More or less strict: Which is harder?

[The Folk Prophet]

Examples:

New announcement 1: Caffeine, artificial sweeteners, carbonated drinks of any kind, and refined sugars are now against the Word of Wisdom. Moving forward anyone who uses these items will not qualify for a temple recommend. Additionally, anyone who weighs 20% more than their optimal BMI cannot hold a temple recommend.

vs.

New announcement 2: The Word of Wisdom is no longer a commandment. Wisdom in health is still recommended, but usage of alcohol, tea, coffee, and tobacco will no longer restrict people from holding temple recommends unless the usage is abusive as determined by bishop/stake president.

[Midwest LDS]

I would say less strict is harder to live. While the first one in your hypothetical example is more difficult to live, it also spells out everything that needs to be followed by a faithful saint in exact detail, with little room for disagreement. Whereas, the second one requires a lot more individual choice and responsibility, virtually guaranteeing argument and disagreement about what consitutes substance abuse. In addition, since it's no longer a commandment in scenario 2, there will be many who say "what's the big deal, it doesn't matter anymore?" Stricter commandments are always easier to live IMO just because they are clearer.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Examples:

New announcement 1: Caffeine, artificial sweeteners, carbonated drinks of any kind, and refined sugars are now against the Word of Wisdom. Moving forward anyone who uses these items will not qualify for a temple recommend. Additionally, anyone who weighs 20% more than their optimal BMI cannot hold a temple recommend.

vs.

New announcement 2: The Word of Wisdom is no longer a commandment. Wisdom in health is still recommended, but usage of alcohol, tea, coffee, and tobacco will no longer restrict people from holding temple recommends unless the usage is abusive as determined by bishop/stake president.

Harder?  How?

Is it more difficult to be obedient to the rules? Obviously more strict.  The stricter the rules, actually obeying them would be harder.

Is it more difficult to keep yourself in check and do a self-inventory? Obviously less strict.  You've got to define your criteria.

Further, the examples you gave are not really fair comparisons.  With the food that is regularly available at the supermarket make it -- on a practical level -- REALLY difficult to avoid all sugars or artificial sweeteners in ALL our food.

Currently, it really tends to save us money to NOT buy coffee, alcohol, tea, tobacco, etc.  These are freaking expensive items.  Just the cost alone makes me stay away from them.  For the same reason we tend not to have much carbonated soft drink in our lives.  Maybe some soda once every month or two.  But we just don't buy it because of cost.

But to buy all completely unprepared food (which we do a lot of, but not 100%) or find pre-prepared food that has NO refined sugar is pretty difficult.  And depending on where you live, nigh impossible.  But it is always more expensive to buy sugar free pre-prepared foods than not (my experience).

Edited December 21, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Harder?  How?

I intentionally did not set up parameters for this so as to allow the discussion to flow freely.

[wenglund]

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

New announcement 1: Caffeine, artificial sweeteners, carbonated drinks of any kind, and refined sugars are now against the Word of Wisdom. Moving forward anyone who uses these items will not qualify for a temple recommend. Additionally, anyone who weighs 20% more than their optimal BMI cannot hold a temple recommend.

Not so far-fetched: https://ldsmag.com/the-word-of-wisdom-way-to-weight-loss-overcoming-food-addiction/

Also, I hear that President Nelson doesn't allow sugar in his home.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Examples:

New announcement 1: Caffeine, artificial sweeteners, carbonated drinks of any kind, and refined sugars are now against the Word of Wisdom. Moving forward anyone who uses these items will not qualify for a temple recommend. Additionally, anyone who weighs 20% more than their optimal BMI cannot hold a temple recommend.

vs.

New announcement 2: The Word of Wisdom is no longer a commandment. Wisdom in health is still recommended, but usage of alcohol, tea, coffee, and tobacco will no longer restrict people from holding temple recommends unless the usage is abusive as determined by bishop/stake president.

I would say that announcement #2 would make it much more difficult to judge and condemn others.  #1 would make it much easier to be judgmental.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I would say that announcement #2 would make it much more difficult to judge and condemn others.  #1 would make it much easier to be judgmental.

