I Cant Wrap My Head Around Men Becoming Gods


Ken S.
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

This is actually a good question (even if rhetorical), and if a bit off topic.

If drinking coffee is a sin because of health reasons, why wouldn't wearing high heels be too?  Wearing high heels is probably a lot less healthy than drinking coffee.  Wearing high heels can (and often does) cause health problems with spine, back, neck, vocal cords, ankles, and feet. Recent studies show that wearing high heels even increases the risk of cancer.

The W.o.W. doesn't specify high heels, but it doesn't specify things like marijuana either (in the scripture at least; it has been specified in other places).  It also doesn't specifically say you can't spend 12 hours every day in the tanning both either, but that would be really harmful to your health.

Why wouldn't wearing high heels be sinful, especially since we are commanded to take care of our bodies?

For example the Church Handbook says the following:  

 The Lord has commanded members to take care of their minds and bodies....They should shun substances or practices that abuse their bodies..Maintaining the best possible physical health has been a gospel ideal throughout the ages

I don't see how wearing high heels wouldn't be breaking that commandment (and breaking a commandment is sinning).  I'm not suggesting that we judge anyone wearing high heels, or that high heels should be banned, but to me at least, it does seem that they indeed are sinful.   Then again, everyone has their own sins, and there are more serious sins than wearing high heels.

I have never drank coffee and I have never worn high heels, but if my daughter was going to do one or the other, I'd rather her drink the coffee (of course the preferable thing would not to do either!).  The only argument I could see for choosing the high heels over coffee is the addiction factor.  From a health standpoint, high heels are almost certainly worse.  

You bring up some good points. All I can reallybsay about coffee is that we are told not to drink it so I don’t. I think that living the higher law would be to not take any substance into our body that may be harmful to our health. I think however that it’s a good thing that we don’t have an extensive list of do and don’t. Better that we use our own judgement and inspiration to decide for ourselves. 

On the lines of your high heels, while not a nutritional concern we should still care for our health by exercising etc in addition to healthy eating. 

As I’ve said before I believe the blessings of the word of wisdom are given to a greater extent to those who live it more fully. I believe that those who are living by the spirit of the law will not be obese and that in itself would reduce the likelihood of many prevalent illnesses and diseases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

  The only argument I could see for choosing the high heels over coffee is the addiction factor.  From a health standpoint, high heels are almost certainly worse.  

 

Well, except for the fact that Apostles have specifically stated we can't drink coffee and haven't said anything about high heels.  Why would you rather your daughter DEFINITELY sin, rather than do something you believe may be a sin, but likely isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to believe that the things we are taught by the spirit concerning covenants and commandments are not so that we can judge others as much as they are intended to bring us closer to G-d.  Disciplining myself concerning the Word of Wisdom has indeed given me insights into G-d and Christ that I am quite sure I would not otherwise enjoy or appreciate.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Quote

Well, except for the fact that Apostles have specifically stated we can't drink coffee and haven't said anything about high heels.  

 Not directly, but they did say this: 

The Lord has commanded members to take care of their minds and bodies....They should shun substances or practices that abuse their bodies..Maintaining the best possible physical health has been a gospel ideal throughout the ages

Wearing heels is an extremely unhealthy thing to do.  This can't be reasonably argued against.  As said, I'm not about to pass judgment on anyone, and everyone sins, but any intentional unhealthy practice is a sin since it is contrary to a commandment.  It may be argued that it's a small sin, but a sin none-the-less.    If you disagree, why is doing something (anything) contrary to a commandment not a sin?

Quote

Why would you rather your daughter DEFINITELY sin, rather than do something you believe may be a sin, but likely isn't?

I don't want her to do either one.   I wasn't thinking of trying to decide which one is the greater sin; I was thinking of her well-being.

I don't know if you have kids or not, but which would you rather have one of them do; take a sip of coffee or eat Tide pods?  As far as I know, the prophet has never come out and said "don't eat Tide pods".    That doesn't mean that doing so isn't against the WoW or the commandments on health.   They shouldn't have to  dictate everything we should or shouldn't do.  People should have a pretty good idea of what is healthy and what is not and make a wise decision accordingly.   That said, it's not up to me to dictate or force anyone to do or not do something.  I'm pretty sure all of us have at least a few unhealthy habits.  

To answer my own question, I'd rather have my daughter take a sip of coffee than eat Tide pods, even though the prophet (as far as I know) has never said whether or not we should eat tide pods.   That said, again, I don't want her to do either one.

