- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So, personally, I don’t think giving up alcohol is a big loss, although I agree that alcohol doesn’t generally lead to alcoholism. Neither does taking prescription meds or aspirin, but I try to limit my self-medication. Alcohol dulls the senses and distances us from our inner lives. Which is why I don’t see it as a loss. DevilsAdvocate wrote:…It bothers me that Church leaders can
just change these things on a whim to match their own opinionsand then we are basically stuck with all these dogmatic rules until further notice. This kind of unquestioning obedience and authoritarianism is one reason the Church was able to pass off racial discrimination as an essential doctrine until 1978. In my opinion, the WoW is one of the single most cult-like and unchristian features of the current Church culture… Wow. Bold statement. One that I
certainlyagree with, but don’t have the guts to say so myself – maybe not even on this website. 
My TBM fam would simple counter that it wasn’t church leaders who made the change – it was god. Then they would quote me, “by my own mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same.” —- perhaps we should insert the quote
Quote:This kind of unquestioning obedience and authoritarianism
here?
Quote:My TBM fam would simple counter that it wasn’t church leaders who made the change – it was god. Then they would quote me, “by my own mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same.”
So, who do they think wrote the Bible? God himself, personally? ‘Cuz that kind of colors the reading of that scripture when you think about it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:My TBM fam would simple counter that it wasn’t church leaders who made the change – it was god. Then they would quote me, “by my own mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same.”
So, who do they think wrote the Bible? God himself, personally? ‘Cuz that kind of colors the reading of that scripture when you think about it.
Actually, yes, I suppose they do believe that, at least the parts that didn’t get changed by the catholics during translation. That’s why they believe it “literally”, you know, Jonah got swallowed by a whale, water turned to blood, no death or birth on earth until after the fall…Now the BofM and the D&C IS THE WORD OF GOD in it’s uncorrupted form and should be accepted, believed and obeyed to the letter. Every word! It comes from straight from God, Joseph only held the pen… Oh brother, and folks wonder why I’m so cynical.
Yeah, I find it highly ironic that the Book of Mormon itself says over and over and over again to please forgive the weakness of the writing and the mistakes in it – then so many members treat it like the Mormon equivalent to the inerrant Bible. Even Joseph’s “most correct” statement doesn’t excuse that perspective, imo – but if that is what some need, then that is what some need. I just try to respond quietly and calmly and meekly whenever I tell peole how stupid that perspective is – obviously, not in those words. 
Well, the thing about alcohol is that it can be a relaxant as well as a depressant. In small quantities I have enjoyed it, especially if it is a certain type of beer, but not in large quantities. Some wine goes well with food too. I have given it all up now – or for however long I can keep this up for! NB – not just the Seventh Day Adventists, the JWs have something similar too, which includes vegetarianism. They consider blood transplants a violation of their vegetarianism. Interestingly, the WoW mentions meat to be eaten sparingly, which goes against the Shaker D&C entry.
SamBee wrote:Well, the thing about alcohol is that it can be a relaxant as well as a depressant. In small quantities I have enjoyed it, especially if it is a certain type of beer, but not in large quantities. Some wine goes well with food too. I have given it all up now – or for however long I can keep this up for!
NB – not just the Seventh Day Adventists, the JWs have something similar too, which includes vegetarianism. They consider blood transplants a violation of their vegetarianism…
It sounds like the Jehovah’s Witnesses ban tobacco but allow alcohol (in moderation) mostly because there are so many positive or neutral references to wine in the Bible which they interpret literally. Of course, some TBMs answer to this is that this wasn’t really wine it must have been fresh unfermented grape juice. How convenient, they didn’t have any refrigeration but somehow they were able to manufacture and store lots of fresh grape juice whenever they wanted to.
I tend to agree with you on that. The word used in Greek in the New Testament is “oinos”, which is quite clearly related to the English word. Ironically I once had a guy from another church argue against the use of wine saying that it meant grape juice (which you’re right, does ferment naturally in hot climates), but complained about the Roman Catholics translating the word “adelphoi” (brothers) as cousins (in the Douay Version) because the RCs hold that Mary was always a virgin and had no other children.
The miracle of Jesus turning water into wine makes little sense if it’s grape juice incidentally IMHO. While wine ferments fairly rapidly it does not do so rapidly enough for someone to have faked the miracle by squeezing grapes into the water. Wine as opposed to water with grape juice would have a distinct flavor. If that makes any sense.
F4H1 Here is a Word of Wisdom thread from a couple of months ago that got pretty heated. Perhaps you might be interested in browsing it and putting in your two-cents.
This is my take, FWIW. JS got caught up in the culture of his day, and wrote up a document that suggested the saints follow certain health patterns of the time, as well as discouraged the saints from their prior cultural customs (tea). Brigham Young made it a commandment some years later. Over the next 100 years the “Prophets” pretty well did a lot of gutting of the document and used their own interpretation and personal opinions to decide what was okay and what wasn’t. In the 1920s. Pres Grnt, who abhorred alcohol, disregarded that beer was actually okay in the original document that Smith wrote AND that it was a health code, and made prohibition of the “forbidden four” a requirement to to enter the temple – which is the equivalent in mormondom of making it a requirement to go to heaven, be with your family forever in the CK etc. Over the next 90 some years, the WoW has become the one of the most defining/important “CULTURAL” commandment that the most LDS membership focuses on as an outward sign of righteousness.
