Word Of Wisdom Clarifications

[sjdean]

I think this will be my last post on the subject. This thread has become a little preachy. It's no longer interpretation of the Word of Wisdom and clarification of what the position of the prophets are. Instead I feel I am being judged by people who really do not know better because although I am considering, I am not yet LDS and I drink responsibly.

And isn't that the reason abstinence is so much simpler?

Perhaps for some people where "no" isn't in their vocabulary, for those who find it difficult not to give into temptation, for those who have no self control or regulation - perhaps for those abstinence is simpler.

Well how about God through His ordained Psrophet recommending what you should or shouldn't do? Ultimately you still have the choice to partake or not the choice is never taken away, it just depends if you trust God that it could possibly be more beneficial for you.

The law is a different thing. Should such a law or commandment be passed, then I would follow without question. But I will never call for the banishment of such a thing.

I talk in a more generalised aspect than just what the LDS church say, which is the reason for my suggestion that it should not be for our governments to control and individuals behaviour by way of banishment. As a society, what we should be seeking to do is to educate and enable people to take back control over their own lives. To take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences they cause and to repent on the suffering they cause to others.

It seems people have no sense of moderation - a limit which is set for each individual person. For me, it is being able to have alcohol in the house and not feel that you need to drink it all in the shortest amount of time. It is about controlling your own life and actions, taking responsibility in the face of "temptation". If you have control, you have no temptation.

I see government trying to intrude on our personal lives too much. When we see bad things happen, we ask society to protect people instead of educating people in taking responsibility. For example, we put up security measures to stop pedestrians being run over. It sounds great. A wonderful utopia where no bad can happen.

But in practice, no one thinks. If nothing happens, no one thinks.

They do not think about their own actions or the consequences of their actions. They are - infallible. Responsibility is stripped from people, people can no longer make a mistake, and when you can't make a mistake, you don't learn.

In a free society, those that wish to partake of alcohol should be free to enjoy alcohol, and given the tools they need be responsibile people and then pay for any adverse consequences of their actions.

When no one can do anything bad, when no one can think, how can the good be judged from the wicked?

Unfortunately temptation never ends (it will one day but not while the earth is as it is) We do our best to avoid putting ourselves in situations of temptation.

there is no need to invite the devil into your life and play a game of 'see how long you can withstand the temptation'.

You don't turn on the 'playboy' channel and see if you can not watch it.

I can sense our political ideologies are not the same. Who said anything about watching the Playboy channel? A better analogy, is like having the Playboy channel available to watch but not going anywhere near it because you just don't want to watch it. If you really think that having the Playboy channel available might make you want to watch it, then you lack strength and conviction.

What other things should be avoided to resist temptation? Get rid of your car to stop you from going over the speed limit? No computer to prevent downloading pornography? Where does the regulation end? It makes me quite uneasy the lengths people go to avoid things they wish to abstain from. Do they have a firm handle on their desires?

You may take the gun away and prevent a man from shooting someone, but it will not stop his instinct to kill.

Is the man who has a yearning in his heart for beer but does not have any his house, better than the man who has beer for his guests and has no temptation to drink?

what you refer to are religious 'hobbies' and we are advised to avoid them. And the answer is no it is not the 'false kind of spirituality'

eg. they stopped drinking(even socially, not necessarily to get 'off their face') which led to not going to nightclubs, which in turn led to removing themselves from situations and environments of drunkeness, sin and general immorality. putting themselves in a better place with a clearer mind and will to become closer to God. The ones I know that haven't given it up are still in same place with the same struggles they have had for a long time. I believe though the few changes they make in their lives are a catalyst to make many changes in their lives, for the better.

Ooh no. Why miss out on so many great things in this world, such as seeing your favourite band at a concert, or gig? Why can't you enjoy your friends company without having alcohol? There's a few people in my social circle who are capable of going out to clubs and pubs and not drinking.

and isn't that just a chain that binds you?

Not at all! I like to have a drink when I go out. If I were to give up, sure, peer pressure may be a big thing. I may find it a struggle to give up. Outside of the LDS, drinking isn't a big deal. If I did decide to give up alcohol, I would tell my friends who would support me if I needed help and I would look to Jesus Christ for strength - and I would conquer.

Cya

Simon

[MorningStar]

Hi Simon,

I know that there are some things in life that are really hard to give up. If we were told to give up chocolate, I would really struggle, so I don't think you're an alcoholic. I would also have a terrible time giving up dairy. My sister-in-law goes to bed every night with a Fresca on her nightstand and says it's the only thing that quenches her thirst in the middle of the night. If she had to give that up, she would reeeeeeally miss it. She's been doing that for at least a decade. It's hard to give up routines in our lives and I am always impressed by people who join the church and give up coffee, tea, and alcohol.

