EternalLife" then removing alcohol will surely help those who might be snared by temptation due to the diminished reason and judgement that occurs when consuming alcohol.

I am six years sober and would never drink again if indeed the Prophet said...."moderation". Some would likely be fine, but as a whole I see the wisdom of the WOW.

[beefche]

when a "big" law, like say a requirement to pay income tax, they'd never think to violate.

Unless you are Wesley Snipes

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, Maureen, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an LDS leader who taught that tea/coffee are evil per se. Rather, it's that I am personally under covenant to abstain from those substances; so for me it would be "evil" in the same sense that breaking any other promise to God is evil.

I see the WoW as being the LDS equivalent of "kosher"--as such, it is partly but not completely about health. For me, the far more important aspect is the idea of an outward token that constantly reminds us of an inward commitment: a divine injunction to be a "peculiar people", and a warning that our efforts to "blend in" with the world are only supposed to go so far.

[Dravin]

Unless you are Wesley Snipes

Celebrities are rather famous for having a different sense of what laws are big, in between, and small.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

No it wasn't. It was initially counsel that was decided upon by the Church to adhere to. I'm not entirely sure of the pertinence there, the counsel contained in the Word of Wisdom was valid long before it was adopted as binding.

The beginning of the scripture states:

"To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint..."

It took many years for the 19th century and early 20th century Saints to make the WofW a habit. And the LDS Church made it an official commandment in 1921. (Thomas G. Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88.)

Of course I'm not, what I'm saying is if the Word of Wisdom wasn't given I certainly wouldn't logically conclude because of my belief that the body is a temple and my love of God that I should be avoiding tea, coffee and alcohol.

And without the WofW, you would have been like any other Christian, knowing that your body is a temple and the avoidance of coffee and tea at least, would have not even entered your mind.

Are you completely lost about what you should eat and drink? Yet you've failed to conclude that you should be avoiding tea, coffee and alcohol.

Not at all, it is well known that coffee, tea and alcohol can provide health benefits when consumed in moderation. It's a simple google search.

..It's not a hard concept Maureen, science and logic does not conclude that I should avoid tea, coffee, and alcohol.

Exactly! Science has shown us the benefits and logic gives us guidance based on what science has provided - and our taste buds play a small part. :)

If I should be avoiding it I'm glad that God told me as it's not a conclusion I'd be reaching on my own.

That's just it, "IF". With the information that has been provided regarding the health benefits of coffee, tea and alcohol, the conclusion would be that they should not be avoided. Consume good things in reasonable quantity and your body will thank you for it.

M.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Maureen

[Dravin]

The beginning of the scripture states:

"To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint..."

It took many years for the 19th century and early 20th century Saints to make the WofW a habit. And the LDS Church made it an official commandment in 1921. (Thomas G. Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88.)

Yes I'm aware of this. Thus why I was agreeing with you.

That's just it, "IF". With the information that has been provided regarding the health benefits of coffee, tea and alcohol, the conclusion would be that they should not be avoided.

Maureen I'm LDS, what do you think my stance is on the if? I fully understand why it isn't an issue for you, but you're talking to LDS about LDS positions. It'd be like talking to an athiest who responds, "Well if this whole God stuff is fake then you don't have to worry about fornicating or committing idolatry being a sin." It kinda garners a response sequence like this:

1)

2) "Well, no duh Sherlock."

3) "And if wishes were horses..."

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dravin

[RescueMom]

The thing that gets me about members is that it's ok to drink the 64 oz diet coke everyday, and they can still get into the temple, but a member who drinks a 12 oz cup of coffee is banned from the temple. Yet the 64 oz diet coke has much more caffiene, and has tons of other things that are really bad for the body (mostly kidneys) than coffee ever could be. Yet most members have no qualms drinking the diet coke, because it doesn't specifically say diet coke in the WoW.

Same with prescription drugs, a person who has a prescription of oxycodone can enter the temple tweeked out of their mind, but the dude who drank a glass of iced tea at lunch is evil.

Not that I think the WoW is wrong, but I think sometimes members sit and say they are fine so long as they live letter of the law...and I don't think that's what it was meant for.

[estradling75]

Coffee and tea aren't bad because of the caffeine... Coffee and Tea are bad because God said No. No other reason needs to be given. It makes it a matter of faith. Those who believe will try their best those that don't will not.

As for the rest of the Word of Wisdom it has been my thought that we as a group tend to focus more on the Do Nots parts and and don't have the kind of focus and attention on the Dos... But that is just a personal opinion based on what I have seen of it in practice

[prophetofdoom]

The WoW is meant to be a minimum standard. The Lord doesn't want to dictate every part of our lives, he wants us to use our free agency.

[Just_A_Guy]

The beginning of the scripture states:

"To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint..."

It took many years for the 19th century and early 20th century Saints to make the WofW a habit. And the LDS Church made it an official commandment in 1921. (Thomas G. Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88.)

Actually, David Whitmer was excommunicated--in part--for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom, in 1838.

Also, research culminating in the publication of the "Revelations" volume of the Joseph Smith Papers has documented that verses 1-3 of D&C 89 are not part of the revelation proper; rather, they are editorial commentary. The revelation itself begins with what is now D&C 89:4.

[Dravin]

Actually, David Whitmer was excommunicated--in part--for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom, in 1838.

Also, research culminating in the publication of the "Revelations" volume of the Joseph Smith Papers has documented that verses 1-3 of D&C 89 are not part of the revelation proper; rather, they are editorial commentary. The revelation itself begins with what is now D&C 89:4.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. My understanding has always been the counsel -> commandment/binding -> Finally getting serious about it understanding of it's history and the Church.