Is that relevant to "harder"? Or just side commentary?

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is it more difficult to be obedient to the rules? Obviously more strict.  The stricter the rules, actually obeying them would be harder.

For myself, I disagree.

My wife tells me: You can spend $100 on me for Christmas. I'll spend $100 or less.

My wife tells me: You can spend whatever you want on Christmas but be careful and don't spend too much. I'll spend $5000 on Christmas.

Not that my wife tells me how much to spend on Christmas. But just as an example.

I'm actually really struggling with Ministering because of the removal of the "every month" rule. It's way harder now for me.

Being obedient to rules is easier for me.

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Further, the examples you gave are not really fair comparisons.

They weren't meant to be equal. Just generalized ideas of directions. Feel free to inject your own example that works better if you like.

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But to buy all completely unprepared food (which we do a lot of, but not 100%) or find pre-prepared food that has NO refined sugar is pretty difficult.  And depending on where you live, nigh impossible.  But it is always more expensive to buy sugar free pre-prepared foods than not (my experience).

The specific examples I gave were not the point.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Not so far-fetched: https://ldsmag.com/the-word-of-wisdom-way-to-weight-loss-overcoming-food-addiction/

Garbage says I.

[The Folk Prophet]

Obviously the idea here stems from the recent changes which, from a "rule" standpoint, seem to be less strict. (Ministering, church length, etc).

But what if it was something BIGGER? As in no more Word of Wisdom or the like? That's why I used the examples I did.

[Guest Scott]

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Garbage says I.

Why is it garbage?   It seems like a pretty good article.  

[Connie]

I am reminded of Moses and the Israelites. Weren’t they given the law of Moses which prescribes every little thing because they couldn’t live the higher law? In many ways it is so much easier to just be told what to do rather than trying to figure out what the Spirit is telling you.

With these word of wisdom scenarios, though, I think it’s reversed, at least for me. As far as the transition from what it has been, scenarios 2 would be easier. It would just be business as normal since I have no desire to try such substances and in that scenario it doesn’t seem that I would have to. The first scenario would be harder to transition to with more common substances being restricted.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Scott said:

Why is it garbage?   It seems like a pretty good article.  

The part that I was suggesting was garbage was that an article about weight loss in ldsmag was a potential harbinger of a stricter Word of Wisdom mandate.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Connie said:

In many ways it is so much easier to just be told what to do rather than trying to figure out what the Spirit is telling you.

I'd phrase this more being willing to humble oneself and go to the Lord and listen to the Spirit.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, Connie said:

As far as the transition from what it has been, scenarios 2 would be easier. It would just be business as normal since I have no desire to try such substances and in that scenario it doesn’t seem that I would have to. The first scenario would be harder to transition to with more common substances being restricted.

This is also true for me. But Scenario one would be harder still in many ways. Harder of a pill to swallow. Harder to not feel confused. Harder to not feel like it was letting the riff-raff in, so to speak.   (Note: I'm not suggesting all who use substances that they don't even know the Lord has asked them not to use are "riff-raff". I mean that the Word of Wisdom is a litmus test, in many cases, for obedience and humility. Removing that test makes it easier a path to walk into membership. That's the argument I really want to have. (Not saying I want to "argue" -- just I want it debated back and forth.) Is removing obstacles in the path to membership in anyone's best interest?)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For myself, I disagree.

My wife tells me: You can spend $100 on me for Christmas. I'll spend $100 or less.

My wife tells me: You can spend whatever you want on Christmas but be careful and don't spend too much. I'll spend $5000 on Christmas.

Not that my wife tells me how much to spend on Christmas. But just as an example.

I'm actually really struggling with Ministering because of the removal of the "every month" rule. It's way harder now for me.

Being obedient to rules is easier for me.

They weren't meant to be equal. Just generalized ideas of directions. Feel free to inject your own example that works better if you like.

The specific examples I gave were not the point.