About the spirituality thing. I don't think we abstain to display spirituality, but we see it as a blessing and benefit to our health. We want to treat our bodies like temples and to enter the temple, we are supposed to live the Word of Wisdom. There was a study done at a University (I think it was in California? Anyone have a link?) and it said that practicing, temple going Latter-day Saints live about a decade longer than others. So we may not understand fully why we don't consume certain things, but what a blessing it would be to have a longer life. :)

Sheelah, I like what you posted. Because a few of us might have a terrible struggle with some things, we all abstain together. A friend of mine, her dad was an alcoholic and her mom continued to drink because she didn't have a problem. I wonder how much better things would've been for him if she had abstained to support him. It would be pretty hard to quit with alcohol in the house.

[Silver Girl]

I think this will be my last post on the subject. This thread has become a little preachy. It's no longer interpretation of the Word of Wisdom and clarification of what the position of the prophets are.

The position of the prophets?? No Alcohol... None, Nada... Nope... Just don't do it!! Can that be any simpler??

It seems people have no sense of moderation - a limit which is set for each individual person.

A limit for each individual person?? Why...?? You don't need an individualized limit if the limit is NONE....

Just a thought,

Silver Girl

[ztodd]

From http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cInst...32493000_29.pdf :

D&C 89:2. Is the Word of Wisdom a Commandment Today?

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter. Bishops and stake presidents are responsible for determining whether members are worthy to receive Church ordinances such as baptism or those available in the temple or to enter the temple to receive ordinances for others. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is a part of that worthiness.

D&C 89:2. Why Does the Lord Say “Not by Commandment or Constraint”?

“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by President Brigham Young that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation and a command of the Lord. [see Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 183–84].” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14.) President Heber J. Grant emphasized that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and warned those who did not obey it that “the day is gone by when the Lord will trifle with the Latter-day Saints. He has said that His Spirit shall not always strive with man.” (Gospel Standards, pp. 55–56.) Although the Lord allowed a time of adjustment for those who were already members of the Church when the Word of Wisdom was given, today it is expected that all Saints adhere to the commandment.

[Doctor Steuss]

From http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cInst...32493000_29.pdf :

D&C 89:2. Is the Word of Wisdom a Commandment Today?

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter. Bishops and stake presidents are responsible for determining whether members are worthy to receive Church ordinances such as baptism or those available in the temple or to enter the temple to receive ordinances for others. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is a part of that worthiness.

This is not completely accurate. Brigham's comments in that Conference were directed only to a specific age group (and only the men in that age group).

[ztodd]

This is not completely accurate. Brigham's comments in that Conference were directed only to a specific age group (and only the men in that age group).

That statement seems to follow the common anti-mormon tactic of distorting the facts. Let me offer some correction.

I found the quote from the Millenial Star- ( http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document...7879&REC=14 - click Feb 1, 1852 )

"President Young rose to put the motion and called on all the sisters who will leave off the use of tea, coffee, &c., to manifest it by raising the right hand, seconded and carried.

and then put the following motion; calling on all the boys who were under ninety years of age who would covenant to leave off the use of tobacco, whiskey, and all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom to manifest it in the same manner, which was carried unanimously.

The Patriarch then said, may the lord bless you and help you to keep all your covenants. Amen.

President Young amongst other things said he knew the goodness of the people, and the Lord bears with our weakness; we must serve the Lord, and those who go with me will keep the Word of Wisdom, and if the High Priests, the Seventies, the Elders, and others will not serve the Lord, we will sever them from the church. I will draw the line and know who is for the lord and who is not, and those who i will not keep the Word of Wisdom I will cut off from the church; I throw out a challenge to all men and women. Have I not always counseled you right? I would rather you would cut me into inch pieces than to flinch from my duty, the Lord being my helper. I would rather live with a few men who will serve the lord, than live with ten thousand hypocrites."

That's pretty funny you said he spoke to certain age group without mentioning the age group was all boys under 90. Guess you missed the part where he had the sisters make the same covenant, woops. It sounds pretty clear especially in the last part that this was establishing the Word of Wisdom to be a commandment for all people of the church. You can all now stop playing the game of trying to justify disobedience.

[drjme]

I think this will be my last post on the subject. This thread has become a little preachy. It's no longer interpretation of the Word of Wisdom and clarification of what the position of the prophets are. Instead I feel I am being judged by people who really do not know better because although I am considering, I am not yet LDS and I drink responsibly.

It seems that the clarification has been very clear throughout this thread. You are not being judged by anyone, you are being offered the interpretation of the word of wisdom by Mormons on a Mormon Forum, with quotations and clarifications by the prophets with peoples personal experiences being told.

