- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
10b. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? My answer is “YES”. Absolutely, I
keepthe Word of Wisdom. And yes, I drink moderate amounts of fermented wine and beer on occasion, as well as traditional Indian, Japanese, and Chinese teas when appropriate to do so, and coffee when I need it. Because the substances I take have been proven to be beneficial and not harmful, I strongly believe I am keeping the spirit of the Word of Wisdom.
How do I know this? I have studied this out thoroughly in my mind, and the spirit has constrained me to understand the divine principle of the Word of Wisdom.
The Word of Wisdom has always been very significant to me in its spiritual significance. The physical aspect of the “Law” was made mandatory by Heber J. Grant as part of the TR interview in 1921, the year after Prohibition. In his interpretation, without citing any revelation, he made absolute abstinence from all forms of alcohol, from tobacco, and from coffee and tea mandatory at that time as a loyalty test for entering the temple. As well, we know that Brigham Young promoted following the word of wisdom several different times. I really don’t care that it wasn’t a divine revelation, nor that it never was an eternal principle (Jesus drank wine, so what). For me it was required as a test of obedience and that was enough. I dutifully abided by it.
So I have been convinced through most of my life that keeping the word of wisdom means absolute abstention to the designated substances. I’ve had my transgressions of this, and I thought every time that I had sinned. I always felt very guilty, and because of this, my relationship with alcohol in my 20s and 30s became obsessive. I’d stay away, then something would happen, I’d take a drink, feel guilty, and say, “I’ve sinned, so I might as well enjoy it”. One day I woke up in San Francisco not having a clue how I got there or why. Fortunately I still had all my body parts, no tatoos, and no communicable diseases…but it scared me enough to go into AA for many years.
So for 24 years after that, I stayed absolute on the Word of Wisdom as Law. And I support this interpretation to most members of the church.
But as I worked in India with some very devout people of other faiths, who also are proscribed from these things, I had a very deep spiritual experience that changed my view of a lot of things. The details of that spiritual experience are quite personal, but the outcome was an understanding at a much more fundamental level what ‘god’ expects of me personally.
I learned, as with all things, there is a letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. With most things, the spirit includes the letter, but in this case I do not believe it does.
There are two fundamental definitions of “Keep”. First, according to most dictionary definitions, “Keep” is not a synonym for “obey” or “exactly comply”. It means to
care for, to pay attention to, to heed, to reckon with. That is the first and primary definition of keep — it is also the spiritual law. notice my emphasis — this is very critical. The second definition, the physical letter, is to “dutifully abide by”. Why do I separate this? If the Word of Wisdom is a principle with promise, the principle is “health” and not “obedience”. Yes, I said that: “health” not “obedience” is the spiritual principle of this law. The words of the principle were the best known things at the time around health in the 1830s. Nothing was original here, although apologists will try to say otherwise. Some of the things in the WoW are not factual: that Wine is not for the body, that Tobacco is for bruises and all sick cattle. Wine and beer in moderation are in fact quite good for the body, and tobacco is not scientifically valid as a treatment for bruises or sick cattle. The “TRUTH” is otherwise than the proscribed substances, but the principle still applies: If I
care formy body as the temple of god, I will have health to my navel, and marrow to my bones. These last nine words have special significance to me. In translating some ancient chinese texts, I found these words woven into a text written 2500 years ago. As well, the psalmist used them. The context varies, but in each case, they are a symbol of god’s care for his people. The context was never about obedience. They are code words for a principle with promise, and that principle is caring for the temple of the body as the residence of god. This caring transcends all cultures, people and religions, the words are deeply embedded in the sacred texts of many cultures, and yet we find these same code-words in an LDS context.
The point is that the spiritual significance of the Word of Wisdom transcends the letter of the law. By focusing on the care for the temple of the body — truly — rather than trying to turn the word of wisdom into an obedience and loyalty test — i have come to a place of deep spiritual significance.
There is so much more I could say, but let me just leave it at this.
I do not expect anyone to agree with me. I do not recommend my way to anyone else. I do not preach it, I do not teach it. I do not oppose the position of the church. Yet, this is the path I’m on, the one I feel the spirit has guided me to, and I have found hidden treasures thereby.
If I remember correctly alcohol, etc. was actually included as a temple recommend in 1904 but not really enforced until 1921? It was more used to deny the known town drunk. My wife’s bishop actually asks: “Do you keep the word of wisdom including not drinking green tea and energy drinks?”
Which interpretation of the word of wisdom. The original or the current one?
I really don’t see that there is any wiggle room of what the church means in keeping the word of wisdom. If you are drinking alcohol, tea or coffee it has been very clearly defined as against the word of wisdom. It is the church that is doing the gatekeeping to decide if you get to enter their temple based on their criteria. To secretely change their criteria when they have clearly defined it as in this case is in my opinion dishonest.
