A new Word of Wisdom

[Jacob]

Buddhist monks will never buy meat to eat, but they won't refuse it if someone else gives them cooked food with meat in it. That seems more in line with the spirit of section 89 than anything I've ever heard from one of our pulpits.

It doesn't seem more in line to me considering this phrase:

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving

But I don't believe that Sec 89 should be given much credence anyway, so...

[Jeff Lebowski]

But I don't believe that Sec 89 should be given much credence anyway, so...

Don't tease us like that. What is your point?

[Jacob]

Don't tease us like that. What is your point?

Sorry. That was my point. If I would have appended anything after the ellipses, it would have merely been that "Sec 89 is not worth arguing over". Even for someone who thinks the wow is important, Sec 89 is barely relevant to the church's current prohibitions and teachings regarding the wow.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Even for someone who thinks the wow is important, Sec 89 is barely relevant to the church's current prohibitions and teachings regarding the wow.

Yeah. What a shame.

Let's see, we have Section 89 and Section 132 that we don't practice as revealed. Any others?

[Portland Ute]

Yeah. What a shame.

Let's see, we have Section 89 and Section 132 that we don't practice as revealed. Any others?

We need an emoticon of someone opening Pandora's Box.

[ERCougar]

Did anyone listen to that that recent mormonstories interview with the BYU professor who wrote a book on the evolution of LDS doctrine? He essentially says that there aren't many doctrines that haven't significantly changed over the years. The obvious corollary, that he also admits, is that much of what we teach today may look very different in 50-100 years. He sees the mutability of doctrine as a very good thing, in that it allows a broad range of personal interpretation that other religions don't.

I really liked the podcast. It helped me reframe, and relax, my view (and criticism) of a lot of things in the Church. Word of wisdom is one of these areas.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Did anyone listen to that that recent mormonstories interview with the BYU professor who wrote a book on the evolution of LDS doctrine? He essentially says that there aren't many doctrines that haven't significantly changed over the years. The obvious corollary, that he also admits, is that much of what we teach today may look very different in 50-100 years. He sees the mutability of doctrine as a very good thing, in that it allows a broad range of personal interpretation that other religions don't.

I really liked the podcast. It helped me reframe, and relax, my view (and criticism) of a lot of things in the Church. Word of wisdom is one of these areas.

Sounds interesting. I would love a link if someone has it.

[ERCougar]

Sounds interesting. I would love a link if someone has it.

http://mormonstories.org/317-318-byu-professor-charles-harrell-and-the-evolution-of-mormon-doctrine/

Some other points I took home (obviously, my interpretation--feel free to correct):
-overly focusing on points of doctrine is generally productive, because they're so likely to change, and often significantly. The basics of Christian behavior will not change; the doctrine merely reflects our current understanding of the reasoning supporting the behavior, and is very subject to change.
-He feels like McConkie et al were responding to a dynamic within the church in which members were seeking solid end-of-the-line answers to questions, and that in general, this was a harmful direction to go. He thinks the focus on specific doctrine is dying out and specifically pointed to Elder Uchdorf and Elder Holland (this one surprised me) as high-level examples of this change.

Th whole thing was interesting on its own and for the examples of doctrines that have radically changed over the years (from the Fall of Adam to polygamy), but even more so coming from a BYU professor. I think he's on a looser leash because he doesn't teach in the religion department, but encouraging nonetheless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://mormonstories.org/317-318-byu...rmon-doctrine/

Some other points I took home (obviously, my interpretation--feel free to correct):
-overly focusing on points of doctrine is generally productive, because they're so likely to change, and often significantly. The basics of Christian behavior will not change; the doctrine merely reflects our current understanding of the reasoning supporting the behavior, and is very subject to change.
-He feels like McConkie et al were responding to a dynamic within the church in which members were seeking solid end-of-the-line answers to questions, and that in general, this was a harmful direction to go. He thinks the focus on specific doctrine is dying out and specifically pointed to Elder Uchdorf and Elder Holland (this one surprised me) as high-level examples of this change.

Th whole thing was interesting on its own and for the examples of doctrines that have radically changed over the years (from the Fall of Adam to polygamy), but even more so coming from a BYU professor. I think he's on a looser leash because he doesn't teach in the religion department, but encouraging nonetheless.

Well I'll be darned. I know Charlie. He's an engineering prof.

Thanks. I will definitely check it out.

[ERCougar]

Well I'll be darned. I know Charlie. He's an engineering prof.

Thanks. I will definitely check it out.

One more thing!

This is maybe the most interesting part of the podcast and I'm curious to hear thoughts on it (maybe a new thread). I don't know if I quite grasped his concept here and John did not delve nearly deeply enough into it, but he addresses the process of the translation of the BOM, and points out that the same controversies of contemporary sources and cultural influences on the writer/translater exist outside of Mormonism with respect to the Bible. He refers to this as "incarnation" theory, I think? I meant to do some more digging on this, and I'm not at all doing it justice because I didn't fully understand it myself. You could go pick his brain on this issue and report.

Or better yet--invite him over here. He'd be a cool addition.

[Joe Public]

It would make a lot more sense if the church would just narrow it down to caffeinated drinks of any kind, rather than holding on to the current interpretation in which those two specific drinks are bad for some mysterious reason.

That leads to what I will call the "chocolate problem."

[Donuthole]

That leads to what I will call the "chocolate problem."

Why is that? Chocolate doesn't contain caffeine.

[RobinFinderson]

Issuing a new Word of Wisdom could be a pretty safe cool prophetic move by a church that, lets be quite honest, has been a bit thin in the revelation department lately. I wonder what it would look like... God's food pyramid? Is manna a carb?

[RC Vikings]

Think about how many Asians won't listen to the missionaries because of the tea ban and how many Central and South Americans won't because of the coffee ban. Would God really want to put a barrier to the saving ordinances as petty as drinking tea and coffee?

[Northwestcoug]

Why is that? Chocolate doesn't contain caffeine.

Interesting. I always thought it contained caffeine. A quick Internet search links to articles that differ on this. One that agrees with you says it contains a similar alkaloid, whose chemical structure differs from caffeine by only a methyl group. I'm sure it has similar stimulant properties.