What do you think about WoW?

[omegaseamaster75]

That doesn't make sense. The WOW was established by revelation to a Prophet. Choosing not to follow the WOW because one believes "follow the prophet" is overrated is not something you can leave to nuance.

I can't speak for Duff.....he will have to answer that one

[Vort]

Well we are going to just have to let God sort out my deceitful Grandfathers coffee drinking issues......I'm on grandpas side..I am sure God will have a grandfather policy in place since they passed the prohibition in his life time...anyone born after 1921 you better fall in line.

omega, this is not about drinking coffee. This is about lying to obtain a temple recommend.

[duffman180]

I don't think that Duff questions the authority of the Prophet, I maybe wrong and he can correct me if I am. What he is saying is that our religion has more nuance than what we hear in Sunday school, and what we indoctrinate our kids with in primary

I don't think that Duff questions the authority of the Prophet, I maybe wrong and he can correct me if I am. What he is saying is that our religion has more nuance than what we hear in Sunday school, and what we indoctrinate our kids with in primary

Yes, you got it right omega. The prophets are often viewed in a worshipful manner, and I don't like it. Especially the last conference... A lot of the talks heavenly emphasized the prophet. I just feel its misplaced and harmful spiritually.

[duffman180]

That doesn't make sense. The WOW was established by revelation to a Prophet. Choosing not to follow the WOW because one believes "follow the prophet" is overrated is not something you can leave to nuance.

I think it has to be nuanced once you look at the complicated history. Prophets have taught and established doctrines that we now disregard, so we clearly shouldn't just accept everything as if it came from God. We ought to reason for ourselves and with God.

And anyways, the WoW as received by JS wasn't a commandment. And there hasn't been a revelation stating that it should be, only that its a policy change.

[estradling75]

I suppose you prefer the scriptural trend in which "Dead prophets" are given greater weight and importance over living ones?  I believe Christ himself made that observation while people were rejecting him.

[Vort]

Yes, you got it right omega. The prophets are often viewed in a worshipful manner, and I don't like it. Especially the last conference... A lot of the talks heavenly emphasized the prophet. I just feel its misplaced and harmful spiritually.

It's a good thing we have you here to help steady the ark.

[StallionMcBeastly]

Yes, you got it right omega. The prophets are often viewed in a worshipful manner, and I don't like it. Especially the last conference... A lot of the talks heavenly emphasized the prophet. I just feel its misplaced and harmful spiritually.

GA worship is harmful spriritually and also harmful to critical thinking. The church isnt as black and white as we are taught in Sunday School. Looking at history makes that abundantly clear IMO

[duffman180]

Double post

Edited March 9, 2015 by duffman180

[Vort]

GA worship is harmful spriritually and also harmful to critical thinking.

Plus, it's pretty much non-existent.

 

We might as well decry the loathsome practice of bishops marrying their own daughters.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Vort

[duffman180]

I suppose you prefer the scriptural trend in which "Dead prophets" are given greater weight and importance over living ones?  I believe Christ himself made that observation while people were rejecting him.

The difference is Jesus was perfect and infallible. Modern prophets aren't, which is clearly demonstrated by history. Even when it comes to doctrine they've gotten it wrong, so why blindly trust every policy in the church is the way it ought to be? That's my point. I continue to place my trust in God and Christ above all else. That's why personal relationships with them are more important than the prophet.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree! Agency is one of God's greatest gifts. I guess I don't see the WoW as a definitive law of God. I take the revelation as it reads, and come to my own conclusion.

 

The "revelation" actually begins at verse 4.  Verses 1-3 are editorial commentary. 

 

So here is the deal, the WOW is policy of the church not doctrine. We see attempts by modern leaders to justify the lack of enforcement the first 80 or so years of the church and this makes some feel better about it. 

 

To hint that the WoW was entirely optional for the first 80 years of LDS history would be quite erroneous.  Adherence to the WoW was announced to be a prerequisite for church office in the Nauvoo period.  Before that, one of the grounds for David Whitmer's excommunication was violation of the Word of Wisdom.  Adherence to the Word of Wisdom was also a major emphasis in the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s.  Granted, it was not uniform; but per Alexander's Dialogue article the Church was well on a trajectory towards enforced compliance even before those nasty Prohibitionists reared their heads in American political life.