Perhaps for some people where "no" isn't in their vocabulary, for those who find it difficult not to give into temptation, for those who have no self control or regulation - perhaps for those abstinence is simpler.

You only need to look at figures of drinking trends,alcoholism, alcohol related injury costs, the effects of alcohol on families and individuals to answer that statement. The point you are missing is that people CHOOSE abstinence. We do not have our rights taken away or our freedoms restricted because we choose not to partake. No need to look down on those that have trouble with these issues.

But in practice, no one thinks. If nothing happens, no one thinks.

They do not think about their own actions or the consequences of their actions. They are - infallible. Responsibility is stripped from people, people can no longer make a mistake, and when you can't make a mistake, you don't learn.

In a free society, those that wish to partake of alcohol should be free to enjoy alcohol, and given the tools they need be responsibile people and then pay for any adverse consequences of their actions.

When no one can do anything bad, when no one can think, how can the good be judged from the wicked?

Again the choice is not removed, you still have the agency to choose to do something or not. I don't know where you are getting that 'we can't and don't think for ourselves.' the 13 article of faith states:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

again, we try our best to choose and seek after those things That will aid us to draw closer to God, not dabble in things that do not. you are not suggesting that people purposefully sin so they can learn from it? we struggle enough as it is dealing with temptation.

I can sense our political ideologies are not the same. Who said anything about watching the Playboy channel? A better analogy, is like having the Playboy channel available to watch but not going anywhere near it because you just don't want to watch it. If you really think that having the Playboy channel available might make you want to watch it, then you lack strength and conviction.

What, I'm a Morbot that that yearns for all controlling communism? I lack strength and conviction? Hmm interesting.

The anology was sufficient, it simply refers to putting yourself directly in the situation of temptation, Pornography is a huge issue amongst the Christian population these day.

Again it's about making the choice to try your best not to expose yourself to things when you don't have to.

What other things should be avoided to resist temptation? Get rid of your car to stop you from going over the speed limit? No computer to prevent downloading pornography? Where does the regulation end? It makes me quite uneasy the lengths people go to avoid things they wish to abstain from. Do they have a firm handle on their desires?

Now who's getting judgey? . Temptation in all things is the struggle we all endure. why judge people for the lengths they go to get themselves to a better place?

Outside of the LDS, drinking isn't a big deal.

exactly, thats what makes people think we are peculiar. 'everyone else does it so whats wrong with those morbots?'. I don't think you are going to find the type of clarification you desire because it doesn't exist. It is clear to Active members what is required of them. I apologize If I have come across as judgemental, it's not my intention, but you are trying to push a point that is inconsistent with LDS doctrine.

[Doctor Steuss]

That statement seems to follow the common anti-mormon tactic of distorting the facts. Let me offer some correction.

First, I would like to thank you for the very charitable and Christian analysis of my statement. I hope that I will be able to lift myself up beyond my "anti-Mormon" methods, and reply in kind. Surely the gift of discernment is strong with you.

I found the quote from the Millenial Star- ( http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document...7879&REC=14 - click Feb 1, 1852 )

[…]

That's pretty funny you said he spoke to certain age group without mentioning the age group was all boys under 90. Guess you missed the part where he had the sisters make the same covenant, woops.

I fail to see the humor in my statement regarding it only being applicable to a certain age group. Perhaps my funny-bone is defective (although I admittedly thought it was for those under 80). As for the women, I did indeed miss that as I was working from memory (something I will avoid in the future, if for only your benefit). Nonetheless, I can’t help but wonder if you missed the part where different aspects of the WoW were asked of the men than the women (woops[?]). And now that I have gone back through my notes, I have to wonder if you missed (since you know my motives, you must surely also know the entire history surrounding the WoW and every sermon regarding it… unless your glorious omniscience only applies to your fellow saints) the parts where Brigham Young (almost 20 years after the conference) stated:

“The observance of the Word of Wisdom, or interpretation of G-d’s requirements of this subject, must be left, partially, with the people. We cannot make laws like the Medes and Persians. We cannot say you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that…”

Brigham Young, May 6, 1870, JoD XIV, pg. 20

Why would he be making such a statement if the conference in 1851 had applied to the Church as a whole? Please enlighten me oh great and omniscient one.

Also, why is it that in 1867, Ezra T. Benson was saying such things as:

“Supposing he had given the Word of Wisdom as a command, how many of us would have been here? I do not know; but he gave this without command or constraint, observing that it would be pleasing in His sight for His people to obey its precepts. Ought we not try to please our Heavenly Father?...”

Ezra T. Benson, April 7, 1867 (JoD XI, pg. 367)

Was he not at this monumental occasion in 1851 when it became a commandment? I sure hope he wasn’t playing a game of trying to justify disobedience.