Same with prescription drugs, a person who has a prescription of oxycodone can enter the temple tweeked out of their mind, but the dude who drank a glass of iced tea at lunch is evil.

While it isn't advisable to go to the temple high, if one has a medically legitimate prescription for oxycodone and is taking it as directed there is no violation of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom or the expounded 'letter'.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Yes I'm aware of this. Thus why I was agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by Dravin

No it wasn't....

Strange, for some reason I interpreted those words above "No it wasn't.." as not agreeing with me.

Maureen I'm LDS, what do you think my stance is on the if? I fully understand why it isn't an issue for you, but you're talking to LDS about LDS positions..."

It's possible that we are not on the same wave length. It could be just a misunderstanding but I was interpreting your words as saying that you believe the WofW is telling you to avoid these previously mentioned substances because they were not good for your body. And I was responding to your statements saying that that is just not true, because we know from science that they are good for your body.

So I guess the question could be why does the WofW prohibits these substances, is it due to health issues or is it more a test of obedience? I think that if health is the issue at hand, then some common sense should also weigh in when keeping the WofW.

M.

[Maureen]

...Also, research culminating in the publication of the "Revelations" volume of the Joseph Smith Papers has documented that verses 1-3 of D&C 89 are not part of the revelation proper; rather, they are editorial commentary. The revelation itself begins with what is now D&C 89:4.

JAG, do you have a reference for this?

Actually, David Whitmer was excommunicated--in part--for disobedience to the Word of Wisdom, in 1838.

This too? The only thing I could find was saying that he was excommunicated as a dissenter.

M.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Maureen
adding more

[Wingnut]

Also, research culminating in the publication of the "Revelations" volume of the Joseph Smith Papers has documented that verses 1-3 of D&C 89 are not part of the revelation proper; rather, they are editorial commentary. The revelation itself begins with what is now D&C 89:4.

JAG, do you have a reference for this?

How 'bout the chapter heading to D&C 89?

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, 27 February 1833 (see History of the Church, 1:327–29). As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently, he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet.

Source

[estradling75]

So I guess the question could be why does the WofW prohibits these substances, is it due to health issues or is it more a test of obedience? I think that if health is the issue at hand, then some common sense should also weigh in when keeping the WofW.

M.

The Lord gives his reasons in verse 4

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

[Dravin]

Originally Posted by Dravin

No it wasn't....

Strange, for some reason I interpreted those words above "No it wasn't.." as not agreeing with me.

You: The Word of Wisdom wasn't strictly adhered to...

Me: No it wasn't.

Disagreement would have been "Yes it was."

It's possible that we are not on the same wave length. It could be just a misunderstanding but I was interpreting your words as saying that you believe the WofW is telling you to avoid these previously mentioned substances because they were not good for your body. And I was responding to your statements saying that that is just not true, because we know from science that they are good for your body.

You mean like we know from science that people don't die and come back to life three days later? That you can't simply command someone back to life? That you can't walk on liquid water? That there is no evidence that Jesus Christ was the Son of God?

Tell me Maureen, if you believed God told you that tea is not for your body or belly would you be arguing the point with him? Maybe point out that scientific evidence disagrees with him and he might want to reconsider his position? Tell him what he's saying just isn't true and he should use some common sense? Is faith such a foreign concept to you?

That said if we are to avoid them (coffee, tea, and alcohol) because of some unknown to science health consequence, because the Lord creatde a commandment for the weakest of Saints deciding that having everyone abstain to protect those inclined towards addiction (you have a problem with that I suppose you can take that up with Paul [ 1 Cor 8]), or if it was to make us a peculiar people the Lord does not want us (LDS) consuming them. Is the concept of being grateful for revelation received such a foreign concept? Are not mainstream Christians grateful for the revelations contained in the Bible? Does being such mean you want a detailed list of everything you should and should not believe? That you want, let's say Revelation changed to include a bit about how you shouldn't believe in Bigfoot and a run down of every future tabloid headline?

I think that if health is the issue at hand, then some common sense should also weigh in when keeping the WofW.

Common sense is if God tells you that a substance is not for your body you abstain from it. And as noted earlier, if you're just talking about eating healthier in general and not simply abstaining from coffee, tea, and tobacco while eating your 10th double-double for the day that's a point that's been conceded (that as a people we, LDS, could do better about it), and it's a principle contained in the Word of Wisdom.

Edit: I think you may not understand that I'm not trying to convince you that you should abstain from tea, for either scientific or revelatory reasons, I'm telling you what I believe. I believe the Word of Wisdom contains hard guidance and principles, and I believe they came from God, and I am grateful that I am a recipient of that guidance and principles just as any Christian is grateful for the guidance and principles contained in the Holy Bible that they are recipients of.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation.

Okay, what does it mean?

M.

[Dravin]

Okay, what does it mean?

M.

It means its revelation. I'm unsure what point you are trying to belabor as for my purposes in this thread, health benefit, social engineering against addiction, or making us peculiar it doesn't change things.

Tell me Maureen, what interpretation do you come with it that I shouldn't be grateful for the revelation?

[Dravin]

Okay, what does it mean?

M.

It means its revelation. I'm unsure what point you are trying to belabor as for my purposes in this thread, health benefit, social engineering against addiction, or making us peculiar it doesn't change things.

Tell me Maureen, what interpretation do you come with it that I shouldn't be grateful for, or follow, the revelation?