- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
The temple recommend interview is such a strange gatekeeping process.I agree that removing this as a requirement from pre-baptism and TR interviews would be a good first step.
The Seventh Day Adventists are similar to us in that they eschew caffeine. They also tend to be vegetarian.
In my discussion with this group these are not requirements but individual members may feel called upon by God/the spirit to make these changes. When God calls you to make a change then it does become a requirement in a way, but a personal requirement between you and God.
We could do similar, where we still teach the WoW but we just stop enforcing it.
I don’t claim to be an expert on other churches/faiths. Since you mention SDA, I do have an acquaintance who is SDA and is vegetarian. As you say that is their choice and their standing in the church is not based on whether they are vegetarian or not. Interestingly they’ve never mentioned caffeine, even knowing I’m Mormon. I was raised (mostly nominal) Catholic, and I did somewhat regularly attend just before joining the church. There are few things that keep a Catholic from full participation, and mostly they don’t ask. Yes, Catholics believe baptism is absolutely essential for getting into heaven, but the unbaptized could fully participate and even take communion (even though they’re not supposed to). Working closely with Jews for a few years, there is likewise little that keeps a Jew from full participation but there are also several sub-brands to choose from. Most Protestant sects are very open.
So as gatekeeping goes while we don’t have a monopoly, we’re certainly near the top of the list. The only other “mainline” religion I think comes close is probably the JWs, but even with them there seems to be quite a bit of leeway while one learns. There are of course exclusive cults and I think some of our stances are what earn us that label sometimes (and objectively it’s not unwarranted). I’m a firm believer that the Gospel (capital G on purpose) is inclusive and not at all exclusive. I can’t see in the pure Gospel any exclusion of anyone (as explained in the Bible or the BoM). I think the gatekeeping done by the church, and the associated fear and guilt, is just plain wrong.
I found this today. It shows the requirements for attending the Endowment House in the 1850’s. This is prior to the Saint George Temple being open.
Quote:The persons who can get their endowments must be those who pray, who pay their tithing from year to year; who live the lives of saints from day to day; setting good examples before their neighbors. Men and women, boys and girls over 16 years of age who are living the lives of saints, believe in the plurality [of wives], do not speak evil of the authorities of the Church, and possess true integrity towards their friends, can come up after their spring crops are sown, and their case shall be attended to.
The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History . Signature Books. Kindle Edition.
Nothing is mentioned of WoW, coffee, tea, alcohol, etc.
Minyan Man wrote:
I found this today. It shows the requirements for attending the Endowment House in the 1850’s.This is prior to the Saint George Temple being open.
Quote:The persons who can get their endowments must be those who pray, who pay their tithing from year to year; who live the lives of saints from day to day; setting good examples before their neighbors. Men and women, boys and girls over 16 years of age who are living the lives of saints, believe in the plurality [of wives], do not speak evil of the authorities of the Church, and possess true integrity towards their friends, can come up after their spring crops are sown, and their case shall be attended to.
The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History . Signature Books. Kindle Edition.
Nothing is mentioned of WoW, coffee, tea, alcohol, etc.
I admit I’m a bit ignorant to the history of exactly when it went from being a wise suggestion to a commandment. At what point did the WoW become a requirement to go to the temple? The story I’ve heard is that it happened in the 1920s when Grant saw that more money was being spent on importing vices like alcohol and tobacco than was being tithed to the church.
Wow, interesting article Nibbler, thanks for sharing. Very interesting was the earlier focus more on not eating meat as opposed to abstinence from tobacco, alcohol and coffee/tea. I, too, had always “blamed” Grant for making the WoW more of a commandment and that seems to not be entirely untrue although there was apparently some support for Grant’s view even before he sat in the big chair. From the article there doesn’t appear to be any one clear decision or revelation on the matter. It didn’t occur in a vacuum, it was more of a lengthy debate that spanned a few decades where the practices of the church followed any number of things: The opinions of the sitting president of the church
- Wider political considerations
- Acceptance among Protestant/Evangelicals that were also pushing for temperance during that same time period.
