What’s the purpose of the Word Of Wisdom if we moderate

Nice to hear from you again. I’ll toss out some random thoughts.

1) There is no purpose to the word of wisdom if we can moderate… and this coming from a convert that’s never drank alcohol.

2) I’ve heard “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints” interpreted as obedience through total abstinence helps people that may have a propensity toward addiction, like a person that may be genetically predisposed to have a high risk of becoming alcoholic if they start drinking. The thought is that if they never take that first sip of alcohol they’ll never have to worry if they fall into that category.

3) Currently it’s one of the temple recommend questions. It would first have to be removed as a temple recommend question before the policy could be changed toward an approach favoring moderation, otherwise it would be impossible to enforce. Currently it’s do you abstain from these substances? Easy to enforce because there’s a yes, no answer (for most normal people ). If the policy was all things in moderation it would be near impossible to continue to enforce it as something that qualified someone to enter the temple. Here’s an exaggerated example:

Someone struggling with alcoholism shows up to their TR interview. The bishop asks if they are moderate in all things. The alcoholic doesn’t think they have a problem so they say yes, they are moderate in all things. The bishop doesn’t agree, an argument ensues.

Come to think of it, now that I’ve typed all that out I’m struggling to see how that’s any different than today. :eh:

4) Maybe the word of wisdom is a good principle that teaches us to be moderate in all things. It becomes irrelevant once we learn to self moderate.

And just know that I’m not trying to challenge the Church Doctrine or anything, it’s just something my young, critical mind has thought about 😆

Keep it up. :thumbup:

As the standard, I believe in moderation in all things (and, in some cases, that means abstinence, since some substances are next to impossible to use in any way other than an extreme), but I also have physiological issues in my extended family that make me grateful to have been born in a culture that makes many common addictions irrelevant for those who “follow the rules”. I really like the concept of a “word of wisdom” that teaches principles by which people can govern themselves, and I have a HUGE issue with making a temple recommend standard the same as a baptismal standard (and even with the way the Word of Wisdom is used as a temple requirement currently). I also don’t like how we focus so much on the “don’t”s that we tend to ignore completely the “do”s – even though I understand why we focus on the easily measurable aspects and ignore the ones that can’t be measured easily and appropriately for differing individuals. (Seriously, can you picture a Bishop asking about exactly how much meat you eat – and how often you eat it – and what your exact diet is – and on and on and on?)

The purpose of the Word of Wisdom if left to individuals to moderate would be no different than it was for the first generations after it was announced and recorded. It would mean the elimination of it as an ordinance qualification – which would make it more personal and less public. I personally would prefer that, for lots of reasons – and I would support fully removing it from the requirements for baptism, even if it were to remain a requirement for temple attendance.

“One drink is too many and one hundred are never enough” Irish writer Brendan Behan who was killed by alcoholism.

Bear in mind for some people one drink IS too many and can set them down the wrong path.

We’re not talking fries here.

The word of wisdom (not by commandment or constraint) actually supports the wise consumption of mild barley drinks (fermented) but speaks against strong drinks (distilled). But it is a modern day test of obedience to a prohibition-era interpretation of the scripture.