I taught in church today

[myboynoah]

You can also try sitting everyone in a circle and telling the quorum that you 'like to do things a little differently.'

Yeah, for some reason I don't like it all that much when the instructor does that.

[Pelado]

Yeah, for some reason I don't like it all that much when the instructor does that.

Makes it harder to read the "I learned in church today" thread.

[Bo Diddley]

I taught GD again today. The material was D&C 25, the revelation for Emma Smith. Someone threw out the whole women wearing pants movement at one point. Sure am glad I had already read and talked about it on here so I could be more thoughtful and informed in my approach to the subject.

[BigFatMeanie]

Mrs. Meanie and I teach Sunbeams. The lesson today was "I Am Thankful for Trees, Plants, and Flowers". I love Sunbeam lessons. I can really get behind them because, after all, I am truly thankful for trees, plants, and flowers. After the lesson we colored, ate goldfish crackers and dinosaur fruit snacks, and did a find-the-hidden-items-in-the-picture game. It was awesome.

Next week's lesson is I Am Thankful for Fish. It's gonna be awesome.

[Pheidippides]

My lesson can't possibly compete with BFM's (seriously, primary is awesome), but the other thread reminded me I should post my lesson from yesterday. I'm a week behind KL so we had priesthood restoration.

We started off by refreshing ourselves on the historical narrative - we're still dealing with the BOM transcription (don't use the word translation!) and publication. And of course JS and OC have questions - see D&C 7 and John the Beloved. One imagines that they are to the Three Nephites portion of the BOM - recall they didn't do it chronologically - and then we had a nice planned diatribe about goofy Three Nephites stories we heard in Seminary. We took the time to explain the concept of the Jello Belt and make fun of crazy food storage people too.

So in pondering correct mode of baptism - something disputed a lot back then - they go ask about it. Just like everything we read about, revelations and visions come in response to an inquiry, asking questions. And then we read JSH 1:68-73 (with a brief aside that you can see the original mss with notations online at the Joseph Smith Papers Project).

So that's pretty straight forward, and no dispute about the date. Note that this wasn't written until 1838/published in 1842/known publicly until 1833. Not used in proselyting. Seems weird to us, to us now.

Okay, so find me the section now that deals with the MP restoration. Where is that?

[crickets]

Truth is, we don't know. Now, church manuals all say June 1829, but remember two weeks ago when we talked about the new scriptures and the church said they changed headings because they had better sources and the History of the Church was inaccurate? Same thing here. No real support for that date - Section 27 is often used as some support but that entire section was changed after the fact and vs 6-13 were added by JS way later. Common thing, section reads fine for 1838, but not good support for an 1829 date. One guy in Nauvoo speculates that the organization of the church required the MP so had to have been June 1829, but that's silly as we will see next week (and if you focus on that event, I have some stuff from 1889 that you won't like).

Other candidates are June 1830 - timeline fits, JS and OC on the run from legal proceeding or June 1831 - meeting in which many people are ordained, including JS, to the high priesthood, first use of the word priesthood in the church at all, JS says first time brought out. But that's a but ambiguous. A lot of scholars seem to think 1830 is the best fit.

But that's after the church was organized and after JS and OC were ordained Elders as instructed by John the B. What do we make of this?

Well, first, organization was a legal thing, and legally that doesn't exist anymore but you are all still here. Topic for next week, but don't read too much into that. Second, read excerpts from sections 84 and 107 - AP is physical and about repentance and baptism, MP is spiritual and about mysteries. Ignore section 20, contemporaneous with church organization, deals with offices not priesthood, about administration. Right now - look at all the Whitmer sections - its about repentance and baptism. Also, in the early just post Jesus church, deacons were responsible for physical needs and the bishops to whom they reported were responsible for spiritual welfare (hat tip to Solon).

Third, and this is the real theme of the lesson, practices and views change over time. They evolve. Let's read the new intro to OD-2.

Probably the most significant thing in the new edition IMO. That change was in our lifetime. Think of others - seventies, for example. There are scads of others we don't have time to talk about.

