- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If I really could believe in revelation I just had one and it has to do with the word of wisdom: “Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.”
This has always been interpreted to mean something like the least obedient and faithful should be able to live this law. This has always bothered me because frankly this law is very hard for some to adhere to. For me I have not struggled with it but I know some who have. So I was thinking about it and realized the whole concept of the WOW as we teach it is flawed. It is not a doctrine of obedience as we are wont to make it in the church, it is just a guideline for the weakest of the weak. By the weakest I mean those who do not have common sense and need a strict set of rules to live by. The weakest do not have the ability to make decisions on what is good for them or what is not, they need to be told to just live by these principles and and it will all be OK. Most people however can use good judgement and can manage their intake of food or alcohol. This commandment is not directed at them, but is for the weakest in knowledge and self control, not the weakest in faith or obedience. This is another reason it says it comes
NOTby way of commandment or constraint. We have really botched this one in the church. Like I said I proably just thought all this up, but it did come to me in a rather striking manner and I like it.
My favorite blog post on this subject is over at Pure Mormonism. It’s a very good explanation of how we got where we are now….especially in regards to drinking mild barley drinks (beer). http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/06/too-bad-i-dont-like-beer.html It’s like…the commandment that never was.
Cadence wrote:If I really could believe in revelation I just had one and it has to do with the word of wisdom:
“Given for a
principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” This has always been interpreted to mean something like the least obedient and faithful should be able to live this law. This has always bothered me because frankly this law is very hard for some to adhere to. For me I have not struggled with it but I know some who have. So I was thinking about it and realized the whole concept of the WOW as we teach it is flawed.
It is not a doctrine of obedience as we are wont to make it in the church, it is just a guideline for the weakest of the weak. By the weakest I mean those who do not have common sense and need a strict set of rules to live by.The weakest do not have the ability to make decisions on what is good for them or what is not, they need to be told to just live by these principles and and it will all be OK. Most people however can use good judgement and can manage their intake of food or alcohol. This commandment is not directed at them, but is for the weakest in knowledge and self control, not the weakest in faith or obedience. This is another reason it says it comes NOTby way of commandment or constraint. We have really botched this one in the church. Your interpretation of this “revelation” definitely makes more sense to me than the way the Church tries to interpret this now unless we really want to look and act cult-like about this and continue to make it into such a divisive issue between insiders and outsiders. It looks like the original principle was mostly about moderation and common sense not complete ascetic abstinence to prove our strict obedience and the original promise was mostly about health and wisdom not trying to avoid “losing the spirit” and certain condemnation if you repeatedly ignore these suggestions. I guess TBM apologists could try to interpret the “destroying angel” threat as condemnation but this is not really clear what exactly it is supposed to mean and it could also be interpreted simply as sudden death much earlier than necessary.
Certainly many smokers and alcohol abusers would probably be better off not pushing their luck at all with some of these habits but I don’t think that means we really need to be quite so strict about these rules for everyone as a general rule. Personally, I think this extremely strict approach will backfire over the long run because it hurts the Church’s credibility to imply that people with these habits are unworthy “sinners” when people can often look around and see some smokers or drinkers that look very respectable and ethical in terms of the way they treat others. Also the WoW is one of the most common deal-breakers for many investigators and existing members which will become much more of a problem now that active members are having fewer children on average than in the past and there is so much anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet to really undermine the justification for some of these heavy demands that the Church continues to make.
That’s how I’ve always interpreted the original meaning of the revelation. The revelation hasn’t changed since then; it’s just the policy that has changed.
(How’s that for a comment that is relevant to more than one thread at a time?
:clap: )Quote:Cadence wrote..