What is your answer on taking a sip of coffee vs. eating Tide pods?

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

What is your answer on taking a sip of coffee vs. eating Tide pods?

Why even ask?  The question is absurd.  The emphasis on the "do not" side of the Word of Wisdom comes strictly because those impact one's worthiness to get a temple recommend.  Clearly the Lord finds some things more basic and urgent than others.  This doesn't mean that the Lord doesn't want us working on the "do" side as well, but how concerned are we about one's ratio of junk-to-healthy food when they're falling down drunk?

Similarly, if your daughter is addicted to cigarettes (or heroin or alcohol), is the size heels on her shoes really an immediate concern?

Further, scriptures make it plain both that it's not (reasonably) possible to list all the ways one might sin (nor presumably all the ways one might do good).  Rather, each person is expected to do the best with the knowledge they have and gradually increase that knowledge.

So, if you happen to have knowledge which leads you to believe that wearing heels higher than n1 inches is bad for one's health, then feel free to teach this to your children (who are within your stewardship) and feel free to mention it to others when the occasion warrants.  But don't be surprised to find that the Church isn't going to insert this into the temple recommend interview.

1Except for some flip-flops, shower-shoes, and similar designs not meant for day-to-day wearing in public, I have never seen shoes with absolutely no heels - men's shoes, women's shoes, kids' shoes, sneakers, dress shoes, boots, blah, blah, blah, they all raise one's heels by some amount.  So I expect you'll need to define n, or start advocating flip-flops for all occasions.

PS: Now I want to go by a pair of harness boots, just cuz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Quote

Further, scriptures make it plain both that it's not (reasonably) possible to list all the ways one might sin (nor presumably all the ways one might do good).  Rather, each person is expected to do the best with the knowledge they have and gradually increase that knowledge.

Yes exactly.  Someone else brought up the subject of heels, and I posted on it.  

Quote

So, if you happen to have knowledge which leads you to believe that wearing heels higher than n1 inches is bad for one's health, then feel free to teach this to your children (who are within your stewardship) and feel free to mention it to others when the occasion warrants.  But don't be surprised to find that the Church isn't going to insert this into the temple recommend interview.

It shouldn't have to be part of the interview. 

As far as which size of heel to wear, that's up to you, but it's pretty obvious which ones are unhealthy.  If heels are uncomfortable, awkward, or painful when you start wearing them, they are unhealthy and doing damage.   This isn't the same as some minor blisters, say such as breaking in a pair of boots.   High heels are very unhealthy, period.  Whether or not you wear them is up to you.   We won't have them in our house, but I'm certainly not going to go to your house and go through your shoes.
 

Quote

The emphasis on the "do not" side of the Word of Wisdom comes strictly because those impact one's worthiness to get a temple recommend.  

No.   The WoW is a lot more than a strict guideline determining one's worthiness to get a temple recommend.  That is only one purpose. God wants us to live healthy.  There are many scriptures and Church sources that say this.  Just plug in the word "healthy" in LDS.org.   The entire WoW can be summarized in two words; "live healthy".  Other than the specific prohibitions and recommendations, how you choose to do this is left to the member.

I only mentioned high heels because someone else brought it up.   They are not healthy.   You can make your own determination of what to do with that fact. 

That said, Church members aren't supposed to have "gospel hobbies" and get so caught up in things such making the WoW so restrictive and specific that it causes one to judge others.   We are warned about that.   My mention of high heels wasn't meant to condemn or judge anyone.  It is up to you to decide which unhealthy habits and practices are sins.   That's between you and God and I'm not going to make that decision for you.    If you don't think doing something unhealthy is a sin, then that's your business and I won't judge you for it.   I may state my opinion or ask you a question, but that's as far as it goes.

At the risk of making a gospel hobby out of something I shouldn't, I'll leave this here and let you make your own decision.  
 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you mistake me for someone who was trying to argue with you regarding wearing of high heels.  I wasn't.  I couldn't care less about heels if I tried.  I'm just pointing out that your question was absurd and that there's a good reason why the "don'ts" are in the temple recommend interview but the "dos" (and many other things) aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
26 minutes ago, zil said:

 that there's a good reason why the "don'ts" are in the temple recommend interview

No, they aren't.   The only question in the Temple Recommend Interview concerning the WoW is as follows:

Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?