Perhaps not your point (which still eludes me).  But they were MY point.  One of them is nigh impossible.  The other requires some judgement and normal living.  But you consider the normal living to be more difficult.

I can go ahead and over eat as it is and still have a temple recommend.  But I don't.  I'm not doing it out of fear or because I have to exercise judgement with every step of my life.  I just know when enough is enough.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Perhaps not your point (which still eludes me).

That's because I don't have a point. I was having a conversation with my brother-in-law and this question was posed and it was interesting so I posted it for discussion here.

[JohnsonJones]

It depends on what the results will be.

Some imagine that the Spirit of the Law means that you don't have to follow the Letter of the law, but in truth, one who follows the Spirit of the Law will follow the Letter of the Law while understanding WHY it is there and hence be even MORE strict in their adherence.

In this light, when the Lord gave the Lower law with the 10 commandments, did that negate the Higher Law?  Did it mean that the Higher Law was invalid and no longer something to be adhered to?

Not by anymeans, and one who truly understood the Lower Law (and the Lord did in his mortal ministry) would by default eventually understand and live the Higher Law. 

However, by being less strict it means FEWER people meet the standards that are necessary, and live only by the minimum. 

 

Another example.

If you teach a child how they should be, it is easy to instill punishments for disobedience and be extremely strict, much like the Lord was in the Old Testament.  It is easier for a child to be a better individual, or at least adhere to the rules set forth in a strict household.  It will not always work, but children who have strict parents tend to be more obedient and listen better.

On the otherhand, one of the complaints today is that children are no longer taught responsibility or held to a high standard in their homes.  They come out in the worst possible way.  In a home which does not have strictness upheld it can be FAR more difficult to instill the proper qualities in a child in the way they should be.  I tried to never punish my children, but I had unusual children that were unusually good.  Most families that take this approach seem to get rascal children.  Thus, the less strict a parent is, the harder it is to raise a child to be good and moral (IMO).  On the otherhand, IF you can accomplish such a thing where the child can make their decisions, but held responsible in a less strict environment I think the child grows up to be stronger in their testimony and their own desire to choose the right.

However, the latter, IN MY OPINION is invariably MUCH HARDER to pull off than being strict.

Thus, my answer to the question was given in that light, of raising children (or in the Lord's case, people who would follow him).  It is harder the less strict you are, but if you are successful with the less strict method those who come out of it being good will be stronger in their testimony and better at choosing the right.

[JohnsonJones]

Ah, I thought of another example.  In the military one has a PT test.  It has several components (which have changed over the years).  We'll say the components will be pushups, situps, pull-ups, broad jump, 600 yard dash and two mile run. 

In bootcamp you are enforced to do PT and get better at each one.  IT IS STRICTLY enforced.  Most will pass the standards after Boot Camp.  However, after that you are left to your own devices and motivation to keep up your physical fitness.  It is no longer strictly regimented and up to you to keep up with your physical fitness.

Each is rated on a scale 1-100.  You can pass each with a score of 35.  If you fail any of these items you fail the PT test.  You must get the minimum in order to pass.You need to do 15 Pushups, 25 situps, 5 pull ups, 5 feet on the broad jump, 4 minutes on the 600 yard dash, and 25 minutes on the two mile run to meet the minimum requirement in each to pass each item.  These will grant 35 points if you merely meet the minimums to pass them..  The lowest score is 0, the highest you can achieve is 600. 

If you do the minimum you will get a total of 210 points.  However, there's a catch.  You CAN train just to pass each of them, and if you do you can pass each with 35 points.  HOWEVER, you need at least 350 points TOTAL to pass the PT test as well.

If you keep yourself to a less strict standard, you may pass the minimums of each PT requirement, but you will fail the PT test in the end.  Because you slacked off and did not engage in personal motivation you will fail if you ONLY work to meet the minimums, or worse if you simply did not work out at all.  On the otherhand, you can continue to improve yourself and if you truly excel may even get to the point where you can get the elusive perfect score.

Edited December 21, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Most families that take this approach seem to get rascal children.

My guess is that the approach is not key in good/rascal children.