Though unstated in the article, I’d add that there might have been an element of “keeping up with the Joneses.” If the wider Protestant groups are moving towards temperance, it wouldn’t look right if the true church was more lenient. Some parts of the article read like the church tended to
followwider societal trends rather than taking a leading position. They didn’t want wider Christianity to gang up on them. They wanted to be seated among other Christian groups, not set up as a rival to them. I suppose that much hasn’t changed.
The article leads off with the following:
Quote:At a meeting on May 5,1898, the First Presidency and Twelve discussed the Word of Wisdom. One member read from the twelfth volume of the Journal of Discourses a statement by Brigham Young that seemed to support the notion that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment of God.
Which is interesting. They had the actual revelation that says it wasn’t a commandment but they go to the JoD to build the case that it was. Of course this could have been an instance where a leader with a strong opinion cherry picked from an authoritative source to support an argument they wanted to make. People do that all the time.
I suppose a church of continued revelation is also meant to work that way.
One thing that struck me was the difference of opinions shared by church leaders 100 years ago. We don’t really get that now. These days there’s more of a united front, at least in public view. We really only get a small glimpse of the differences of opinion once a member of the Q12 becomes “unleashed” as president of the church and begin to enact their differences.
The article suggests that the ban on coffee was very much a matter over caffeine, as caffeine was central to the debate over Coca-Cola. I don’t think they would have said that was the official reason, but some of the debate appeared to center around whether a substance was a stimulant.
It was difficult to parse out, but the focus appeared to be on alcohol and tobacco at the time the WoW was made a requirement for a TR. I say hard to parse because I’m left to guess that coffee and tea were implied. That’s the danger of leaving it at saying “Word of Wisdom.” There’s a loss of precision. Was the first temple requirement a prohibition on just alcohol and tobacco or was the introduction of the requirement just as restrictive then as it is today?
Other:
From the Dialogue article:
Quote:Meanwhile, the Church continued its campaign against tobacco use. An article in the Improvement Era, March, 1923, argued that tobacco users naturally linked themselves with evil persons such as profaners, criminals, vagrants and prostitutes.
From Luke 5:30
Quote:But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
I remember my first few years in the church. I so wanted to be accepted & fit in. As a result, I learned that there were things I “must” do to fit in & be accepted in return.
They included:
– WoW (100%)
– Dress code. (Always conservative)
– Full tithe payer. (Of course.)
– Temple worship. (Yes)
– Callings. (As many as I could get.)
– 100% Home Teaching. (Goes without saying.)
You can see where I’m going with this. Church was always first. Everything else was second. Including Jesus Christ.
On top of everything, I wanted to be accepted.
Very little in my life, at the time, was focused on Jesus Christ.
Since coming out of “inactivity”, I’m trying to focus more on Christ & less on the rest of it.
WoW plays little on my spiritual life today. Except, I don’t drink alcohol, use drugs or smoke.
I wouldn’t use them without the church. No one in a leadership position needs to be asking “the questions”.
Thanks for sharing that nibbler, that answered a lot of questions and then some for me. It does bring to mind the question of how much of our doctrine and policy is revelation and how much is “revelation”. Minyan Man wrote:
Since coming out of “inactivity”, I’m trying to focus more on Christ & less on the rest of it.WoW plays little on my spiritual life today. Except, I don’t drink alcohol, use drugs or smoke.
I wouldn’t use them without the church. No one in a leadership position needs to be asking “the questions”.
This IMO is the way to go. Remain focused on Christ and let everything else come second.
Before taking up coffee drinking, I did put a lot of thought and some prayer into it. I never felt any answer indicating a no. Being someone who is not a morning person and finds it hard to get moving in the morning, a cup with breakfast has helped immensely with that. And I find myself no more spiritually damaged than before. If our interest is really on following Christ and bringing others to Him, it does seem silly to make dietary restrictions one of the pillars of what makes a good saint (or disciple. Or someone who is on the covenant path. Whatever you call such a person these days.)