If I really could believe in revelation I just had one and it has to do with the word of wisdom:
Cadence IMO this revelation you have recieved is as “direct” and as relevant as any ever recieved by any other man or woman!
f4h1
Cadence wrote:The weakest do not have the ability to make decisions on what is good for them or what is not, they need to be told to just live by these principles and and it will all be OK. Most people however can use good judgement and can manage their intake of food or alcohol. This commandment is not directed at them, but is for the weakest in knowledge and self control, not the weakest in faith or obedience.
I can accept this line of thinking. I guess I also add to this, that if it doesn’t really apply to me, and I don’t much think about having coffee or whatever, and I don’t think I’m a weak person needing to be told what to do, then I am also strong enough to not have to go out and partake to prove it.
In other words, the weakest need the literal law. The more mature or strong can live it anyway, because it doesn’t hurt to do so…not done out of fear but out of the desire to live the spirit of the law and be part of the community.
Cadence wrote:This has always bothered me because frankly this law is very hard for some to adhere to.
I think this is where I have compassion, because for some it may be hard. We all have our different strengths and weaknesses, so I cast no stones. But for me, I don’t think the WoW is a HUGE major revelation with incredible blessings, nor do I think it is worthless. I live it. But I focus on deeper and more meaningful things in my life.
The part I struggle with is how so much of “worthiness” is based around the WoW, but only around the beverages and tobacco. Why is it OK to be lax on eating meat sparingly, but one shot of tequila or a double mocha and you are on thin ice with the temple recommend. I mentioned to my wife that when we are traveling and on vacation, what’s the big deal about taking a vacation from the WoW, but I just got the “no you didn’t just say that” look. 
When I see haggard women who look old before their time I’m so thankful that I’ve lived the WoW. I’m thankful that I’ve never woken up one morning and wondered what I did the night before. I think it’s taught me moderation in my food choices whether it actually teaches that or not. I have no problems teaching it to my children with those same ideas in mind and we talk about the inconsistencies but emphasize the benefits. That is all. 
I agree that there are definitely health advantages to not becoming addicted to tobacco or alcohol. But there are also health benefits to an occasional glass of red wine. Someone who has a drink at dinner once in a while is not going to knock 5 years off their life. Coffee, I don’t think should dictate worthiness, but it is addictive. Caffiene addiction comes in many forms and currently I am trying to quit Mtn. Dew.
Also, excessive consumption of meat has been shown to cause heart disease and colon cancer. So I am not sure it is any better for you than alcohol or tobacco.
Fwiw, there are LOTS of alternatives to wine that have the same benefit. Just sayin’. 🙂 Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, there are LOTS of alternatives to wine that have the same benefit. Just sayin’.
🙂 Do elaborate. I think I got a buzz from some homemade root beer the other day, but that’s probably not what you’re talking about.
I think he’s saying the benefit of drinking the wine doesn’t come the alcohol content but from the resveratrol that comes from the color in red wine. You get the same benefits by drinking grape juice, but not white grape. And then there is this:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/resveratrol.html observant wrote:I think he’s saying the benefit of drinking the wine doesn’t come the alcohol content but from the resveratrol that comes from the color in red wine. You get the same benefits by drinking grape juice, but not white grape.
Nevertheless, unless you drink to get drunk, there is no ill effects to an occasional drink. If you abuse anything there are negative consequences. The difference is that the church only seems to care about teetotaling a couple of key items rather than just living a prudent life of moderation like what the word of wisdom actually seems to suggest. The fact that they completely ignore the “dos” and focus only on the “don’ts” doesn’t make sense.
Brown wrote:… The fact that they completely ignore the “dos” and focus only on the “don’ts” doesn’t make sense.
No it does not —
unless one realizes that it is pretty well just a man-made, outward appearance, commandment to test for obedience to the authority and loyalty to the church.Hvis is the way I have allways understood it: The WoW is for the weakest among us in the way that if all abstain from alcohol, those who are prone to become addicted will not have to face the tempation because no one drinks. Same goes for tobacco and other drugs or addictive and harmful substances. Hence, it is a principle of solidarity.
Imo, of course…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.