He wasn’t the only one who seemed to have missed the fact that “it sounds pretty clear” as George Q. Cannon (you know, the guy who was not only a member of the Council of the Twelve, but also happened to be Brigham’s last personal secretary) seemed to think that:

”It [the Word of Wisdom] appeals to our sense of right that a commandment does not, because a commandment comes with strict injunctions which leaves no alternative but to obey; but this is a word of counsel by a kind father…”

(George Q. Cannon, July 25, 1880, JoD, XXII, pg 106)

It sounds pretty clear especially in the last part that this was establishing the Word of Wisdom to be a commandment for all people of the church. You can all now stop playing the game of trying to justify disobedience.

What sounds pretty clear (well, at least to those who aren’t omniscient such as yourself) is that the history of the WoW is not so cut-and-dry, and that the vote in the 1851 conference was apparently one of personal, individual commitment in lieu of acceptance by the Church of the Word of Wisdom as a commandment. Some of us may even find it pretty clear that it was a comment by Brigham Young Jr. who solidified the concept of the WoW as commandment, but all-in-all it has never been voted on by the whole Church body, nor the whole First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in order to change from counsel to command. Of course, this is completely our fault for not being able to read people’s motives such as yourself.

---------------

For anyone who isn’t simply interested in judgmental polemics, an article that might help give some background into the WoW (especially the 1851 conference sermon) can be found in the Autumn 1981 issue of Dialogue.

I think J. Reuben Clark Jr. put it well in the October 6, 1935 conference when he said:

“…the Church cannot change the laws of G-d. They stand immutable. We may change the rules; we may say that a drunkard… [or] he who drinks tea and coffee may go into the temple. These rules we may change. But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow, somewhere, sometime…”

Although the WoW is counsel, that does not negate the laws by which it was founded, and the leadership’s ability to formulate rules surrounding it. It has been asked that we follow it, and there are current rules that carry consequences should we choose not to follow it. As George Q. Cannon said, it “is a word of counsel by a kind father,” and we would do well to heed that word of counsel.

Also, Brigham Young said (note this is after the 1851 conference):

“Some of the brethren are very strenuous upon the “Word of Wisdom,” and would like to have me preach upon it, and urge it upon the brethren, and make it a test of fellowship. I do not think I shall do so. I have never done so.”

(April 7, 1861, JoD IX, pg. 35)

I think this illustrates that while we should obey the WoW, we should also be careful not to become judgmental dogmatists caught up in pillars of self-righteous pride in regards to those who may struggle with it.

[edited for a few spelling errors... hope I got them all]

[sjdean]

Hello drjme.

I was considering making a personal reply to you directly, but I feel placing my comments out in the open are better to defend and explain my position.

It seems that the clarification has been very clear throughout this thread. You are not being judged by anyone, you are being offered the interpretation of the word of wisdom by Mormons on a Mormon Forum, with quotations and clarifications by the prophets with peoples personal experiences being told.

You are correct. The clarification has been clear and consistent.

However the current angle of the thread has gone beyond the offering of interpretation and has come to almost laugh at and denounce the practices of others outside of the LDS faith. I see the emotional and biased opinions on the dangers of alcohol, what it means to society and its consequences for those who aren't even in the LDS. I also see people trying to defend their point my comparing me to an alcoholic. Alcohol is not Alcoholism.

I respect your right to free religion and thought and to live as you wish. Please respect mine.

You only need to look at figures of drinking trends,alcoholism, alcohol related injury costs, the effects of alcohol on families and individuals to answer that statement. The point you are missing is that people CHOOSE abstinence. We do not have our rights taken away or our freedoms restricted because we choose not to partake. No need to look down on those that have trouble with these issues.

For those outside of the LDS church, having an alcoholic beverage is a leisurely, enjoyable and legal pasttime. You do not "only need to look at alcoholics" to get a representation of alcohol usage.

I, like many others, enjoy a drink in moderation. When we drink, we drink responsibly without the effects of alcoholism, alcohol related injury costs, or the effects of alcohol on families. But we do not pretend that drink is risk free. We are fully aware of the risks and monitor our own actions and impact upon others.

To suggest we should only look at the negatives is a negligent over simplification as there ARE many people who partake in alcohol for enjoyment, and enjoy it responsibly without consequence.

I concur that many do not know what responsibility means and for those, as I have stated before, and I state again, abstinence may be simpler. I respect your right to abstain from alcohol. That's your choice, and that's fine. But your original point is that abstinence, is in someway better than drinking in moderation with responsibility and control.

It seems abstinence is often confused with not wanting a drink.

Again the choice is not removed, you still have the agency to choose to do something or not. I don't know where you are getting that 'we can't and don't think for ourselves.' the 13 article of faith states:

In some respects, you do not have a choice of whether to drink or "how much to drink" or not. For those who abstain, there will no doubt be some yearning for a quick drink, or those that if their path crossed alcohol will no doubt lead them to oblivion.