 

Surely no one here thinks that James E Talmage quit smoking cigars after this declaration and he was an apostle....

 

The historical record actually works against you on this one:

 

The rumors of his [Talmage's] smoking originated in a remedy prescribed by a doctor, who believed that at one point Talmage was headed toward a nervous breakdown. He typically worked himself to exhaustion; in fact, one apocryphal story, holds that he told a mission president that sometimes his head hurt so much from studying that he would wrap it in wet towels to relieve the pressure. In 1896 Talmage presided over Latter-day Saints College, worked on The Articles of Faith, taught a heavy course load, and delivered lectures and completed various other [p.xxxiii]church assignments. He also suffered from insomnia and constipation. He noted in his journal that it had been reported to the First Presidency that “the moderate use of tobacco would have a good effect on me.” They told him, “We give you this rather as an instruction than as counsel” to take up smoking. Talmage subsequently found “that a good cigar produced a marvelous quieting of my over-wrought nerves.” As medicine, this prescription was in keeping with the spirit of the Word of Wisdom, and Talmage did not prolong his use of it.  (Source)

 

So:  Talmage smoked, for a time, in the late 1890s, for medical reasons, with the knowledge and approval--in fact, the suggestion--of his priesthood superiors.  He then, at some point, stopped, was called to be an apostle in 1911, and lived until 1933.

 

Because I feel the follow the prophet theme is overdone? Mormonism is much more than believing in and having a prophet. To me it represents a belief in the divinity of man and our own personal connection to God. LDS theology exalts mankind. Following the prophet has little to nothing to do with that. I recently read Givens book "The Crucible of Doubt". He talks a lot about how we have a culture of hero worship towards our leaders. He even points out how past prophets have been concerned with the rhetoric of blind adherence.

 

Granted; but prophets exist because humans have a rather interesting tendency to do whatever the heck they want and claim it came from God; and prophets kind of serve as a useful check against that propensity.  Caution, and the primacy of individual revelation, is certainly warranted; but this "except I see a sign from heaven I will continue to believe that the prophet is full of horse doodie and I will gleefully proclaim that position to all and sundry" is very much contrary to the spirit of the Restoration.

 

Read the GIvenses however you wish:  Their writings betray no veiled suspicion of or open contempt for the LDS prophets, and their theology boils down to something a whole lot more complicated than "do as you will and claim you got it straight from God".

 

We are several generations removed from the first implementations of the current interpretation of the WOW. There is no excuse now for not being in full compliance, and those that were not aka my grandfather, and others I personally think will be judged fairly.

 

I agree with you; but (and maybe I'm just jaded) in the context of this discussion, the history you have cited seems to have been deployed to suggest that enforced compliance with the WoW is actually contra the Lord's will for the Church at the present time.

 

Bingo! Policy, not doctrine.  As previously shared, I had a grandmother who drank tea (actually I think it was decaf coffee), either way, I think it would make God incredibly unreasonable to base salvation on something so insignificant.  Plus, as you mentioned, the WoW enforcement coincided quite nicely with prohibition..... I think it's over simplistic to claim that the decision to make it a commandment came directly from God.

 

Many people either don't know or forget that Joseph Smith drank and smoke cigars till the day he died.... apparently he didn't feel it was intended to be a commandment necessary for salvation either.

 

We should not conflate the Lord's mercy and leniency in the face of our current weakness, with some sort of approval of our weakened state and authorization to continue wallowing in our weakness in perpetuity.  People who lived in past generations will be judged on the light and knowledge available to them, and their diligence in living in accordance with that light and knowledge. 

 

As will we.

 

I think it has to be nuanced once you look at the complicated history. Prophets have taught and established doctrines that we now disregard, so we clearly shouldn't just accept everything as if it came from God. We ought to reason for ourselves and with God.

 

Ah, yes . . . the old "only people who think like I do have really reasoned about it--the rest of you are unthinking sheeple!" routine.

