- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cadence wrote:
Civilization was built on beer, it provided a dense calorie source while acting as a purification system for water. It may be true that the alcohol content was lower except for maybe Utah beer who’s is watered down. I do not think Joseph had any intention of banning beer. That is a modern concept. Other than tobacco the whole WofW is generally wrong. Wheat is not such a great grain for man with all the gluten. And what about fish. No mention of how this is a great source of protein.
With just a little research you will learn that this law was just pulled from the general notions of the day such as hot drinks. It was believed hot drinks were not good for you. We are lucky ingesting snake venom was not the fad of the day or we may have that as part of the commandment.
Joseph may have stumbled on a right thing or two, people where not all dumb back then, but There is no revelation here. Just another example of religion trying to trump science by divine decree. To hang on to this revelation in its entirety shows the lack of any modern day revelation.
Thanks Cadence! It does appear God could have used access to Wikipedia back then to help him realize that corn is not good for cattle and actually a lot of Tea is good body and belly…..I would love to see an anlysis of the whole thing and see it they really are Words of “Wisdom” or something else
There was a BYU Studies article and they said that the 1830s definition of the WoW was very similar to ours: http://mormonheretic.org/2012/05/20/word-of-wisdom-in-first-decade/ Old-Timer wrote:From a purely analytical standpoint:
I would say that “mild” beer is perfectly in line with the original message of the Word of Wisdom, but that many (if not most) of the current beer options are not. Generally speaking, beer is not nearly as mild as it used to be. Also, the original said explicitly, “not by way of command” – but that was changed decades later, due, imo, to the radical increase in alcohol advertising and the rise of “non-mild” options being marketed as just fine and dandy.
.
Certain states (like Utah) mandate really low Beer alcohol standards. In Utah, you can’t just go to the 7-11 and get a 6-pack with greater than 3.2% alcohol. That means it’s like Three cans of beer to equal one shot of hard liquor. That’s pretty mild. You’d need a 12-pack to get very drunk. Most other states sell the normal beer that’s in the 6-7% range. Still going to take a 6 pack before you feel much.
Even a “high alcohol” beer is only in the teens. Hard liquors like Vodka, Rum, Tequila are in the 40-50% range with some going as high as 75% and are in a whole different league.
Brown wrote:Old-Timer wrote:…I would say that “mild” beer is perfectly in line with the original message of the Word of Wisdom, but that many (if not most) of the current beer options are not. Generally speaking, beer is not nearly as mild as it used to be….
Certain states (like Utah) mandate really low Beer alcohol standards.
In Utah, you can’t just go to the 7-11 and get a 6-pack with greater than 3.2% alcohol. That means it’s like Three cans of beer to equal one shot of hard liquor.That’s pretty mild. You’d need a 12-pack to get very drunk. Most other states sell the normal beer that’s in the 6-7% range. Still going to take a 6 pack before you feel much…Even a “high alcohol” beer is only in the teens. Hard liquors like Vodka, Rum, Tequila are in the 40-50% range with some going as high as 75% and are in a whole different league. One confusing thing about this 3.2% figure is that it is measured by weight but the alcohol content is usually measured by volume in other states and for liquor and wine in Utah. So this 3.2% by weight is actually the equivalent of 4% by volume which is actually not much lower than many regular light beers like Bud Light, Coors Light, and Miller Lite (4.2?) even though there are many popular beers that are 5% ABV or higher in other states. It is definitely mild though; it is almost physically impossible to drink too much Utah beer as far as the amount of alcohol it contains.
mormonheretic wrote:There was a BYU Studies article and they said that the 1830s definition of the WoW was very similar to ours:
http://mormonheretic.org/2012/05/20/word-of-wisdom-in-first-decade/ Mormon heritic I have two observations: The first being that it seems that back then you could get expelled from the church for the seemingly smallest infraction of things or have the biggest “sins” forgiven just for showing contrition. Yes it seems that the enforcement of the WOW ebbed and flowed over time but it also seems that at times enforcement was selective and capricious.
The second observation…
Quote:It should be noted that verses 1-3 were NOT part of the original revelation, but were part of a caption from the 1835 version of the Doctrine and Covenants. If you start reading it in verse 4, it becomes no longer a suggestion, and includes “Thus saith the Lord.”
It would seem that we have a precedent for moving captions or headings into the actual body of scripture. How interesting, especially in light of the recent heading changes to our new quads.
Section 89 is nicknamed “The Word of Wisdom”. Since that’s where our code of health began, it has been nicknamed the same. However, Section 89 is notour code of health. It’s as good as any first presidency letter intended for a specific time and situation. It has been superseded. Do we not believe in continuing revelation? Quote:Do we not believe in continuing revelation?
Sometimes. Wait, was that rhetorical?
For the record, barley water sounds nasty.
If it is healthy it not healthy doesn’t change with time…corn was not good for cows, wheat boy great for us, etc Other parts like hard liquor could have been based on the time.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Shawn wrote:Do we not believe in continuing revelation?
Believing in continuing revelation does not require one to believe everything coming from leaders
iscontinuing revelation. I like Moroni’s promise. And James in the NT. They can say what they want and I’ll ask God what’s right. And he may give each of us a different answer. That’s fine.
IMHO most “revelations” these days should be called “administrative decisions” or “business decisions”. Is that necessarily bad? No… But let’s call it what it is.
Maybe I’m becoming too much of a buffet Mormon.
:think: I’ve come to the conclusion that I would like to think God cares about more important things than what is in my cup. At least that’s the sense I get. Although that’s just iced redbush tea. Have to keep DW happy…That’s an eternal principle I believe in.
:thumbup: Roy, I absolutely agree that enforcement of the WoW ebbed and flowed between about 1840-1920s. But I thought it was quite interesting that the first decade did seem quite similar to our interpretation. I also agree that moving the heading into the scriptures was an interesting move. Shawn wrote:Section 89 is nicknamed “The Word of Wisdom”. Since that’s where our code of health began, it has been nicknamed the same. However, Section 89 is
notour code of health. It’s as good as any first presidency letter intended for a specific time and situation. It has been superseded. Do we not believe in continuing revelation? If it is actually revelation. There is no official declaration regarding the Word of Wisdom and when asked for clarification, church leaders just reference the words of section 89.
wuwei, your comment is profound – deeply. Thank you.
Brown wrote:Shawn wrote:Section 89 is nicknamed “The Word of Wisdom”. Since that’s where our code of health began, it has been nicknamed the same. However, Section 89 is
notour code of health. It’s as good as any first presidency letter intended for a specific time and situation. It has been superseded. Do we not believe in continuing revelation? If it is actually revelation. There is no official declaration regarding the Word of Wisdom and when asked for clarification, church leaders just reference the words of section 89.
For what it’s worth, I believe section 89 is a revelation. I reckon the current code of health is not as simple as having one grand revelation published in the D&C. It has gone through a complicated evolution, but hasn’t the current version been taught consistently in many publications for nearly a hundred years now?It appears that the counsel regarding mild barley drinks and meat being used sparingly carry the same weight in section 89. So how about this: I challenge anyone who justifies drinking beer to also abstain from eating meat unless it’s winter or there’s a famine. 🙂 Haha, done! I haven’t eaten meat in 18 years! So I guess I’ll go grab that beer… 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.