Deciding how fast to drive, is not the same decision as deciding whether to drive or not.

again, we try our best to choose and seek after those things That will aid us to draw closer to God, not dabble in things that do not. you are not suggesting that people purposefully sin so they can learn from it? we struggle enough as it is dealing with temptation.

Of course Im not saying that you should go to a club or pub and be tempted. But I am saying, that if you have a real control over your desires, you should be able to go to a club or pub and not be tempted and be happy with an orange juice or something.

I would much rather be someone that is in control of my own desires, whether I abstain from drink or not. I don't like the idea of the risk that something I didn't expect could "set me off".

There is a false sense of security in abstinence. It sounds good, but it doesn't shout "Im in control of my demons, my desires and my temptation. I have no need for alcohol and I do not enjoy it. It has no control over me."

When you can say this, you or your friend, can happily go into a club, or pub and know that you won't be tempted.

Abstinence isn't "not wanting". And all you're talk has focused on, is avoidance mechanisms.

What, I'm a Morbot that that yearns for all controlling communism? I lack strength and conviction? Hmm interesting.

The anology was sufficient, it simply refers to putting yourself directly in the situation of temptation, Pornography is a huge issue amongst the Christian population these day.

Again it's about making the choice to try your best not to expose yourself to things when you don't have to.

Who's talking about communism? You're the one suggesting that pornography shouldn't even be available on TV. I don't know why. One would presume that you would be unable to flick past the channels without stopping. Im sure that isn't the case, but your point doesn't come across well.

And your analogy is completely acceptable when compared to the rest of your writings that talk about avoidance as a way of abstaining, rather than truly "not wanting".

Now who's getting judgey? . Temptation in all things is the struggle we all endure. why judge people for the lengths they go to get themselves to a better place?

Im not getting judgey. Im not telling people what they should or should not be doing, being comparitive, or making character judgements. I am making a solid observation that IMHO, abstinence, should also include the prerequisite of not being tempted.

Temptation is present in many forms and in many areas. For some people, this is not something they endure because they only avoid it. They don't battle it, fight it and win. The control of that temptation is still over them.

I want to be safe in the knowledge that if a beer, or a cup of coffee, or a porno website came up out the blue, waved under my nose, that I would be secure in my faith that I could turn around and say "So what? I don't need that. I don't like that!"

Again, it's about being responsible for your actions and not just looking for an external factor to manipulate your environment. The kind of salvation I seek, comes from within, from faith in Jesus, from spiritual strength, where you can actually be around something without the temptation - and let your friends to enjoy themselves as they see fit without it having an impact on your life.

When I was serious about joining the church six years ago, I decided to try and "live the life". I cut out out tea and coffee and got myself some cordial, fruit teas, juices and soft drinks. I thorighly enjoyed it - but may have been high from the sugar. I still had tea and coffee around the house, but I didn't want it, I didn't need it.

exactly, thats what makes people think we are peculiar. 'everyone else does it so whats wrong with those morbots?'. I don't think you are going to find the type of clarification you desire because it doesn't exist. It is clear to Active members what is required of them. I apologize If I have come across as judgemental, it's not my intention, but you are trying to push a point that is inconsistent with LDS doctrine.

No, that isn't what makes people think you are peculiar. Many people are tee-total. Mormons don't have the monopoly on abstinence.

People think Mormons are peculiar because they do not understand them. First they think they're jehovas witnesses, or they think they're quakers and use electricity.

Then they investigate further and hear contradictions from within the church and ex-members being told to accept it or else while reading that the prophet doesn't lead the church astray. Updated scripture for modern generation? Sure, I can accept that. Sounds right. But plain contradiction? Im not going into details though, as my intention is not to bash the church.

And I have no idea where you're getting the idea Im trying to push a point.

Im not LDS and my oriiginal post was regarding the Word of Wisdom, what it means, and what all this latter day revelation is.

Im not for one moment suggestinh that Mormons should drink beer or go against their faith! I wouldn't ask that of anyone! I have no intention of insisting what Mormons should do, but I have no wish to hear from Mormons how a non Mormon should live their life and alcohol can not be drunk responsibly.

My argument shifted though, not about the Mormons, but about society in general, and I can't emphasise the word general enough, it's about how society and people in society should take responsibility for their actions - which is probably where most of this alcohol abusive nonsense has stemmed from in the first place.

[drjme]

Hi SJ, I intend no personal attacks or judgments, I apologize if I have made you feel that way. I'm am just blunt . This not so much a discussion now of alcohol in the WOW, but a conversation on abstinence.