Let's read from an apostle (read Stephen L Richards where he talks about new understanding in that awesome talk). We can't expect the church to remain the same, because it won't. We are imperfect people trying to do the best we can, and things will continue to change. Why, a credible source tipped me off to a rumor that we may have women praying for the first time ever in GC (hat tip UD - there was an audible gasp at this point, mostly because a lot of women didnt realize they couldn't. I intentionally left out the no praying in church/speaking in church/handbook change lest I tip my own hand too much). It's just a rumor but here's hoping.


After class I had some great discussions with a guy about why OD-2 is flawed (JL would have been proud) and a chat with an awesome woman who knows all about the role of women in the church as a historical matter and sees eye to eye with me on the issue.

[Copelius]

Requesting that you update this thread with your WOW lesson this week.

[Pheidippides]

Requesting that you update this thread with your WOW lesson this week.

Ooh, thanks for the reminder. I will do so. This is my favorite topic.

[Pheidippides]

Okay, here's the general outline of the lesson. A little bit of this got cut because of time, and I phrased it slightly different here, but this is pretty much ow it went. Hilariously fun - and word of mouth traveled so fast out of the room that before the class had all left people who weren't able to come were asking me for the notes.

To start off, I mention that I've been teaching the class for about year, and ask everybody how it's going. We know each other pretty well now, and you're used to my unorthodox style. Now, let's be honest: do I make you a little bit uncomfortable sometimes? (A few people sort of nod). I see people squirming in their seats, I say, and that's okay. Making you uncomfortable is intentional - it's a trait from law school, where they do that to make you think and be able to refine your own opinions as well as support them. This class isn't true Socratic, but there are some elements.

Why mention that this week? Well, of all weeks, this week is the one in which some of you will be most uncomfortable. It's by design, and you've got to trust me. Because this week is Word of Wisdom Week! Now, as we get going, please remember a couple of things: First, I'm not telling you what I'm doing or what anybody else is doing. But I'm going to push all the ideas we talk about, poke a bit to see where the difficult areas are. Second, I'm not trying to justify any acts, and you shouldn't use anything I say to do that either. But we'll talk more about that at the end.

Okay, so, first, the history. We all know the general story: Emma is tired of cleaning up after Joseph's instructional sessions - the chaw spit and the tobacco smoke. And she's always been against alcohol. So she asks for a revelation. That's the familiar story. But there's more to it. This wasn't a pillowtalk conversation, apparently - this was real time at the location with all the brethren around. And it looks like - my take - there's some sarcasm here. Emma's saying, geez, this is a mess and I'm sick of cleaning, go get a revelation against the booze and tobacco already. And one of the brethren - not clear who - responds in kind by saying, "and while you're at it, get something against the tea and coffee the women love so much why don't you?" Meant as a dig against Emma. So imagine all of their surprise when Joseph comes back with this - everybody loses!

Let's talk implementation. We can't talk about the entire story because of time, but this didn't become a "commandment", a TR question, until 1921 under Heber J. Grant. But if you want to know, there's a great article written by a BYU prof, a little dated, but still very relevant. (Available at http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-co..._V14N03_80.pdf).

But we'll hit a few highlights:

• Joseph Smith was a fan of wine, and drank frequently. In fact, when the mob came in Carthage, he'd just shared a bottle with his fellow prisoners, and in fact had just sent the guard down with the empty when the mob came up.
• Amasa Lyman and others tell a story of Joseph giving a very fervent sermon on the WoW, and then riding his horse down the street smoking a cigar afterwards - speculating that he wanted people to follow the principle and not him.
• Joseph also installed a bar for Porter Rockwell, his childhood friend, when Porter got back from Missouri and the trial for the attempted assassination of Lilburn Boggs. Originally this was in the Mansion house until Emma saw it - she'd been visiting family - and threatened in no uncertain terms that either the bar went or she did. So Porter ended up across the street.
• Porter himself was known for his love of the bottle, and in fact the bar he started still stands in Lehi, I believe.
• Mark Twain famously said that Brigham Young had the best stocked liquor cabinet west of the Mississippi.
• There's a picture of the Salt Lake Temple from the early 1900s that clearly shows the spittoons. (http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-conten...e_V29N03_9.pdf).