That is just my opinion. Let the discussion begin.
Oh yeah, let me also state again for the record — the WoW as the membership practices it, IMO, has NOTHING to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ, NOTHING, and is the biggest deal breaker in the LDS church.
Let’s not forget that Prohibition was a big deal at the time of President Grant. I think President Grant was tapping into the recently passed Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which took effect from 1919 to 1933. Congress banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol nationally. It sure made a lot of sense to ban alcohol within the church, since it was illegal during the Grant administration. Obviously, the church hasn’t made a change since President Grant’s ban. Yes, that is a good point MH – I thought I had included it in my rant about the absurdity of the WoW. Really I guess I should blame the US government for changing the WoW as much as anyone else – I don’t think it was God’s fault. Certainly Grant was caught up in the hype of his day. Unfortunately the church leaders didn’t learn what the US government did —- prohibition caused more problems than it solved.I don’t know if the prohibition of the forbidden four has caused more harm than good, I would argue that it has, from spiritual standpoint at least, and “prohibition” has certainly has “destroyed” many members, just as partaking of the forbidden four has destroyed many as well. What i mean, is yes, many folks can’t handle the alchohol, and addiction is real, and the consequences of said addiction can be horrendous at times and innocent folks can get hurt. Tobacco is a killer. BUT —- how many people have left the church unnecessarily, or never joined the church because they couldn’t drink a cup of tea or coffee, or enjoy a beer on the weekend? Which I think is a ludricious commandment and makes no sense – I don’t blame them not joining the church really. They have suffered, and their children have suffered as well, and their children – and it’s completely unnecessary, and I don’t get how it relates to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I understand how it relates to culture, but not JC.
Oh yeah, IMO —- there is no argument that tea and coffee in moderation has destroyed anyone. They are “obedience” to authority commandments and “outward appearance” commandments the church leaders use to determine who is willing to tow the line. They have no more to do with health than drinking mountain dew or any other sugary soda.
I think religious dietary laws can be a spiritual tool but they aren’t very effective if people just do them for cultural reasons, not really thinking about thoughts of consecration and ritual purity. IMO, the pendulum has swung too far in the cultural direction. I have no argument Cwald. Just like Brian, I too think this has swung too far in the cultural direction. As far as tobacco, it does seem like the government could be taxing it to a point where it could become illegal in the future. I mean it is a proven cause of cancer. From a public health perspective, why are we allowing people to use a known carcinogen?
Perhaps if Prohibition had taken a slower trajectory like tobacco, it may have met the same end. On the other hand, alcohol is not a carcinogen, and does seem to have some health benefits (especially wine), so it is probably not in the same category as tobacco.
mormonheretic wrote:As far as tobacco, it does seem like the government could be taxing it to a point where it could become illegal in the future. I mean it is a proven cause of cancer. From a public health perspective, why are we allowing people to use a known carcinogen?
Because it would kill the goose that’s laying the golden tax eggs. Same thing with alcohol and gambling. Tried making alcohol illegal. Many states now have a monopoly on liquor sales to the public — state Alcohol and Beverage stores. They learned a lot from good ole Al Capone. Gambling? Well that’s terribly destructive, immoral and illegal … unless it’s called a “lottery” and the government is your bookie.
I just have random commentary from some of these old postings. SilentStruggle wrote:Beer story is secondary; the real story is the naked ward sauna party!!
I did a Google search for StayLDS and found some comments on an LDS skinny dippers forum. Several of the comments were quite negative to the effect of why would anyone want to stay if they don’t believe anymore? The church is better off without them. Etc. I found it ironic that this is coming from a forum that supports indulging in chaste and tasteful nudity. Sooo….Faith crisis = bad but nudity = ok between consenting adults. Am I missing something here? Do I not understand the point of this (skinny dipping) forum?
Brian Johnston wrote:My great grandmother from Utah did not understand that all Mormons abstained completely from alcohol. She wouldn’t believe it cause it wasn’t the way she was raised … in freaking hardcore polygamist Utah.
In Bryce Canyon a plaque quotes Brother Bryce’s comments about the canyon as “Hell of a place to lose a cow.” My park ranger BIL reported that a woman became very adamant that the plaque be changed because surely this devout Mormon pioneer wouldn’t have used the word hell.
:wtf: DA wrote:This kind of anti-sin legislation also results in Utah losing a lot of business to border towns like Evanston, Wyoming and Wendover, Nevada.
I lived in Evanston as a child. My cousins saw a billboard that said “Color it fun, Evanston WY.” They asked their mother what it meant and were told it was an invitation/temptation to go up there and sin.
👿 After this was reported to me, I became somewhat bewildered. Evanston had never struck me as a particularly sinful place. I later figured it must have had something to do with the nearby Wyoming Downs racetrack.MH wrote:As far as tobacco, it does seem like the government could be taxing it to a point where it could become illegal in the future. I mean it is a proven cause of cancer. From a public health perspective, why are we allowing people to use a known carcinogen?
This probably could be a segway into a completely different topic concerning how much right the government has to restrict behavior it has determined undesirable. If a woman may terminate a pregnancy because she should have control over her own body, shouldn’t another person be able to smoke? With heroin and opium and crack and even alcohol you could justify that the use of these substances may directly or indirectly increase crime, but what do you say about cigarettes? BTW I don’t know the answer, just throwing out another perspective.
:ugeek:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.