Recommended Posts

As I understand it, the "policy versus doctrine" distinction is intended only to give us some guidance as to what Church practices hypothetically may change in the future--or have changed in the past.  It does not serve to justify noncompliance with a current Church practice.  I can canker my soul by violating a policy just as easily as by violating a doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You mean the talk he did BEFORE he was prophet? 

I mean the one before he was president of the church.  He was an apostle and prophet when he gave that talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, the "policy versus doctrine" distinction is intended only to give us some guidance as to what Church practices hypothetically may change in the future--or have changed in the past.  It does not serve to justify noncompliance with a current Church practice.  I can canker my soul by violating a policy just as easily as by violating a doctrine.

Agreed, We have made covenants to observe the WoW as it currently applies and we should.  

We should also understand where our policies and doctrines come from so that we can have an educated conversation about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it intriguing the splitting hairs of doctrine vs policy within Church members; however, I do understand also why it seems to always be pointed out, and yet the Word of Wisdom is doctrine, and within this doctrine there are practices which can either be removed or added upon. I just don't get the consistent need for individuals to distinguish (similar to other policies put forth -- it isn't doctrine -- nor was the Law of Moses at the time, it was a practice implemented by the Lord -- with punishments and blessing if not lived or lived).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

I mean the one before he was president of the church.  He was an apostle and prophet when he gave that talk.

And your point is? 

These were his personal feelings about the subject matter certainly not binding or doctrinal in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I do find it intriguing the splitting hairs of doctrine vs policy within Church members; however, I do understand also why it seems to always be pointed out, and yet the Word of Wisdom is doctrine, and within this doctrine there are practices which can either be removed or added upon. I just don't get the consistent need for individuals to distinguish (similar to other policies put forth -- it isn't doctrine -- nor was the Law of Moses at the time, it was a practice implemented by the Lord -- with punishments and blessing if not lived or lived).

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine.

Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine.

Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change. 

THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine.

Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change. 

Agreed, similar to Polygamy. There is a higher principle, law, at play which determines the acceptance or removal of said practice/policy, but it does not make the policy "wrong" as some appear to often suggest when making the argument "It is not doctrine, it is policy/practice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

It's surprising to see how many people want to get baptized but their biggest issue isn't with chastity, or church history, or polygamy-it's coffee and tea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
35 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's surprising to see how many people want to get baptized but their biggest issue isn't with chastity, or church history, or polygamy-it's coffee and tea. 

In that same vein, my grandfather's big problem was tobacco.  The addiction was strong.  But he eventually overcame it and became quite faithful saint. In the end, though, it still ended up killing him.  He died at the ripe old age of 72 from a cancer that largely comes from tobacco smoking which he gave up 20 years earlier.  72 may seem like he died of old age.  But his entire family line had people living into their 90s and 100s regularly.  So, for his genes, 72 was dying young.  

He was survived by his wife who died at 95.  And she started up the coffee drinking again after his death.  Go figure.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In that same vein, my grandfather's big problem was tobacco.  The addiction was strong.  But he eventually overcame it and became quite faithful saint. In the end, though, it still ended up killing him.  He died at the ripe old age of 72 from a cancer that largely comes from tobacco smoking which he gave up 20 years earlier.  72 may seem like he died of old age.  But his entire family line had people living into their 90s and 100s regularly.  So, for his genes, 72 was dying young.

Oh I agree. That is young. My grandfather ( I'm the only LDS in a family of lapsed or hardcore Catholics. It's funny, no moderates in my family. Either hardcore orthodox or lapsed. My grandfather was agnostic. Anyway.) died of cancer in his 60s in the late 1980s. Tragic. Cigarettes killed him and I blame the cigarettes, not him. His generation was unaware of the damage they caused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/07/2016 at 0:59 PM, MormonGator said:

Oh I agree. That is young. My grandfather ( I'm the only LDS in a family of lapsed or hardcore Catholics. It's funny, no moderates in my family. Either hardcore orthodox or lapsed. My grandfather was agnostic. Anyway.) died of cancer in his 60s in the late 1980s. Tragic. Cigarettes killed him and I blame the cigarettes, not him. His generation was unaware of the damage they caused. 