We'll share some more stories about the early and middle era of the WoW later, but the idea is that it wasn't practiced anything close to the way we do now. There's plenty of sermons about it, that's for sure, but it looks like it was very much a moderation concept. Public drunkenness was bad, but plenty of the 12 served alcohol, liked currant wine, etc.

So let's hit the actual books and go through some elements - but be careful about what the actual text says! I'm going to call you on it.

First three versus principle with promise, not by way of constraint, etc. - this was the early approach. New edition of the scriptures have indicated that JS actually authored these three versus as part of the revelation - there was some dispute before. So let's look at the dos and dont's.

V. 5-7: no wine or strong drink. (I pulled a half-full bottle of rum out at this point and set it on the table - hey, I've got props!). Okay, so wine and strong drink. We get wine - that's easy (and they stopped using it for sacrament, at least the the Qo12, in 1906). What's strong drink? I know what I'm going to hear - first answer, I know it, it's wrong! Alcohol you say? That's not what this is! Strong drinks - we're talking distilled spirits here. Strong liquor, not just run of the mill stuff. Remember that - we'll see why this matters later.

So this rum, that's a strong drink. Pretty much agreed that just drinking this is no good. Okay, what about this? (I pull out a bottle of vodka that has chopped up vanilla beans in it that we use for various stuff). What about not drinking this; what about using this for cooking? Or maybe use the rum for some bananas foster, use that, a little banana liquor, flambe, over ice cream? Or any number of tasty sauces you get at just about any restaurant? What about that?

Oh, the alcohol cooks out, does it. Yeah. No. Here's the government's official stats, straight from the FDA:

• Alcohol added to boiling liquid, then removed: 85% remains
• Flambe: 75%
• Alcohol in, just leave it over night, no cooking: 70% (yes, less than flambe!)
• Stick it in, don't stir, bake for 25 minutes: 45%
• Simmer: 25% after an hour, 2.5 hours to get to 5%.

(At this point, a lady had a crazy comment about some letter from the first presidency back before most of us were born telling us we shouldn't even cook with it because our kids will develop a taste for it and become drunks - so I countered with the below).

David O. Mckay, was at an event where rum cake - this is not cake made with rum in it, this is caked soaked in rum - was served, and everybody waited to see what he did. He started eating, and one lady said, President Mckay, don't you know that has rum in it? And then Pres. Mckay said, we're told not to drink it, not to eat it, and continued on. (This is from page 23 of David O Mckay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism).

Okay, so that's something to think about. But what about dealcoholized wine? (I pull out a bottle of Ariel Merlot, a 0.005% alcohol content). I've had plenty of situations at work where there's some party or celebration, and people knowing my religious background will go out of their way to get me this, or dealcoholized champagne - what about that? I'm not telling you what I do (side note: of course I drink it, duh) but what about that?

[Part 2 coming - I usually have 1.5 pages of notes for lessons, but I had 4 for this one]

[Pheidippides]

[Part 2]

Okay, keep stewing on all that. V.8 - Tobacco (I pull out some cigarettes I bought from a coworker for this purpose). I got to be honest here: I got nothing. Well, almost nothing. The First Presidency told James E. Talmadge to start smoking to cure his insomnia. This is in the 1890s (note: Quinn is my source on this). But other than that, yeah, don't smoke or chew because it's gross and unhealthy.

V. 9. Hot drinks not for the belly. Okay, so what are hot drinks? (Somebody actually says drinks that are hot at this point, which was unexpected). Well, as historical background, some of the prevailing medical opinions and movements of the day very much did say that drinks that were hot or cold weren't good for you, but cold was less than a problem without refrigeration. So what are these? Well, Hyrum says that hot drinks means tea and coffee, and Joseph backs him up not long thereafter (see the wikipedia entry on WoW for sources - I forgot them). And in 2012 the church in a PR bit also says that hot drinks means tea and coffee (see below).