I concur that many do not know what responsibility means and for those, as I have stated before, and I state again, abstinence may be simpler. I respect your right to abstain from alcohol. That's your choice, and that's fine. But your original point is that abstinence, is in someway better than drinking in moderation with responsibility and control.

I don't say that abstinence is better, God does. We believe that the WOW is revelation from God ( as LDS we believe that it is ). He does not say to the LDS 'Sin in moderation'. So if God says it is better, am I going to trust the wisdom of God or the wisdom of men?

There is a false sense of security in abstinence. It sounds good, but it doesn't shout "Im in control of my demons, my desires and my temptation. I have no need for alcohol and I do not enjoy it. It has no control over me."

When you can say this, you or your friend, can happily go into a club, or pub and know that you won't be tempted.

Abstinence isn't "not wanting". And all you're talk has focused on, is avoidance mechanisms.

Is there something wrong with 'avoidance mechanisms' and the council of God to avoid that which is not good for us? You seem to keep implying that those who utilise 'abstinence' (whether with drinking, or any other act or habit people are trying to overcome) do not truly have a reign over their desires and somewhat less because of that, than those who are able to control their habits with ease.

Temptation is present in many forms and in many areas. For some people, this is not something they endure because they only avoid it. They don't battle it, fight it and win. The control of that temptation is still over them.

Firstly by abstaining (whatever activity it is you cease to do) you are avoiding the 'sin' ,the result of the temptation, which we are commanded to do. Then the biggest battle with temptation is in the mind, where our justifications, the adversary, and the Holy Ghost and our conscience all fight it out to try to sway us to each side, to make our choice to give in to the sin or stand firm. we are told to ‘avoid’ even considering the wrong way where possible:

14 ¶ Enter not into the apath of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

Note it says 'enter not in the path’ It is not saying ‘don’t do the things bad men do’, it is saying do not even start in that direction, Avoid it, go the opposite way! Abstain!

We seem to have a difference in what we believe abstinence to be and how it works to our benefit, so I'll start again:

If I were to say:

-I am going to choose to drink in moderation. I am going to choose when and where I drink and do so responsibly.

-I am going to smoke in moderation. I am going to choose when and where I smoke and do so responsibly.

-I am going to swear in moderation. I am going to choose when and where I swear and do so responsibly.

-I am going to watch porn in moderation. I am going to choose when and where I watch it and do so responsibly.

Because you have a reign on your desires and can control it eh? Now as an LDS should I be abstaining from them? Or because I am controlling the time, amount, desire this is what makes me truly free and is of more benefit to me than abstaining? Commit a little sin (to gain control) or abstain from Sin (to gain control)? that is in essence what the principle we are talking about is. Which do you believe is better?

Now before you go we go on, all of the above are considered sins if you were LDS, as you are not LDS then you can believe them to be whatever you want them to be. We have the clarification from the Prophets so I am not being judgmental or self righteous by putting drinking in there. They are sins for LDS whether I do them in moderation or a lot.

Abstinence is only the first step to then battling the temptation. There is no sin in temptation, it is the committing of the 'sin' where the judgment lies. Some people may overcome their temptations/afflictions in an instant, others, it is committed to them for a time. Some would say overcoming the ‘sin’ is the ‘easy’ part. It is the constant battle to get the temptation under control that is the hard part. So your comments about those who abstain as ‘running from the problem’ and ‘not dealing with it’ just aren’t true.

Again as I have said, abstinence is the first step which generally is a catalyst to move towards a whole new set of actions, habits etc. People may not necessarily struggle and suffer with the same temptations as they grow in Christ, But as they overcome lets say, the WOW, more is required of them (in the way the conduct their lives) which in turn opens up a whole new set of things to deal with/be tempted with and overcome, and so forth.

• Luke 12: 48

48 ........ For unto whomsoever cmuch is dgiven, of him shall be much erequired: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

• Mosiah 16: 5

5 But remember that he that persists in his own acarnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the bdevil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no credemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the ddevil an enemy to God.

For some people, this is not something they endure because they only avoid it. They don't battle it, fight it and win. The control of that temptation is still over them.

Oh the battle continues even after you have fought it and won, my friend. Things I have overcome in my life and have absolutely no desire for, the adversary still tries to get to me with temptation with those things occasionally .It just eventually becomes easier and easier to overcome. I can control the 'when and where' of my desires, but not when I am going to be tempted. even more so If I actively pursue putting myself in compromising situations, and quite frankly, I would just rather avoid being tempted at all where possible. . I may be lowly and lacking of self control that I still suffer temptation in things I have long overcome and have no desire for and abstain from, But I’m sure in the eyes of God as long as I hold out He will be happy with me.