That is all.

Nothing is expounded on (such as the dos and don'ts) unless you want the Bishop/interviewer to expand on the question if you aren't sure.  In fact, Bishops/interviews are prohibited in being more specific in the temple recommend questions and asking more than the Handbook specifies.   The person being interviewed may ask more questions if more clarification is needed, but the Bishop/interviewer is not allowed to.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
1 minute ago, bytebear said:

The worthiness interview isn't for the bishop to catch you sinning.  It is to make you accountable to yourself. 

Yes, this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, they aren't.   The only question in the Temple Recommend Interview concerning the WoW is as follows:

Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?

That is all.

Nothing is expounded on (such as the dos and don'ts) unless you want the Bishop/interviewer to expand on the question if you aren't sure.  In fact, Bishops/interviews are prohibited in being more specific in the temple recommend questions and asking more than the Handbook specifies.   The person being interviewed may ask more questions if more clarification is needed, but the Bishop/interviewer is not allowed to.  

I agree that abstaining from the don'ts does not mean that one is keeping the word of wisdom. However it seems that the don'ts are the only part that anyone cares about. 

I hear people complain saying I live the word of wisdom and still have all these health problems, what about the promiced blessings of health from living the word of wisdom? My reply would be that the Promised blessings age given in proportion to how well we actually keep the word of wisdom. You can't simply disregard most of what it says. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 10:24 PM, lostinwater said:

  i view the idea that the loss of a child's life is preferable to the present/perceived absence of that child's chastity as being wrong.  

That's a pretty fundamental idea to me - and since i highly doubt i'd be able to convince anyone who disagrees or justifies something like that that they are wrong and i am right, i won't try.  And that's just a general statement - not any attempt at accusation on my part.

I'm am jumping into the middle of this party, without much context. However, I read enough that there is some consternation about the idea of some devout parents that they would rather see their son-missionaries return home in a casket than disgraced (i.e. by sexual immorality). I read similar sentiment in the broader Christian sphere recently. A columnist suggested that we (Evangelicals in this case) were to romantic about martyrdom. Is it really better to proclaim Christ and be killed than to compromise in public testimony, if doing so meant a saved life (or even the lives of one's family)?

The short answer is that it would be better to die for the gospel than to live for sin. Repentance is possible. However, we live this life as preparation for eternity. I'd rather enter immortality with a solid, consistent (though short) record, than one that was compromised (though longer). If we believe in heaven then the phrase "better a casket than disgrace" is understandable. It is only cruel in the perspective of unbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm am jumping into the middle of this party, without much context. However, I read enough that there is some consternation about the idea of some devout parents that they would rather see their son-missionaries return home in a casket than disgraced (i.e. by sexual immorality). I read similar sentiment in the broader Christian sphere recently. A columnist suggested that we (Evangelicals in this case) were to romantic about martyrdom. Is it really better to proclaim Christ and be killed than to compromise in public testimony, if doing so meant a saved life (or even the lives of one's family)?

 The short answer is that it would be better to die for the gospel than to live for sin. Repentance is possible. However, we live this life as preparation for eternity. I'd rather enter immortality with a solid, consistent (though short) record, than one that was compromised (though longer). If we believe in heaven then the phrase "better a casket than disgrace" is understandable. It is only cruel in the perspective of unbelief.

There are things i would give my life for.  Maybe the idea of giving one's own life for God is what you're really getting at.  i hope so.

But i simply cannot fathom how a parent would willingly exchange the life of their child for that child's sexual purity (however the parent defines that). That is entirely beyond my comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But i simply cannot fathom how a parent would willingly exchange the life of their child for that child's sexual purity (however the parent defines that). That is entirely beyond my comprehension.

This is not as bizarre as it may seem at first glance. In fact, if you actually (and deeply) believe the doctrines of the restoration, it's rather obvious.

Would you rather that your child, when tempted with sin, indulge in that sin? Or would you rather that s/he resist, even unto death? In the former case, you risk losing your precious child by his/her taking a path that leads to eternal limitations; in the latter, your child, though dead, is safe for all eternity, having proactively chosen the better part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But i simply cannot fathom how a parent would willingly exchange the life of their child for that child's sexual purity (however the parent defines that). That is entirely beyond my comprehension.

Same here. I don't get it either. It might be easy to say you understand it over the internet (and I'm sure some people really do) but if presented with the options in real life, I can't imagine a parent choosing death over sexual impurity. 

