A new Word of Wisdom

[SeattleUte]

Not sure about Einstein, but I know guys like Truman Capote, O. Henry, WC Fields, and Mickey Mantle would certainly agree with you!

Are you calling those guys failures?

[Shaka]

The hope, Clark Addison, is twofold:


2. I hope that when Little Robin decides he wants to try something, that he comes to me to talk about it first. Then we can talk about what he did to figure out whether or not it was something he wanted to try. If he wants to try it, I hope to be able to be there, to ensure that he is safe. What parent wouldn't want this? If the child is going to drink, wouldn't it be preferable to be there to help him learn about the body's limits?

My approach is all about seeking 'wisdom' and recognizing that your body is yours to use or abuse, but that it is the only body you will ever have, so make choices carefully.

My guess is that Little Robin will not tell you jack squat and that his future substance abuse problems will make you rue the day you enabled him.

I know a few kids whos parents took your approach and their kids are mosty screwed up.

[RobinFinderson]

My guess is that Little Robin will not tell you jack squat and that his future substance abuse problems will make you rue the day you enabled him.

I know a few kids whos parents took your approach and their kids are mosty screwed up.

Well, if this little cybercommunity has the legs, I will let you know how my version of the parenting experiment goes. So far so good.

[TripletDaddy]

Are you calling those guys failures?

They all died from alcohol-related complications.

[ERCougar]

A few points...
1) You'll notice that my first point to my revised WOW is "not by constraint". My biggest beef with it is that we use it as a litmus test for worthiness. I don't believe that was its original intent and I think a daily cup of coffee (or occasional social drinking/smoking/etc) keeps at least some away from the church who would otherwise be interested.
2) On a somewhat related note, I like what Tim said--the fewer Law of Moses specific rules, the better. Caring for your body is a key to improved spirituality, but this gets totally lost in discussions over the appropriateness of green tea, decaf coffee, caffeinated soft drinks, vinaigrette, hot chocolate, herbal teas, etc.
3) Perhaps "ban" was too strong of a word, but the origin of this post was me figuring out how to teach my son about the WOW. I think kids need specifics as they start their moral reasoning. In my experience, these are my rules, and I think I have pretty good reasons behind them. I'll share these with him. I don't want him touching alcohol before 25. At that point, he can decide if he wants to socially drink, because at that point, he's much more likely to do it for the right reasons and to do it responsibly. It's also legal.
4) To Cardiac's point, I would consider a daily need for coffee "excessive". I would hate to need a coffee to get going every day (and in many cases, to keep going every day). But that's a call that should be made individually.
5) To RF--whatever your view of MJ, I think I have a responsibility to teach my child to uphold the law as part of the social contract. This is why I specified illicit drugs--they're illegal. Same with underage drinking.
6) As an ER doctor, I absolutely hate alcohol. It causes more headaches (and heartaches) than any other substance in society. I dislike cigarettes and obesity, but I detest alcohol. There is no question in my mind that our society would be better off without it. So maybe I'm a little biased, but I come down harder on alcohol use than I do on obesity.
7) About caffeine...I still have some thinking to do with this one. I have to admit that most of my non-member friends who ask about the coffee thing, follow up with "but you still drink coke, right?" That's the disconnect that doesn't make sense to them. And apparently, the disconnect is even hitting my son. I've always been a little bugged at the mullahs who want to ban caffeine, but their stand makes more sense to the average person than mine.
8) Like DDD, I'm basically OK with the word of wisdom. I like the taste of coffee, but never drink it. I'm not tempted to drink or smoke. I don't drink much caffeine, but I am a better doctor on nightshifts with it, so I'll continue to use it there. I just think that as a people, we'd be better served to shift the focus a little, both for our public image and for our collective spirituality.

[LA Ute]

But most people, Chistians and atheists alike, agree a social drink or two is dandy.

As you might imagine, I actually work in the real world in kind of a big city. So I do interact all the time with people who drink. I don't even notice it, unless someone has had too much. But I was not talking about that.

