- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My 15 year old daughter stormed into my classroom this morning after seminary, upset about the lesson. Apparently after going through and reading the section in class, she has figured out that what the church teaches DOES NOT match what is actually written in the WoW revelation. Her four big complaints are…
1. It was never meant to be a commandment – only advise and counsel.
2. It never says that one cannot drink coffee or tea (only “some guys opinion on what hot drinks might have meant when JS wrote it.)
3. Verse 17 clearly states that “beer is allowed.”
4. If it is a commandment now and a prophet has received revelation that clarifies or changes the commandment, where is the revelation in the D&C that negates or overrides section 89, because what we teach as the WoW clearly is not located in section 89.
She says she was “polite” but did argue with the seminary teacher some – who is also our HC. Now she is worried because she has to get a TR interview to go on the youth temple trip here in mid April, and she no longer believes the WoW as taught is a commandment from god.
The problem I have – is I think she is 100% correct on everything she talked about. And I’m not the guy to start quoting the 14 Fs to justify what the church has done in the past 170 years in regards to our Pharisaical health code.
(I might post this over at NOM and see what kind of different response and advice I get.)
Heh. If she were mine, the first thing I would say is, “Attagirl. Have a hug.” Other things I might say include: “Tell me more about what you think.”
“This sounds like an important moment for you. Do you stand as a witness for the truth or do you fear others? Am I understanding you right?”
“What do you think will leave you the happiest 3 months after the temple trip?”
“I really admire and support your alertness and integrity.”
Three pieces of advice / commentary: 1) We don’t believe anything (or almost anything) is set in stone, so the fact that the application of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time doesn’t need to mean it wasn’t inspired when given OR inspired now. I’m not saying it was or wasn’t / is or isn’t, but change through on-going revelation / evolution is a cornerstone of our religion – no matter how many members make ignorant statments to the contrary.
2)
She doesn’t have to believe it came from God to follow it and get a temple recommend. She simply has to follow the current interpretation – to accept it as being OK from a practical standpoint.It’s REALLY important that she understand that concept (not just relative to the WofW). 3) You, as her father (with jwald, as her mother – ideally together), have an opportunity to teach her the difference between doing something out of a sense of blind acceptance, emotional reaction and thoughtful consideration. This is a chance to show her that she can make a thoughtful choice in either direction – that she can choose to accept the current interpretation as a PRACTICAL matter while not liking it as a THEORETICAL matter or choose to reject it for whatever reason. What she decides should be influenced by what she wants long-term – and BOTH blind acceptance AND emotional rejection are not good alternatives. This can be a great teaching moment – or it can reinforce the natural tendency to let emotion drive a complicated decision.
I don’t mean to over-emphasize this and make it more than it is, but I just think it’s a great opportunity.
cwald wrote:My 15 year old daughter stormed into my classroom this morning after seminary, upset about the lesson. Apparently after going through and reading the section in class,
she has figured out that what the church teaches DOES NOT match what is actually written in the WoW revelation…She says she was “polite” but did argue with the seminary teacher some – who is also our HC. Now she is worried because she has to get a TR interview to go on the youth temple trip here in mid April, and she no longer believes the WoW as taught is a commandment from god…The problem I have – is I think she is 100% correct on everything she talked about. And I’m not the guy to start quoting the 14 Fs to justify what the church has done in the past 170 years in regards to our Pharisaical health code. I would just tell her that members think this is an important part of being an active Mormon mostly because that’s the tradition they have been taught almost like the way people think they need to eat turkey on Thanksgiving and the thought of doing things differently than they always have makes them uncomfortable. Also, active members usually trust Church leaders to get things right so even though that’s not always the case they assume that this must be important or else the Church wouldn’t be teaching it this way. So even though the doctrine doesn’t really make much sense, if you want to fit in with other members and go to the temple it is probably easier to just play along with this idea rather than worrying about it too much.
All good advice and commentary. Thanks. Yes, this will be a great teaching moment. Here is a concept though that I can’t get around. Sure, I can tell her that it’s like Thanksgiving and turkey, and that she can just decide to accept the WoW because it’s what our culture expects and she will need to to be fully active in the Mormon church…and that not smoking or drinking is not only against the law, for her, but it is a “healthy” decision, especially at her age.
BUT —- She is correct, and others who argue the fact, that the WoW is NOT a commandment. At best, it is just a church policy. Where is the written revelations that made it so?
Did BY ever allow the saints to “vote” on whether or not hot drinks meant coffee and tea? Did HJG ever present the prohibition commandment to the general body and have them vote on it? Maybe he did, so where is the document? Where is the revelation that beer was no longer allowed, since verse 17 clearly states that it is okay? Polygamy manifesto and Blacks/priesthood have written revelation that has been canonized. Since we place SOOOO much emphasis on the WoW, shouldn’t we have it canonized in our standard works somewhere – because it certainly is not located in section 89. Daughter is correct on the point.