[Aphrodite]

Simon,

I think you have come accross very well in your posts and ur right-it is getting a little preachy. Unfortunately, that is the way of the church a lot of the time. People WILL judge you if you dont follow the general mainstream of thought. Sad really in a christian church. You do respect our beliefs. You have come accross in a very respectful way. Some church members dont feel they need to do that because 'they're right'. Im sure you do everything responsibly. In fact, a recent study (in the paper yesterday) shows that teetotallers are MORE likely to have heart disease than those who drink in moderation. So drinking something is better than nothing. Of course, members will argue that we have no self control in our drinking/swearing/bad habits and if we were allowed to drink, we'd all become raging alcoholics. I find that insulting to a degree, I know Im more than capable of being in control of my own life and habits. You have a sensible attitude-You have the RIGHT attitude. PM me if you want, as some of the things you said in your earlier posts struck a chord with me, and Id be interested in discussing them further. I wont discuss them out here because then the righteous brigade will start getting all 'preachy' as you say, and it will turn in to a bible bashing session

[sjdean]

Im quite bored with this. So as a simple follow up, let me explain, a bit more simpler.

What I've seen written quite a few times here, is that not only should alcohol be avoided, but so should the places selling alcohol. You should deny yourself access to a pub or club to avoid drinking. Or that you shouldn't have pornography on your tv in case you are accidentally tempted to access it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Of course there's nothing wrong with avoidance mechanisms. This is third time Im saying this now. For some people, it truly is better to avoid because the addiction has such a strong hold.

In the case of the pub or club above though, for a lot of people, it is only about avoidance and not overcoming temptation and freeing themselves or even trying to free themselves. Like your friend, who decided to give up alcohol but to do so, was going to give up going to a pub.

There's no reason people should not be able to enjoy going to a pub or club - they're not intrinsically evil, and there's no reason you should resort to sin because you've visited one.

You've misinterpreted everything I've said.

Im saying OUTSIDE of the LDS church, there is nothing wrong with drinking. This is not the reason why people think badly of the LDS. Drinking alcohol does not cause problems in society. Alcohol abuse does, but some people can drink alcohol responsibly - a fact that some people cannot accept.

No, LDS should not disobey the word of God. Anybody religious should not disobey their beliefs.

What I have said, time and time again, and I will make it even more simpler here than before, is that avoidance alone should never be the answer. There is absolutely no logical or religious reason I can think of from avoiding going to a club or pub or ensuring you don't have pornography on your tv unless you're afraid that you're going to be tempted into either drinking or watching pornography in which case - THAT TEMPTATION NEEDS TO BE CONTROLLED AS WELL AS THE AVOIDANCE OF SIN.

Im not sure which step comes first, abstinence or the battling of temptation. But I will repeat. It appears many people fall into the false sense of security that abstinence is all while still having the temptation.

People have to work, on their wants, and desires. They need to have a period of self reflection, support from friends, and a good faith in Jesus.

Perhaps it would be more desirable to set some goals such as gradually cutting down alcohol - or even drinking a little alcohol, and then examine the world around them. I guess people have to be eager to learn, and to ask the right questions. Perhaps its not condusive to go cold turkey.

I've asked those questions, I've examined my wants and my desires. I have them in check. I don't desire alcohol, I just enjoy it, like I enjoy a nice hamburger. For that reason alone, Im considering giving it up because, well, it's too expensive and in some regards, quite boring.

There seems to be an evil connotation associated to alcohol, and a sort of aversion therapy generated. I do question how healthy that is.

I don't know. All I know is that abstinence/control and the battling of temptation need to be linked fairly close together.

It's never good to be tempted by anything.

I may be lowly and lacking of self control that I still suffer temptation in things I have long overcome and have no desire for

Wow. That's a contradiction in terms. You're tempted by things you have no desire for? You do have a desire for it, that's why you're tempted by it.

That's my last post on this subject. Where's the lock button?

[drjme]

SJ,

after much beating around the bush I think we have found common ground. but first:

Quote:

I may be lowly and lacking of self control that I still suffer temptation in things I have long overcome and have no desire for

Wow. That's a contradiction in terms. You're tempted by things you have no desire for? You do have a desire for it, that's why you're tempted by it.

I should rephrase that: 'In others eyes, I may be lowly and lacking of self control that I still suffer temptation in things I have long overcome and have no desire for'

where does temptation come from, we need to know to differentiate between the true desires of the spirit and heart and the 'outside' tempting influence of the Adversary.

People who are trying their best to live for God, desire to do wrong and sin and that is why they do it? of course not. People are not tempted because what they are being tempted in, they desire, we are tempted because there is a devil, who seeks to lead us carefully and subtly down to hell.

The flesh may desire something that the spirit does not, and this is where we fight the fight. To gain control the flesh/carnal mind. The adversary will tempt us, against our wishes and desires. The awesome thing is God provides a way to over come every temptation being that He will not allow us to be tempted more than we are able to withstand.