 

And there hasn't been a revelation stating that it should be, only that its a policy change.

 

I think what you meant to say is that we do not have a canonized, written record of such revelation.  Because it's a heckuva thing for someone who's so big on personal revelation, to pronounce himself the final arbiter regarding which Mormons--and even which prophets--have, and haven't, had one.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Snap.

[estradling75]

I think it has to be nuanced once you look at the complicated history. Prophets have taught and established doctrines that we now disregard, so we clearly shouldn't just accept everything as if it came from God. We ought to reason for ourselves and with God.

 

 

 

The difference is Jesus was perfect and infallible. Modern prophets aren't, which is clearly demonstrated by history. Even when it comes to doctrine they've gotten it wrong, so why blindly trust every policy in the church is the way it ought to be? That's my point. I continue to place my trust in God and Christ above all else. That's why personal relationships with them are more important than the prophet.

 

 

 

 

Funny how when I listen to the Prophets and other leaders so that I can "Follow them"  They tell me to read/study/ponder/search/feast upon the scriptures.  Pray sincerely... Serve others as Christ would etc. etc. etc.  To build that personal relationship.

 

And then when I hear those who like to try make the case that we "Follow blindly," or "prophet worship" their answer to what we really should be doing... is exactly the message I have been hearing from the Prophets and the other leaders all along.

 

So to me the message of the "Don't follow blindly" and "Don't prophet worship" when you get right down to what they think we should be doing goes right back to everything the prophets have been trying to teach us. (aka follow the prophets)

 

Now I grant the possibility that some members say "oh we have a prophet but they are saying the same thing over and over and over again... so I will do what I want until the prophet gives me something new then I will jump right in and go to it."   ...  But in all honesty I can't call that mindset "Following the prophet" in any meaningful sense.  It does sound like prophet worship in the sense that they don't think they need to do anything and the prophet will "save them".   However I know our prophets and leaders are very much against that kind of mindset.  So I can hardly say that is an idea encouraged by them

[StallionMcBeastly]

Plus, it's pretty much non-existent.

We might as well decry the loathsome practice of bishops marrying their own daughters.

In my experience it seems to be quite rampant.

[The Folk Prophet]

We most definitely have developed a culture of hero worhship - much to our detriment IMO. 

 

Even if we take it at face value that we have such a culture, why is it "much to our detriment". Can you support that?

 

GA worship is harmful spriritually and also harmful to critical thinking.

 

I don't recall "critical thinking" being a principle of the gospel. Once again...how is this harmful spiritually.

 

Nobody here is saying that WOW is necessary for salvation. Faith in Christ is what is necessary for salvation.

 

Speak for yourself please. Obedience to any and all of the commandments (and repentance upon failure to obey) is necessary for salvation.

 

When we get to final judgement if drinking coffee and a couple of white lies are all we have to worry about...

 

Then we are damned. No unrepentant sin will be justified. Mercy CANNOT rob justice.

 

I think it has to be nuanced once you look at the complicated history. Prophets have taught and established doctrines that we now disregard, so we clearly shouldn't just accept everything as if it came from God. We ought to reason for ourselves and with God.

 

There is no nuance to this. The church is either led and directed by God or it is not. You are coming here and testifying that it is not. But it is. You are wrong.

[Guest]

Speak for yourself please. Obedience to any and all of the commandments (and repentance upon failure to obey) is necessary for salvation.

And we branch off to the faith and works discussion. Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation... the works is a product of faith. I'm not going to question one's works as a product of one's faith. That's what bishops are for. And there's the salvation versus exaltation...

But then, this is hardly the place for such discussions. Besides, that's been an ad nauseum topic on this forum.

[Vort]

The difference is Jesus was perfect and infallible. Modern prophets aren't, which is clearly demonstrated by history. Even when it comes to doctrine they've gotten it wrong, so why blindly trust every policy in the church is the way it ought to be? That's my point. I continue to place my trust in God and Christ above all else. That's why personal relationships with them are more important than the prophet.

duffman, I assume that you believe that "sustaining" your leaders means something more than raising your hand when asked. Do you believe that we are commanded to sustain our leaders? What, exactly, do you think it means to "sustain" our leaders?