This is problem that teenagers have when they have NOMish parents. They listen and learn too much too early.
PS Tom – love your post. Actually, I like all the responses so far.
Its pretty cool when you see the kids growing up, and thinking for themselves, isn’t it? I find it interesting myself. cwald wrote:BUT —- She is correct, and others who argue the fact, that the WoW is NOT a commandment. At best, it is just a church policy. Where is the written revelations that made it so?
One thing to consider…its not that different from anything else in the church. We seem to grow up thinking it is all written in stone, laid out perfectly in restored scriptures from the Lord directly, and all we do in church is as it is supposed to be for all time and eternity, and always has been this way. We often hear stories of how the Nephites used “strong drink” to the heathen Lamanite guards who got drunk and allowed a mass escape, and say…see the Word of Wisdom is the law of heaven. (But do we ever stop to think about where the Nephites got the strong drink from??? Am I supposed to believe the Nephites never drank any…they just stored up barrels of it in case they needed a secret weapon for war?
:crazy: )Or we read:
Quote:Numbers 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink,
as confirmation we should keep the WoW as we have it defined now…but then kinda just ignore the rest of the verse…
Quote:and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
… and don’t really discuss why vinegar or raisins were lumped in with liquor.
As I study it, it just seems like no scripture really fits the description you’re looking for, where it spells out what is and what is not a sin.
WoW…nope, its all over the place from Numbers 6 (above) to Christ turning water into wine or using it at the last supper to represent his blood.
Tithing…nope. 10%…but of what? Income? Gross or Net?…not in the scriptures
Chastity…nope. I see adultery, but church has had to define it in more specifics…and those specifics aren’t in the D&C.
and on and on. That’s how I see it anyway, there are scriptures to support things, but the current list of “policies” in the church are founded in principles taught in the scriptures, not by any scriptures themselves. Its all modern revelation according to interpretations by church leaders in our day.
I think it is a good learning opportunity for your daughter to realize this view of the church, and then as Ray said, find out there is still value in living the principles with a pure heart and clear mind.
I will admit, that is a good answer Heber. cwald, “commandment” is a subjective word to begin with – and it really means nothing more than “something that is commanded”, regardless of the source of that command. I get the argument you are making, but, frankly, I think you’re taking a black-and-white stance that, fundamentally, is NO different than the opposite stance you oppose. Let me try to elaborate: 1) When the WofW was first given, it explicitly was NOT worded as a “commandment”. Rather, it was counsel. Fine. Is there really any question, though, that if someone believed it came from God that person should take it seriously? That doesn’t mean the early saints had to follow it to the letter (and, obviously, many didn’t), but if someone believed it really did come from God (through direct revelation or just as inspiration – or even just really good advice) . . . wouldn’t following that counsel be a good idea, at the very least? So, in practical terms, Section 89 always has been seen in the Church as really good advice, at the least, and a commandment, at the most – at least in practial terms.
2) The section itself states that it was given primarily because of addiction peddlers that did and would exist. Surely, there has been an explosion of those addiction peddlers since the time Section 89 was written. I don’t think that’s controversial in any way. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Lord might have said to a later President of the Church, “When I first gave this revelation, it was really good advice. Things have changed since then, and now it’s really, really important that the membership of the Church actually see this as critical. Therefore, it now needs to take on the status of actual commandment.” Even if someone believes the Lord didn’t say that to the President, it’s still a very logical, reasonable justification for changing the status from “counsel” to “commandment”.
3) So, arguing EITHER side of the coin as the only, unchanging, legitimate option is an extreme, black-and-white stance that differs ONLY in the extreme chosen. One argument is that the current application of the WofW MUST be correct now because a later prophet said so in his time (and the current prophets also say so in our time); the other argument is that the original application MUST be correct because an earlier prophet said so in his time. Six of one – half-dozen of the other.
4) I have some issues with a number of things that have existed and/or changed over the course of our history, but the idea that the WofW could change over time from counsel to a command simply isn’t one of them. Again, details aside, the concept of such a change (and even the concept that the change could have been divinely inspired) just doesn’t bother me at all. Given the actual wording of the section and the societal changes since it was given originally, the change makes perfect sense – whether or not it was inspired. (It’s the same reason I don’t have a problem with Paul’s counsel for women to shut up in church being ignored now without causing me any angst at all – or why circumcision could go from a command for all members to not necessary at all for convert Gentiles – or why Jesus could make changes to Old Testament commands (some being more lenient and some being stricter).