Okay, so what are we talking about here? (Pull out some black teabags from work). Here's some black tea, probably what Joseph is most familiar with. There's that. What about white tea? (I pull out white tea). What about green tea? (Pull out green tea - at this point the table is getting kinda crowded up front). I spent two years teaching that green tea was bad (I had a list of some 200 teas telling me good and bad in Japan) but the missionaries here a couple of years ago said it was good. Okay, what about herbal tea? (I pull out herbal tea).

(At this point, predictably, somebody started defending herbal tea. I asked them where it says that, and they referred to the "herbs" below in in the section. I almost started laughing, but said, yeah, no, that's not what it means).

Okay, so stew on that for a while. Let's jump to coffee. At least we all know what that is. (Pull out a packet of instant coffee). But what about decaf? (Pull out a packet of decaf). What about that - is that okay? Oh, it isn't?

In response to a request from a stake president from Arizona, David O. Mckay - we keep coming back to him - instructed his secretary to respond that decaf is cool for as long as all the caffeine and harmful drugs are removed from it. Well, that makes it seem like the entire thing is about caffeine. So let's talk about that.

Caffeine isn't mentioned at all in the WoW, so anything there is noncanonical - we haven't voted on it, it's not cannon, principle of common consent, we've talked about this. (At this point I pull out a 2 liter of Coke Zero and add to the growing pantry of sin on the table). Heber J. Grant initially says coke is bad, but then relents after he meets with Coke and they tell him the caffeine is small. And then you have Gordon B. on Larry King saying we don't drink caffeine, but then there's the 2012 Church pr clarification to the Rock Center episode in which they specifically rebut the caffeine point: "Despitewhat was reported, the Church revelation spelling out healthpractices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use ofcaffeine. The Church’s health guidelines prohibits alcoholicdrinks, smoking or chewing of tobacco, and “hot drinks” —taught by Church leaders to refer specifically to tea and coffee.

And then you have David O Mckay, yet again, when a theater manager apologize for it saying coke on the cup, but he can get him rootbeer, DOM says he doesn't care what's on the cup as long as there is coke in the cup. (See p. 23 of the DOM bio).

One more stop before we get to the stuff we should take in: illegal drugs. Where do you see those in the WoW? (At this point I reach into my bag to get something out and there's an audible gasp. I pull out a gallon ziplock bag filled with rock salt that looks like crystal meth). Oh, not there? Well, still not a good idea - and you're probably still caught under the concept of obeying the law as a commandment, so no out there. But what about places like The Netherlands, or Washington and marijuana? (I pull out a huge plate of brownies, and then pass them around the room for consumption). Hey, like I said, I have no answers for you here. Just questions.

Moving on to the good stuff, now. V. 10-11: Herbs and fruit. Herbs doesn't mean oregano. Herbs means leafy greens, vegetables, that's what they are in contemporary usage (not herbal tea). Some people have theorized that the "in the season" deal is negated by refrigeration, but it doesn't say that. And I have to say I love the roadside fruit stand on the way to my parents that has seasonal stuff - and the fresher it is, the better for you. So there's that. (I pull out an apple and some carrots).

And then we get to a tricky one: 12-13. Meat. Sparingly and times of famine. Hmmm. What does THAT mean? (Hot dogs make the table). What does sparingly mean? And we sure ain't in times of famine. Sparingly certainly doesn't mean every meal!

(At this point people are getting quite uncomfortable, and one of them brings up Section 49 "forbidding to eat meat is not of God" response to the Shakers. So vegetarians are bad. I actually do laugh this time and say that the D&C doesn't forbid meat - just sparingly and famine. And vegetarians just don't eat meat - they aren't always militant and forbid it! Totally not applicable - this lesson I was intentionally countering ideas, no matter the source - you'll see why).