It sounds like your grandfather and my mother were close in age. I'm pretty sure your grandfather had an idea that cigarettes were not healthy. When my mother's brother passed away from lung cancer (not cigarette related) she made a packed with her other siblings to quit smoking; and this was the early '70s. At the time she was the only one of her siblings that was able to quit smoking. They all knew it would be much healthier to not smoke. I'm sure her other siblings that smoked eventually quit, I just don't know when.

M.

Edited by Maureen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
9 hours ago, Maureen said:

It sounds like your grandfather and my mother were close in age. I'm pretty sure your grandfather had an idea that cigarettes were not healthy. When my mother's brother passed away from lung cancer (not cigarette related) she made a packed with her other siblings to quit smoking; and this was the early '70s. At the time she was the only one of her siblings that was able to quit smoking. They all knew it would much healthier to not smoke. I'm sure her other siblings that smoked eventually quit, I just don't know when.

M.

You are probably right. My grandfather died when I was under 10, so he obviously didn't talk about it much to his young grandchild. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my mother in law is a convert of about 15 years and a regular coffee drinker.  She worked long and hard to try and get a temple recommend, but couldn't give up coffee.  Her Bishop was able to convince her to go to decaf and finally ok'd her recommend when she switched.  She works in the temple and drinks decaf every morning.  Sort of odd situation, but I'm extremely grateful to that Bishop for following the spirit vs. the letter of the law.

I should add that my MIL has had a difficult life.  Lots of physical abuse as a child, a couple of bad marriages, and years of alcohol abuse took its toll on her mentally.  I truly believe that her Bishop was able to see that it was a small miracle that she had progressed as far as she had and wasn't going to let something as minor as coffee keep her from the blessings of the temple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 10:51 AM, Rhoades said:

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine.

Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change. 

I had a dream a while back that the Church decided to get rid of the Coffee/Tea requirement of the WOW.  They decided that since studies about the health detriments were either minimal or inconclusive that having the Saints continue to keep this commandment was equivalent to Jews not eating pork. 

There just wasn't any rationale for it!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I had a dream a while back that the Church decided to get rid of the Coffee/Tea requirement of the WOW.  They decided that since studies about the health detriments were either minimal or inconclusive that having the Saints continue to keep this commandment was equivalent to Jews not eating pork. 

There just wasn't any rationale for it!

Sometimes, separating out those who are willing to act even in the absence of an obvious scientific rationale, is the rationale.  ;)

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I had a dream a while back that the Church decided to get rid of the Coffee/Tea requirement of the WOW.  They decided that since studies about the health detriments were either minimal or inconclusive that having the Saints continue to keep this commandment was equivalent to Jews not eating pork. 

There just wasn't any rationale for it!

This comes from the mentality that the WoW is our health code.  It may be.  But if you think that is all it is, you completely missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are smart, we will avoid coffee, tea, AND hot drinks. We now have modern science to back up the health inhibiting claims of old. I do appreciate your wanting to get to the source though! 

Edited by Reece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Reece said:

If we are smart, we will avoid coffee, tea, AND hot drinks. We now have modern science to back up the health inhibiting claims of old. I do appreciate your wanting to get to the source though! 

Show me a study that says coffee is bad and 'll show you one that says its good.

https://authoritynutrition.com/coffee-good-or-bad/

We don't not drink coffee, tea, drink alcoholic beverages, because it's bad for us that's part of it but not all of it.  Otherwise how do you explain almost 100yrs on non strict observance by any of our leaders.  I mean God knew this stuff was bad right? He told us didn't he? we didn't need a study to tell us yet we blissfully ignored its practice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now