The temptations in our lives can happen regardless of what our desires are.

We believe The power and control comes in the overcoming of the temptation, not in not in having no temptations, which is what I think we are both trying to say? when we avoid the sin ( LDS say deny the act to control, you say learn to control moderately. Just a difference in beliefs about how to master temptation, thats all) That does not mean the temptation forever stops or that we are avoiding confronting the real issue. I am just coming at this from a purely LDS perspective, agreed?:

D&C 29: 39 39 And it must needs be that the adevil should btempt the children of men, or they could not be cagents unto themselves; for if they never should have dbitter they could not know the sweet.

This refers to the bitterness of temptation, not necessarily sin. without temptation we cannot grow, but we always have the choice to give in to the temptation and sin, and learn, or suffer the temptation, choose the right/overcome and learn.

18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily abeset me. 19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have atrusted.......

27 And why should I ayield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to btemptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my cpeace and afflict my soul? Why am I dangry because of mine enemy?

the great prophet Nephi suffered temptation, even though his desires were to not sin and he sought after God diligently, did his heart truly desire those sins and temptations even though it caused him pain and heartache and guilt before the Lord? of course not!

It is the adversary that tempts. Not necessarily a inward desire to Sin.

I Also can see your point of self control as in controlling the amount you have and doing so responsibly, but I am commenting on LDS standards and requirements, not meaning to be judgemental of your actions or beliefs at all, and again I apologize If I have come across this way.

I am just used to defending my position to other christians who like to attack my beliefs and standards, and think that what is required of LDS is legalistic and controlling, that is all.

Im saying OUTSIDE of the LDS church, there is nothing wrong with drinking. This is not the reason why people think badly of the LDS. Drinking alcohol does not cause problems in society. Alcohol abuse does, but some people can drink alcohol responsibly - a fact that some people cannot accept.

agreed. It's just we were talking of the WOW and LDS standards, not those of society in general. I also see as I have recently coming out of my 'teen years', that huge amounts of youth and now continuing into their adult life are not able to get a reign on their drinking habits, they start with a few which then leads to a lot, all the time. The way that society is teaching people to drink responsibly is failing, (there are campaigns for responsible drinking etc for educating people constantly in my country), IMHO the way of LDS is not failing.

Should it be prohibited for society? no, that takes away your agency to choose, But as LDS we have chosen, We chose abstinence when we chose to follow the LDS faith, it was not forced upon us, I could have easily gone and found a church that required less of me, but I made this choice.

What I have said, time and time again, and I will make it even more simpler here than before, is that avoidance alone should never be the answer. There is absolutely no logical or religious reason I can think of from avoiding going to a club or pub or ensuring you don't have pornography on your tv unless you're afraid that you're going to be tempted into either drinking or watching pornography in which case - THAT TEMPTATION NEEDS TO BE CONTROLLED AS WELL AS THE AVOIDANCE OF SIN.

Agreed, but who are we to judge the lengths people go to to overcome their problems, for them there is a valid and logical reason, if that disturbs you, It disturbs them even more that they continue to commit those acts which they want to overcome.

it may shock you to know, A lot of LDS don't own TV's because of the 'filth' is beamed into the home, which a lot people think is weird and far fetched, but to those that do it, do it as it is what is right for them. For them they can't control what Ads are going to come on, what is going to be on TV. One could say just don't watch it when dodgey scenes come on, Others choose to not have it at all (still have vids and DVDs). By doing so they are not 'surprised' by Ads/previews/programs of a suspect or immoral nature. And that is Fine.

Perhaps it would be more desirable to set some goals such as gradually cutting down alcohol - or even drinking a little alcohol, and then examine the world around them. I guess people have to be eager to learn, and to ask the right questions. Perhaps its not condusive to go cold turkey.

Quitting completely is fine too.:)

I've asked those questions, I've examined my wants and my desires. I have them in check. I don't desire alcohol, I just enjoy it, like I enjoy a nice hamburger. For that reason alone, Im considering giving it up because, well, it's too expensive and in some regards, quite boring.

Good for you my friend :), The problem we have is that we think because it is easy for us to do something or to be in control in a certain area of our life that others shouldn't have a problem with it either (generalized statement not aimed at you SJ), I myself am guilty of this on many occasions and found it hard to understand their reasoning. I now accept that if that action (however unreasonable it seemed to me) leads them to be in a better place spiritually, it's fine with me.

So basically we are in agreement I think ,

It just came across as if you believe the LDS position of abstinence is the 'weak' way out to controlling desires, by saying it offers a 'false sense of security' etc. and I was merely clarifying the position.

we just believe in different extents to remove ourselves from influences and actions we see as not beneficial to our wellbeing. I think?