There are few things in life that are absolute black and white facts. IMO, one of those is that recreational use of drugs is extraordinarily dangerous, and not just because of drunk drivers. Any parent who lets his or her kid use marijuana or other addictive substances is behaving very foolishly, and that's as politely as I can express that. Everyone who has ever dealt with an addict in the family, or who is otherwise close to this, know this. So does every person in attendance at an AA or other 12-step meeting. Robin's a good guy, but when he expresses a desire to be liberal about his child's use of drugs, Robin clearly does not know what he is talking about.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I would prefer a much simpler approach. Simply return to the spirit in which the commandment was given: a friendly suggestion. Encourage people to live healthy lives and stop making it a litmus test for temple recommends or baptism.

You, me, and Stephen L. Richards. Here's the famous quote from the April, 1932 General Conference:

"In application of this question, I must mention some delicate matters. I call them delicate because I run a great hazard of being misunderstood when I discuss them. Take smoking for instance. Is there more or less tolerance for the user of tobacco by the Church, as represented by its officials and the faithful membership, than there was twenty-five or fifty years ago? I cannot say. I have no way of knowing. We feel that it is wrong and we inveigh against it. Men often construe the Word of Wisdom as a commandment against it and invest the practice of it with the stigma of sin. I think my own preaching against it may be so construed. Am I right? Are all of us right? Have not some of our people failed to distinguish between the offense and the offender?

I do not mean to say that I doubt the wisdom of the Word of Wisdom. I know that it contains God’s wishes and direction for the welfare of His children, and I am sure that those who fail to heed the teaching of it will lose blessings of great worth, but I am not sure that we have not estranged many from the Church or at least contributed to their estrangement by attributing to violation of our standards of health, harmful as it may be, a moral turpitude and sinful magnitude out of proportion to the real seriousness of the offense. Maybe I am wrong. I do not claim that my analysis is correct, but I think it is worthy of your attention.

I have said these things because I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees."

Sometimes I think that Elder Richards' talk was the Gettysburg of reasonableness and that the good guys lost.

[FMCoug]

How would we then measure the comparative unworthiness of others?

Material posessions of course. And the best part is you can choose which direction you want to go. If you are poor, material posessions are indications of wickedness. If you are rich, they are an indication of blessings for righteousness. It's win win!

Oh and I guess the middle class are fence sitters.

[ERCougar]

You, me, and Stephen L. Richards. Here's the famous quote from the April, 1932 General Conference:

"In application of this question, I must mention some delicate matters. I call them delicate because I run a great hazard of being misunderstood when I discuss them. Take smoking for instance. Is there more or less tolerance for the user of tobacco by the Church, as represented by its officials and the faithful membership, than there was twenty-five or fifty years ago? I cannot say. I have no way of knowing. We feel that it is wrong and we inveigh against it. Men often construe the Word of Wisdom as a commandment against it and invest the practice of it with the stigma of sin. I think my own preaching against it may be so construed. Am I right? Are all of us right? Have not some of our people failed to distinguish between the offense and the offender?

I do not mean to say that I doubt the wisdom of the Word of Wisdom. I know that it contains God’s wishes and direction for the welfare of His children, and I am sure that those who fail to heed the teaching of it will lose blessings of great worth, but I am not sure that we have not estranged many from the Church or at least contributed to their estrangement by attributing to violation of our standards of health, harmful as it may be, a moral turpitude and sinful magnitude out of proportion to the real seriousness of the offense. Maybe I am wrong. I do not claim that my analysis is correct, but I think it is worthy of your attention.

I have said these things because I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees."

Sometimes I think that Elder Richards' talk was the Gettysburg of reasonableness and that the good guys lost.

Wow...that's a great quote, applicable to much more than just the WOW. And nice Gettysburg analysis.

[All-American]

Here's how I see it.

Frankly, there is probably nothing wrong with a drink or two every now and again. Might even be for the better. But if we were to change this particular standard, the benefit would have to outweigh the detriment based on four different variables:

1). Benefit of the change for members. So how much worse off is a member who does not drink at all than he would be if he only drank in reasonable moderation? Studies suggest a health benefit, sure, but not a huge one.

2). Detriment of the change for members. It doesn't seem likely that somebody who had one or two would be much harmed, but it is hard to imagine that softening the stance on alcohol would not lead to an increase of alcohol related problems (drunk driving, health problems, et cetera).