My point in all of that is that you really do have a choice about how to approach this with your daughter – and presenting it in any way as a black-and-white issue robs her of the opportunity to really grapple with ambiguity, faith (one way or the other), paradox, change and uncertainty. There just is NOTHING about the WofW that is black-and-white, imo.
Looks like Heber and I were cross-posting. My last comment probably is redundant and unnecessary. Oh, well. 
Btw, Heber, your comment really is brilliant.
cwald wrote:I will admit, that is a good answer Heber.
I’m framing this post and putting it on my wall!!
😆 Just a quick sidenote question about Seminary, if I can threadjack politely for a second, cwald?
My daughter is accepted to BYU now. What does it matter if she graduates seminary or not? I can’t imagine they can revoke their offer letter, she accepted it already and attends in the fall. Is there any reason seminary graduation matters to her now? Anyone know?
cwald wrote:Did BY ever allow the saints to “vote” on whether or not hot drinks meant coffee and tea? Did HJG ever present the prohibition commandment to the general body and have them vote on it?
My recollection is that the church accepted it as a commandment as we understand it in conference back in the 1870’s when BY was still president but nobody was strict about it until HJG came along.
cwald wrote:…Sure, I can tell her that it’s like Thanksgiving and turkey, and that she can just decide to accept the WoW because it’s what our culture expects and she will need to to be fully active in the Mormon church…and that not smoking or drinking is not only against the law, for her, but it is a “healthy” decision, especially at her age.
BUT —- She is correct, and others who argue the fact, that the WoW is NOT a commandment. At best, it is just a church policy. Where is the written revelations that made it so?…Did BY ever allow the saints to “vote” on whether or not hot drinks meant coffee and tea? Did HJG ever present the prohibition commandment to the general body and have them vote on it? Maybe he did, so where is the document?
Where is the revelation that beer was no longer allowed, since verse 17 clearly states that it is okay?Polygamy manifesto and Blacks/priesthood have written revelation that has been canonized. Since we place SOOOO much emphasis on the WoW, shouldn’t we have it canonized in our standard works somewhere – because it certainly is not located in section 89.I agree that there probably should be another section in the D&C written by Heber J. Grant about this if the Church’s assumptions about revelation were true and it was really important enough to make it a temple and baptism requirement and add beer to the list of no-nos. We treat it like a God-given set-in-stone commandment when it clearly looks like no such “revelation” ever really happened as far as we can tell. This is not a small matter of interpretation and emphasis of some fundamental principle that most people can agree on; we are basically teaching that you will be condemned forever if you don’t repent of these supposed “sins” like drinking coffee.
Personally, I don’t think it can honestly be defended the way the Church currently teaches it, but most of the top leaders probably don’t pay close enough attention to details like this to ever seriously re-evaluate this tradition. Even if some of them doubt that it is really essential for salvation they could still rationalize that it is typically good for members anyway like Gordon B. Hinckley’s comments in an interview that these strict rules are “wonderful” because they will supposedly result in members living longer, happier, and healthier lives.
We overuse the word “commandment”. People seem to use it as a prod sometimes, though without any real explanation or justification. I had to bite my tongue the other day at church when someone berated a young man about the “commandment” to not date before age 16. The WoW is a “rule”. The church, like any other organization man-made or otherwise, is free to make as many rules as it wants. You can follow them or not, and believe that they are inspired or not. Neither changes that fact that they
arerules. The only administrative consequences of “disobeying” the WoW rule are loss of temple privileges. Any other consequences, if you believe there are any, are purely personal, at least in a perfect world where we don’t judge one another. We so often lose sight of this and think that someone else besides God is keeping score. Quote:“My daughter is accepted to BYU now. What does it matter if she graduates seminary or not? I can’t imagine they can revoke their offer letter, she accepted it already and attends in the fall. Is there any reason seminary graduation matters to her now? Anyone know?”
If she attended in order to get accepted to BYU, it’s served its purpose.
I don’t know if graduation matters to her now. That depends totally on why she attends.
doug wrote:We overuse the word “commandment”. People seem to use it as a prod sometimes, though without any real explanation or justification. I had to bite my tongue the other day at church when someone berated a young man about the “commandment” to not date before age 16.
The WoW is a “rule”.The church, like any other organization man-made or otherwise, is free to make as many rules as it wants. You can follow them or not, and believe that they are inspired or not. Neither changes that fact that theyarerules. The only administrative consequences of “disobeying” the WoW rule are loss of temple privileges. Any other consequences, if you believe there are any, are purely personal, at least in a perfect world where we don’t judge one another. We so often lose sight of this and think that someone else besides God is keeping score.That is it.
That is the answer I need. So simple, I can’t believe I couldn’t come up with it myself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.