It's not my choice to make. I'm not a parent. But I don't get it either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Quote

But i simply cannot fathom how a parent would willingly exchange the life of their child for that child's sexual purity (however the parent defines that). That is entirely beyond my comprehension.

Quote

Same here. I don't get it either. It might be easy to say you understand it over the internet (and I'm sure some people really do) but if presented with the options in real life, I can't imagine a parent choosing death over sexual impurity. 

I remember we were taught in Seminary just that.   

Here is a related First Presidency Message, September 1981 (quoting an earlier conference talk):

You young people—May I directly entreat you to be chaste. Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is not as bizarre as it may seem at first glance. In fact, if you actually (and deeply) believe the doctrines of the restoration, it's rather obvious.

 Would you rather that your child, when tempted with sin, indulge in that sin? Or would you rather that s/he resist, even unto death? In the former case, you risk losing your precious child by his/her taking a path that leads to eternal limitations; in the latter, your child, though dead, is safe for all eternity, having proactively chosen the better part.

Thanks.

i guess it depends on the sin - i assume that would be the case for both you, and me.  i hope so, at least.  Sexual purity doesn't make that list for me.  Like not even close.  Actually, there are very, very, very few sins that would make that list for me.  And like @MormonGator said, they'd only make the theoretical list.  Actually having to make that choice real i suspect would shrink it even further.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

i guess it depends on the sin - i assume that would be the case for both you, and me.  i hope so, at least.  Sexual purity doesn't make that list for me.  Like not even close.  Actually, there are very, very, very few sins that would make that list for me.  And like @MormonGator said, they'd only make the theoretical list.  Actually having to make that choice real i suspect would shrink it even further.  

I can't imagine an apostle of the Lord saying he'd approve of you choosing death over sexual impurity either, for the record. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

I remember we were taught in Seminary just that.   

Here is a related First Presidency Message, September 1981 (quoting an earlier conference talk):

You young people—May I directly entreat you to be chaste. Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. 

Better to die chaste than live unchaste is a little different than better dead than unclean. 

Living unchaste insinuates no desire for repentance in which case this may be true. However it would be better in my view to say better alive and repentant than dead. 

I have a feeling that the better dead than unclean slogan has roots in the presumably false idea that some sins are so serious that the atonement would not cover them and that the persons own blood would be required to be spilt in order to receive forgiveness. Of course this sort of blood atonement was never implemented nevertheless it may have been reflected in the attitude of better dead than unclean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I can't imagine an apostle of the Lord saying he'd approve of you choosing death over sexual impurity either, for the record. 

Are you saying you don’t believe this was ever said, or simply that cou can’t believe someone would say such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Are you saying you don’t believe this was ever said, or simply that cou can’t believe someone would say such a thing?

Member-"Apostle Holland, my son committed adultery. Should I kill him?"
Apostle Holland-"Yes." 

I can't see that happening.

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Member-"Apostle Holland, my son committed adultery. Should I kill him?"
Apostle Holland-"Yes." 

I can't see that happening.

You got that backwards. They are better off dying before becoming unclean not after becoming unclean. 

The idea is it is better to die clean than live unclean. 

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, BJ64 said:

You got that backwards. They are better off dying before becoming unclean not after becoming unclean. 

If you can see it happening, fine. I can't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

If you can see it happening, fine. I can't. 

I think the saying was first used during WW1and 2 to impress upon young men the idea that it would be better to have been killed in battle while living a clean life than to become unchaste while at war and come home unclean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2018 at 12:07 AM, BJ64 said:

No but saying that it’s better to die than to commit a sexual sin implies that it can’t be repented of. I believe this dates back to the concept of blood atonement wherein it was taught that the atonement would not cover all sins and that to receive forgiveness for some sins your own blood must be shed. However the church no longer teaches the doctrine of blood atonement. 

Blood atonement may factor into it for extreme cases (I actually believe there’s something to the doctrine, even though the Church dares not touch that with a ten-foot pole today).  But I agree with @MormonGator‘s more recent post echoing my earlier distinction about such rhetoric being intended as a warning against sin rather than a how-to manual on what to do once sin has occurred.  Church history is full of adulterers/fornicators who repented and received again; and I am only aware of one instance where Brigham Young basically told a penitent “yeah, you fouled up and you may as well end it all now” [my paraphrase]—and that statement was addressed to one of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share