This is not just a perfunctory thing. John Widtsoe, an apostle making a pamphlet on the WoW, says we have to obey ALL of it to get the blessings (speaking of meat here). Lorenzo Snow advocated never eating meat (does that mean he wasn't of god, Section 49 person?) and another apostle (George Teasdale) said that pork was worse than tea or coffee (I hope you enjoyed your bacon this morning!). And then you've got Eliza R. Snow in the second verse of In Our Lovely Deseret, hymn number 307.

V 14-17: grains. (I pull out whole grain rice). Look, I'm just going to stipulate that all grains are good based on the "as other grains" language. I'll leave that alone for now. But we return to John Widtsoe again - he says in that same pamphlet that refined flours are against the word of wisdom. Anybody want to give back those brownies?

And what about those "mild drinks made of barley"? What's that? Oh, beer is it? (I pull out a beer). Back around the turn of the century (19/20), a number of apostles said that they think beer (danish beer in particular) is awesome, and others say the same. This is a topic we have no time to talk about, but that's what that means. But it's proscribed by policy now.

V. 18-19. Here's your promise: run and not be weary, walk and not faint (tie back to Isaiah 41). So if you can't run or walk without getting tired, by extension that must mean you're not following it, right? I've heard of a bishop who in jest said that you had to beat him in a 5k to get your TR, but compare all of this with what we currently eat, with all of our fat and meat. Not good, and perhaps the grains, fruits and veggies part of the WoW is the most important part, from a medical backing perspective.

(Note: with more time, I would have hammered on the meat and diet portions, for maximum uncomfortability. It was hilarious to watch - once I hit this part of the lesson and started talking against practices people had, people got really defensive).

So everybody confused yet? A lot more questions than answers? A bit uncomfortable?

[Part 3 to come].

[Pheidippides]

[Part 3]

Now that we've got all of this stuff out here on the table, let's take a poll. This is where I need your trust the most. I need everybody to close their eyes and look down. And then hold up your hand, and I'll call out a few things. Hold up 1 finger for a-ok to have, hold up five for no way, and use the rest of the fingers for something inbetween. Scale of 1-5. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to, but please don't look. Has to be anonymous.

(Everybody closes their eyes and looks down. I close mine as well after they do, and then call out about six or so items: whole grain rice, rum, dealcoholized wine, green tea, cooking with vodka, beer, decaf coffee.).

Okay, thanks. I think that's good enough. Everybody can look again. Thanks. Tough questions, some of those. Who want's to know what the group vote was for these things (a lot more people wanted to than I thought)?

Well, I'm sorry, but I can't tell you. I closed my eyes too. What you think about this stuff is none of my business. Nobody asks me if my wife obeys the word of wisdom. They ask me. And that's all they ask - they don't go into details. There's a lot of grey stuff we talked about today, and how we determine it is up to each of us individually. I have presented a lot of information, but I haven't given any answers or directions, because I don't have any, or at least none that are valid for you. There are some easy things to understand, but a lot of this is judgment. Like I said, the goal of today was to make you think, both so you can understand what and why you do what you do, and have compassion for others.

But more than that, the word of wisdom brings a great danger, and the danger is this: it's a relatively obvious cultural marker. It's easy to smell cigarette smoke, for example, and it's easy to judge. But as a friend remarked to me earlier, if all our sins were as obvious as smoking and emitted an odor, I think we'd look at ourselves a little differently here. The church is a hospital for sinners, not a place for the recovered, or at least it's been said. So this using the WoW as a cultural marker, as a bright line, does us a disservice, and we don't treat others as well as we should. And our pride becomes our own sin.

(I closed with some excerpts from the Stephen L. Richards talk available here -https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/015-43-46.pdf - right on point with the WoW. I specifically shared the last paragraph.

[Jeff Lebowski]

[wuapinmon]

[SandYFan]

Fantastic stuff.

The fact that I wonder if your local leadership gives you a hard time says a lot about my opinion of local leadership, I think.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I would have liked to have been there. Thanks for the write-up. I suspect portions of it will be used without attribution by many here, certainly by me.

[Bo Diddley]

Very well done.