3). Benefit of the change for prospective members. How many people would be more willing to investigate the church were the church to soften its stance on alcohol? How many people investigate the church, like what they see, but ultimately don't join because they can't give up alcohol? (How many of these would be able to drop down to a legitimate one or two every now and again anyway?)

4). Detriment of the change for prospective members. How many people would NOT end up investigating the church were the church to soften its stance on alcohol? This may seem counterintuitive at first, but after all, the church's ban on alcohol is one of the things which distinguishes it from other denominations. How many people began to look at the church because they knew somebody who didn't drink? Is abstinence from alcohol such an integral part of the LDS identity that by removing it, the church would lose its draw?

From there, you argue the value of each of the variables and how much more or less the effect on members should be considered over the effect on prospective members. My initial impression is that the church would be better off not changing its stance, but then again, I don't really appreciate the drink culture like the rest of the world does.

[ERCougar]

Here's how I see it.

Frankly, there is probably nothing wrong with a drink or two every now and again. Might even be for the better. But if we were to change this particular standard, the benefit would have to outweigh the detriment based on four different variables:

1). Benefit of the change for members. So how much worse off is a member who does not drink at all than he would be if he only drank in reasonable moderation? Studies suggest a health benefit, sure, but not a huge one.

2). Detriment of the change for members. It doesn't seem likely that somebody who had one or two would be much harmed, but it is hard to imagine that softening the stance on alcohol would not lead to an increase of alcohol related problems (drunk driving, health problems, et cetera).

3). Benefit of the change for prospective members. How many people would be more willing to investigate the church were the church to soften its stance on alcohol? How many people investigate the church, like what they see, but ultimately don't join because they can't give up alcohol? (How many of these would be able to drop down to a legitimate one or two every now and again anyway?)

4). Detriment of the change for prospective members. How many people would NOT end up investigating the church were the church to soften its stance on alcohol? This may seem counterintuitive at first, but after all, the church's ban on alcohol is one of the things which distinguishes it from other denominations. How many people began to look at the church because they knew somebody who didn't drink? Is abstinence from alcohol such an integral part of the LDS identity that by removing it, the church would lose its draw?

From there, you argue the value of each of the variables and how much more or less the effect on members should be considered over the effect on prospective members. My initial impression is that the church would be better off not changing its stance, but then again, I don't really appreciate the drink culture like the rest of the world does.

On 4), I think there are a lot of good, reasonable people (CS Lewis for one) who believe in moderation in all things and are immediately turned off by extremes, looking no further than the public perception. They see an alcohol ban (and particularly, a coffee ban) as one of these extremes. On the other hand, I don't think there are many people (if any) who are attracted to the church simply because we don't drink.

I, for one, think we should keep the alcohol ban. But I do think it drives good prospective members away.

[RockyBalboa]

I know more than a few people who smoke pot with their older kids

LOL...no you don't.

However, I do commend you for one of the better trolling posts I've seen in awhile.

[TripletDaddy]

...reasonable people (CS Lewis for one) who believe in moderation in all things....

lol!

What? No Work and the Glory examples handy?

[SeattleUte]

As you might imagine, I actually work in the real world in kind of a big city. So I do interact all the time with people who drink. I don't even notice it, unless someone has had too much. But I was not talking about that.

This is well stated, and what I had been given to understand. You were too taciturn. Responding as you did with those links I thought you were agreeing with Smoky that one drop of alcohol poses an unacceptable risk of alcoholism.

There are few things in life that are absolute black and white facts. IMO, one of those is that recreational use of drugs is extraordinarily dangerous, and not just because of drunk drivers. Any parent who lets his or her kid use marijuana or other addictive substances is behaving very foolishly, and that's as politely as I can express that. Everyone who has ever dealt with an addict in the family, or who is otherwise close to this, know this. So does every person in attendance at an AA or other 12-step meeting. Robin's a good guy, but when he expresses a desire to be liberal about his child's use of drugs, Robin clearly does not know what he is talking about.

You're preaching to the choir.

[smokymountainrain]

SMRs fears of a single drink or two suddenly turning a previously responsible person into a budding alcoholic are unfounded.

Fair enough. I will defer to you as you have far more experience and knowledge on the subject. I will even defer to SU as he obviously knows more than I.