No I don’t keep the word of wisdom – I regularly drink coffee.
And here we go. Until this thread goes away, Ray will be lurking around every corner boys…be prepared. 🙂 Answer —- No.
I had no problem answering yes to this question for years…even though I would reward myself with a beer most nights, and occasionally a glass of wine.
Today though, I don’t think I could answer yes…not with what I know the church teaches as official WoW doctrine. I am a home brewer. I drink one cup of coffee everyday at work. I drink tea. I treat myself to liqueur on occasion, and I smoke a pipe 6-10 times a year. Oh yea…and I eat way too much meat, and not enough veggies.
RANT WARNING:
Joseph Smith taught a GREAT principle and concept when he received REVELATION known as D&C 89 – the Word Of Wisdom. It explicitly states it IS NOT A COMMANDMENT. And the entire concept is based on “moderation in all things.” PERIOD. THE END.
I think the WoW is one of the those man-made commandments…and quite honestly, I think the church leaders have done a great disservice to the people by insisting on it being a baptism and temple question. If this is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH – why would we exclude so many people because they drink tea, a beer, coffee etc etc…which has nothing to do with health benefits. It is only unhealthy if it is abused and not done in moderation. Much like water. Water will kill you if it is abused and not done in moderation. It does not make ANY sense to me, AT ALL.
AND, I would like to see the
revelation where God makes it a commandment...because it is CERTAINLY not in the D&C, ANYWHERE. Where/when did god reverse his previous counsel in D&C 89, and place so much emphasis on the WoW… SO IMPORTANT that your very exaltation depended it, and where/when did the church approve or accept this as the word of god? And why is it not included in the D&C with all the other commandments and proclamations etc etc? What we have is a man/men, interpreted some vague phrases that JS mentioned in D&C 89 about hot drinks and alcohol, and decided to make it a commandment and requirement that tea, coffee, alcohol or mild barley drinks were prohibited ENTIRELY….to get baptized AND enter the temple…
which….makes it a commandment to earn exaltation.That is so wrong. I’m embarrassed by it…when my non LDS friends ask me about it. I can’t defend it or the church’s position or policy.
END RANT.
btw —- Wayfarer. I liked your original draft better.
The WoW is part of what attracted me to the LDS Church in the first place. I always gravitated toward clean living people and it was something that I really liked about the Church. I still like it. And as someone who has suffered from light depression, it stops me from turning to alcohol to bring peace to my spirit when I’m rankled and disturbed. I also don’t mind one bit if the WoW proves to be a false commandment. There is no harm in avoiding the substances listed in the WoW. I kind of agree with you BC…except this last sentence. bc_pg wrote:To secretely change their criteria when they have clearly defined it as in this case is in my opinion dishonest.
I’m not going to project my beliefs on another person…and I am very careful about calling someone out who struggle with finding a way to stay involved in the church, as being dishonest…especially when dealing with the church, which, I think likes to play a dishonest hand on more than one occasion.
SilentDawning wrote:The WoW is part of what attracted me to the LDS Church in the first place. I always gravitated toward clean living people and it was something that I really liked about the Church…I also don’t mind one bit if the WoW proves to be a false commandment. There is no harm in avoiding the substances listed in the WoW.
What! SD! Don’t diss on my art.
:lolno: No. You are correct. There is no harm in avoiding these substances…but they,
IMOcwald wrote:Wayfarer. I liked your original draft better.
cheers!i thought about it some more. i decided to state more of what i consider the spiritual side of what was for me a very hard decision. it would be much easier, as an “active” member, to simply avoid the proscribed substances. but the principle was made as clear to me as it was to peter when he was given the vision to end kashrut. i find it no easier to live the WoW as a spiritual principle than peter did in living the higher law.
i probably will bring out the other material as this discussion progresses.
I answer yes because I tend, probably like most members, to focus on the prohibitions. I need to work on living the spirit of the law. Quote:bc_pg wrote: To secretly change their criteria when they have clearly defined it as in this case is in my opinion dishonest.
I’m not going to project my beliefs on another person…and I am very careful about calling someone out who struggle with finding a way to stay involved in the church, as being dishonest…especially when dealing with the church, which, I think likes to play a dishonest hand on more than one occasion.
Please allow me to rephrase:
I personally would feel dishonest changing their criteria when they have clearly defined it as in this case.
I voted Yes, even though don’t completely live it yet. How do you like that rationalization?
Each day I go to my favorite coffee shop & have (1) cup of coffee & read the Ensign magazine, Church history book & socialize with people.
It’s a relaxing way to spend part of the day.
My Daughter-in-law’s Father is a coffee grower in Mexico. They have some great coffee too.
I know that I will be having to give up coffee before I go through the TR process.
I know I could rationalize a yes vote & still drink coffee. For me, it would be dishonest. I don’t want to be dishonest.
The biggest part I will miss is getting out of the house & socializing. (I will have to find a substitute for this activity.)