[Guest]

Whenever I hear people talking about blindly following the prophets, what I really hear is, "I don't want to do anything inconvenient or uncomfortable, and anyone who does is a sucker."

[The Folk Prophet]

the works is a product of faith.

 

...and, therefore, it is logically in-congruent to make a statement that works are not necessary and only faith is. :)

[Guest]

...and, therefore, it is logically in-congruent to make a statement that works are not necessary and only faith is. :)

It isn't. Because, just like a Tibetan monk will not allow you to kill the earthworm because of his faith, such works FOLLOW as a result of faith. Therefore, what faith does a Tibetan monk really have if he crushes an earthworm with a shovel? Yet, a Tibetan monk who refuses to crush an earthworm, not because of his faith but because... he likes wiggly things... still has no faith. But see... crushing earthworms is a Thou Shalt Not in the same manner as drinking coffee is. Therefore, if one drinks coffee, it is not the work that is the problem... it is the faith. Faith in Christ whose mouthpiece are the Prophets.

Edited March 9, 2015 by anatess

[duffman180]

The "revelation" actually begins at verse 4.  Verses 1-3 are editorial commentary. 

 

 

To hint that the WoW was entirely optional for the first 80 years of LDS history would be quite erroneous.  Adherence to the WoW was announced to be a prerequisite for church office in the Nauvoo period.  Before that, one of the grounds for David Whitmer's excommunication was violation of the Word of Wisdom.  Adherence to the Word of Wisdom was also a major emphasis in the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s.  Granted, it was not uniform; but per Alexander's Dialogue article the Church was well on a trajectory towards enforced compliance even before those nasty Prohibitionists reared their heads in American political life.

 

 

The historical record actually works against you on this one:

 

The rumors of his [Talmage's] smoking originated in a remedy prescribed by a doctor, who believed that at one point Talmage was headed toward a nervous breakdown. He typically worked himself to exhaustion; in fact, one apocryphal story, holds that he told a mission president that sometimes his head hurt so much from studying that he would wrap it in wet towels to relieve the pressure. In 1896 Talmage presided over Latter-day Saints College, worked on The Articles of Faith, taught a heavy course load, and delivered lectures and completed various other [p.xxxiii]church assignments. He also suffered from insomnia and constipation. He noted in his journal that it had been reported to the First Presidency that “the moderate use of tobacco would have a good effect on me.” They told him, “We give you this rather as an instruction than as counsel” to take up smoking. Talmage subsequently found “that a good cigar produced a marvelous quieting of my over-wrought nerves.” As medicine, this prescription was in keeping with the spirit of the Word of Wisdom, and Talmage did not prolong his use of it.  (Source)

 

So:  Talmage smoked, for a time, in the late 1890s, for medical reasons, with the knowledge and approval--in fact, the suggestion--of his priesthood superiors.  He then, at some point, stopped, was called to be an apostle in 1911, and lived until 1933.

 

 

Granted; but prophets exist because humans have a rather interesting tendency to do whatever the heck they want and claim it came from God; and prophets kind of serve as a useful check against that propensity.  Caution, and the primacy of individual revelation, is certainly warranted; but this "except I see a sign from heaven I will continue to believe that the prophet is full of horse doodie and I will gleefully proclaim that position to all and sundry" is very much contrary to the spirit of the Restoration.

 

Read the GIvenses however you wish:  Their writings betray no veiled suspicion of or open contempt for the LDS prophets, and their theology boils down to something a whole lot more complicated than "do as you will and claim you got it straight from God".

 

 

I agree with you; but (and maybe I'm just jaded) in the context of this discussion, the history you have cited seems to have been deployed to suggest that enforced compliance with the WoW is actually contra the Lord's will for the Church at the present time.

 

 

We should not conflate the Lord's mercy and leniency in the face of our current weakness, with some sort of approval of our weakened state and authorization to continue wallowing in our weakness in perpetuity.  People who lived in past generations will be judged on the light and knowledge available to them, and their diligence in living in accordance with that light and knowledge. 