Just a short vent: Our insistence on not using all of the things we accept culturally as being part of the Word of Wisdom as a condition of baptism is one of my strongest pet peeves – especially since those things won’t get someone excommunicated.
If someone can remain a member while doing something, it shouldn’t be a requirement to become a member. Removing the Word of Wisdom baptism requirement alone, I think, would keep a lot of people in the Church and increase baptisms, as well – and it just makes sense, imho.
My shorter vent on this topic: I have heard the conversation below with family members talking about while we were at a reunion.
The Wife [making conversation]: “I love the smell of coffee. Love it. Just hypothetically…what would you say if I just wanted to start drinking coffee?”
Her husband’s response: “I’d divorce you.”
Responses like that make me sad we have put such emphasis on the insignificant details of obedience to this law.
I think talk like that is mostly bluster. Maybe more of an empty threat that’s meant to control someone else’s behavior through fear than something they’d actually follow through with. Like when a family member threatens to write someone out of the will if they don’t comply with their wishes. It feels like a bluff. It’s still a terrible thing to say. Divorce over coffee. Exactly like Jesus would want.
🙄 As enforced today, the health benefits of the WoW are miniscule when compared to the cons of how the law is used to judge others. The divisive fruits of the law feel like they far outweigh any pros.
nibbler wrote:
As enforced today, the health benefits of the WoW are miniscule when compared to the cons of how the law is used to judge others. The divisive fruits of the law feel like they far outweigh any pros.
Agree. I think it’s a symbolic thing in the church now, or a tradition.
Kind of like some Jews still have Kosher foods. It depends on how Orthodox they want to be.
Heber13 wrote:The Wife [making conversation]: “I love the smell of coffee. Love it. Just hypothetically…what would you say if I just wanted to start drinking coffee?”
Her husband’s response: “I’d divorce you.”
My first reaction after reading that was thinking that he was joking. I’m guessing he wasn’t? If he wasn’t, that’s honestly sad to see.
PazamaManX wrote:
Heber13 wrote:The Wife [making conversation]: “I love the smell of coffee. Love it. Just hypothetically…what would you say if I just wanted to start drinking coffee?”
Her husband’s response: “I’d divorce you.”
My first reaction after reading that was thinking that he was joking. I’m guessing he wasn’t? If he wasn’t, that’s honestly sad to see.
He was 100% serious and holds this thinking to this day. It is sad how strongly people hold to their view of importance of obedience to commandments in the church. Black and white, all or nothing.
Heber13 wrote:
PazamaManX wrote:
Heber13 wrote:The Wife [making conversation]: “I love the smell of coffee. Love it. Just hypothetically…what would you say if I just wanted to start drinking coffee?”
Her husband’s response: “I’d divorce you.”
My first reaction after reading that was thinking that he was joking. I’m guessing he wasn’t? If he wasn’t, that’s honestly sad to see.
He was 100% serious and holds this thinking to this day. It is sad how strongly people hold to their view of importance of obedience to commandments in the church. Black and white, all or nothing.
I have been thinking about some of this (because I am more like the wife in the example then not),
but really it looks like a situation where the “drinking coffee” is a proxy value for “fidelity” – so the question isn’t “what about coffee – a substance” but “what are you faithful to?” – which usually jumps into “if you aren’t faithful to the Word of Wisdom, are you going to be faithful to me? are you going to be faithful to my values?”The reality of a faith transition is that more or less, subconsciously, the person experiencing the faith transition HAS TO examine their values – and disassociate/deconstruct proxy variable connections (“I can still be a faithful person and drink coffee”)– and often does so in the silence of their minds months before the faith transition gets mentioned to their spouse. So the non-faith transitioning spouse gets ambushed into cognitive dissonance – and if they are insanely lucky, they find the resources to complete proxy value evaluations themselves without making tactless conversation mistakes that disconnect them from the person in the faith transition.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.