I don’t think that members socialize well. From what I know, we go to meetings, have light conversations & go home.
(99% of the time it is soooo boring.) This site has helped to fill the voids too.
I think a more beneficial question would be to include moderate physical exercise as part of the WoW question.
Mike from Milton.
ps. I just heard on the news tonight another report about the beneficial use of the moderate drinking of alcohol.
Thank God for AA. Imagine how I could rationalize that.
Well, of course you guys have already addressed it in so many words, but the first question that goes through my mind is whichWoW are we talking about? The one in section 89 (WoW(a)), or that other one that’s not really explicitly written down anywhere (WoW(b))? Though I suppose I could answer “yes” to the latter, I’m not so sure about the former. I guess I hadn’t really thought about that before. That’s sad. Anyhow, once again during this discussion about TR questions this impresses upon me that, though I understand that the process has a lot of value for many people, to me it is at best an annoyance and invasion of my privacy and at worst an invitation to participate in a carnival of the absurd.
Mike wrote:I know that I will be having to give up coffee before I go through the TR process.
I know I need to put a lid on the cynicism, but please bear with me. If I was “keeping” the WoW(b) for a year, am I “keeping the WoW(b)”? How about a month? A week? In order to be technically truthful in answering “yes”, how long would you have to have been doing it? What think ye?
@Mike The visual you of reading an ensign article while sipping coffee makes me smile.
mercyngrace wrote:I answer yes because I tend, probably like most members, to focus on the prohibitions. I need to work on living the spirit of the law.
m&g, you have a way of boiling down things to the most simple essence of things.Yes. the spirit of the law.
I have been struggling for weeks of how to express what I believe on this issue. your comment brought it all together for me, the consistent thread that underlies every aspect of my ‘issues’ with the church as currently managed, with the narrowness of how the Saints interpret things: it boils down to one, single principle: spirit versus letter.
the letter of scripture, of the historical account of the origin of the book of mormon, of evolution versus creationism, of iron rod thinking versus liahona…is a rigidity that the ‘words’ of scripture and of what the prophets say, of the origin of the church and book of mormon, are all literally true. I have come to believe none of the literalism that surrounds this religion: not the definition of god, not the literal account of jesus, not the concept of justice-based atonement requiring a physical death, not the literal aspects of church origins, and not the literal acceptance of everything the prophet says is true no matter what. holding hard onto literalism is the way of death: for when we find out that the literal stories are in direct conflict with ‘truth’ we become disaffected and our relationship with the church tends to die.
For most in the church, the literalism provides a comfort that things are so because they were meant to be so. God literally dictated to Joseph Smith the book of mormon, doctrine and covenants, and the pearl of great price. god dictates, word for word, each aspect of what we’re supposed to do in the church. It’s all divine.
But…it isn’t. god doesn’t work that way. god isn’t that way. god isn’t…anything what we think god is. unless we come to simply understand that god is being itself, authentically here and now. but that’s too far down the chain of thinking for most of us who still hold on to the idea of the parent.
My personal revelation came to understand the intimacy of god as reflected in the atman — our divine nature being at once one with god and yet estranged from our conscious, mortal, estranged selves. In LDS terms, the presence of the holy ghost, the equal member of the godhead, resides within us, is an intimate and persistent companion to each one of us. If we talk about ‘footprints in the sand’, and think of the times when god or jesus carries us, the persistent companion, according to LDS and christian theology, is the presence of the holy ghost/holy spirit.
But on a deeper level, presence within is not a ‘ghost’ who comes and possesses us: it is in fact our divine nature: a much more integral part of ourselves than some detached ‘visitor’ who comes and resides with us on occasion. Our divine nature, our god within, is ALWAYS with us, part of our minds that shares our physical corporeality, but is not our conscious self.
Coming to this realization, that our divine nature, our god within, is always present and abiding, then the abode of god becomes “literally” our body. Our brain, our mind, the wondrous structure of our wetware with all of its chemical glory is the abode of god: a temple in the literal sense.
So why, then, would a god within ever have anything to do with a mind or mood altering substance? How could i possibly be right in my rather unusual take on conforming with the word of wisdom?
ah…that’s an interesting question.
Everyone on this site have many good responses to this question. doug said:
Quote:If I was “keeping” the WoW(b) for a year, am I “keeping the WoW(b)”? How about a month? A week? In order to be technically truthful in answering “yes”, how long would you have to have been doing it? What think ye?
You pose an interesting question. But, being an Alcoholic, if I drank today, can I answer tomorrow that I’m living the WoW?Either you are or you aren’t. I’ve got to think about this more before I go to the interview.
bc_pg, you won’t see me anytime soon on a “commercial” for the Church sitting in a coffee shop & reading the Ensign.
Needless to say, I’m in a remote portion of the kingdom.
I wonder what OPR would do?
Mike from Milton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.