 

As will we.

 

 

Ah, yes . . . the old "only people who think like I do have really reasoned about it--the rest of you are unthinking sheeple!" routine.

 

 

I think what you meant to say is that we do not have a canonized, written record of such revelation.  Because it's a heckuva thing for someone who's so big on personal revelation, to pronounce himself the final arbiter regarding which Mormons--and even which prophets--have, and haven't, had one.

 

I'm aware that there were a variety of different ways that the WoW was followed in the early days of the church, hence my belief that it ought to be up to the individual to decide how to implement the revelation in their life.  For as it says, it's not by way of commandment.... so that's how I take it.  Your correct that there is no canonized revelation stating that it ought to be mandatory.  Yes, prophets have changed policies and said that it is the will of God, but why should I take their word for it?  As I've commented many times, and no one has yet to deny it, many prophets have taught lots of things contrary to the current doctrine of the church. They have proclaimed things as the will of God, and now we deny such things.  

 

So why shouldn't I trust my relationship with over the leaders of the church?  I'm not claiming the Givens had contempt for modern prophets, they carefully peeled back the falsehood that prophets can never lead the people astray doctrinally.  I don't believe the prophet is full of horse doodie, I think for the most part he teaches wonderful things.... but that still doesn't mean every policy and practice of the church came directly from God.  In my view, that certainly isn't true.

 

"Ah, yes . . . the old "only people who think like I do have really reasoned about it--the rest of you are unthinking sheeple!" routine." I wasn't saying this at all, I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I'm saying that it's okay for us reason for ourselves and come to our own conclusions, even if those conclusions differ.... I'm not talking about debating the divinity of Jesus or actuality of God here.... I'm talking about drinking coffee.  

[duffman180]

Whenever I hear people talking about blindly following the prophets, what I really hear is, "I don't want to do anything inconvenient or uncomfortable, and anyone who does is a sucker."

 

That's really not what I'm trying to say.  I'm just advocating a culture where it's more socially acceptable to have differing of opinions, even if those are contrary to current church policy.  I think it's a travesty that people blindly followed the prophets and were bigoted towards people of African descent for decades.  That's a perfect example of what can happen if people feel it's unacceptable to say anything contrary to current church practice.  It was clearly wrong, yet many people went along with it because they believed it was God's will because it came form the top down.

[duffman180]

duffman, I assume that you believe that "sustaining" your leaders means something more than raising your hand when asked. Do you believe that we are commanded to sustain our leaders? What, exactly, do you think it means to "sustain" our leaders?

 

 

hmmm commanded to sustain our leaders? I don't think I've read that specifically anywhere.  I suppose we sustain them if we agree that they would be good for the job, and oppose if we feel they wouldn't be.

[duffman180]

It isn't. Because, just like a Tibetan monk will not allow you to kill the earthworm because of his faith, such works FOLLOW as a result of faith. Therefore, what faith does a Tibetan monk really have if he crushes an earthworm with a shovel? Yet, a Tibetan monk who refuses to crush an earthworm, not because of his faith but because... he likes wiggly things... still has no faith. But see... crushing earthworms is a Thou Shalt Not in the same manner as drinking coffee is. Therefore, if one drinks coffee, it is not the work that is the problem... it is the faith. Faith in Christ whose mouthpiece are the Prophets.

 

 

I have plenty of faith in Christ, that's not the problem here.  I don't have faith that every policy and utterance from the leaders is from God.  That's a big difference.

[omegaseamaster75]

I have plenty of faith in Christ, that's not the problem here.  I don't have faith that every policy and utterance from the leaders is from God.  That's a big difference.

I've been down this road Duff....and I have a warning post to my credit because of it.

 

 

let the dog lie, your not going to get anywhere.......

 

As a side note, we can look at the law of tithing as a perfect example of the leaders of the church allowing us to decide the interpretation of the law. People will go back and forth on as to what is and what is not considered a full  tithe, but the bottom line is that it is between you, God and the bishop (and the bishop will only ask you if your a full tithe payer or not).