"I'm Drinking My First Coffee Tonight"

[_antishock8]

I remember when I was young, and the youth from the each ward in our stake was doing a roadshow. Each skit was really well-done, but had moral themes about temptation and staying true to the Gospel.

Of all the skits, the one that stood out the most to me, and I remember this very clearly, was the one where our ward's youth created huge cutouts of the various drinks that were against the word of wisdom. They then did did a sort of weird Andre Lloyd Webber song and dance, dressed as ghouls, faces painted, and paraded these cutouts around the stage in this surreal ode to the WoW.

Wanna know what the drinks were?

Mountain Dew. Pepsi. Budweiser. Coffee. Tea.

Let me repeat that.

Mountain Dew.

Pepsi.

Budweiser, coffee, and tea.

Things have certainly changed over time. The Mormon church I knew as a child no longer exists. It's a shell of its former self.

[_Bond James Bond]

...Mc Murrin's unofficial title of "the anti-Christ of Salt Lake City".

God I sooooo hope I can earn a title as badass as that someday.

[_ludwigm]

Prophets and apostles are not historians, and JFS did not have a degree in history, and was not a professional historian.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Hehe.

I'm Drinking My First Coffee of today. As I do it every day.
The side effect of being a nonmember. Ask Your doctor or drugist.

.

.

.

.

[_gramps]

I visited their home in the past and saw a coffee maker on their counter in the kitchen.

Ah, gramps, you really are one of those who knows what it means to be a TBM. I've had so many similar experiences. A very good friend of mine who had been in apostasy for years, a man of exceeding wickedness, of many, many fornications, and an up and coming binge drinker, became very upset with his girlfriend when she moved in with him. Why? Because he came home one day, and there was a coffee pot on the kitchen counter!

Ha ha!

Reminds me of another funny one. My parents came to my graduation. We hadn't seen each other, but rarely, in years. There hadn't been any direct conversations about our leaving the church at that time. They stayed in our home, per our invitation. My ex liked tea. So did her friends. I had not acquired a taste for the brew up to that point.

The next day, my father pulled me aside, in my own home, and told me he felt a bad spirit. I asked him what he was talking about. He said I knew what he was talking about. I said I didn't know, but I would be happy for him to explain to me what he was talking about.
Then, it all came to a head. He said your mother was in the kitchen and opened a cupboard and saw what was in there. I asked what was in there that troubled her so desperately. He said, with real anguish on his face, the tea, he said, the tea. The Spirit can't be in your home with that tea in the cupboard.

Yea, I know all about chapel Mormonism. I was raised on the front row.

I would bet my father has never tried even a sip of tea or coffee or alcohol. He is only a few years away, at best, from passing through this veil of tears. I don't know if he has reached his only real goal in life, to meet the Savior before he dies, but if anyone deserves to do so, it is my Dad. He knows and believes.

[_Sethbag]

Thanks, Gramps, for my new sig line. That's a classic line, IMHO. What's really funny is that to a dyed in the wool TBM, what your dad says makes perfect sense. And to an outsider, it makes perfect nonsense.

Joseph Smith can be a true Prophet, and not only "feel the Spirit", but talk to and see God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Moroni, the Apostle Paul, and who knows how many other angelic figures, while boinking other mens' wives, smoking cigars, drinking whiskey and wine, opening a bar in his mansion, and whatever else. But you can't even have the Spirit enter your home at all because there's a box of (for God's sake) tea sitting in your cupboard.

It's actually pretty darn funny.

[Guest]

Fine then. I'm going to back off on the claim that BY made the WoW a commandment. However, the minutes of the 1852 Conference still stand, unless someone can source a plausible reason why they should be discounted as legitimate (Jason's bare assertion does not qualify as a plausible reason). The Saints, unitedly in conference accepting the WoW as binding doctrinally would be, indeed, the equivalent of the canonization of the concept (this is how we sustain the ministerial authority of our leaders several times during the year).

What I'm not going to back off on is the following:

The entire argument here is broken backed for the simple reason, as Ray's post clearly indicates, that we do not follow dead prophets but living ones. Rigid adherence to the WoW strictly and without the slightest deviation as originally understood would be fine for fundamentalists, but we are not. The Prophets, seers, and revelators--the Lord's anointed servants and oracles, are authorized and empowered through the authority of the Priesthood and their calling as special witnesses of Christ to modify, expand, alter, and amend prior counsel and doctrine as directed by the Lord. That's why the WoW is a barometer of worthiness now while it wasn't so much in the 19th century--the Gospel has expanded and the Church has developed.

As Ray has now, perhaps inevitably, descended into abject lying regarding his own evidence, it would be well to inspect the words of Mike Ash that he posted as supportive of his own position.

I could not have made my point here any better then Ash. Here are the relevant concepts, from Ray's own post:

As gospel knowledge grew LDS leaders began to recognize the wisdom of D&C 89 and efforts appeared periodically to commit to greater adherence. “Additional evidence of serious concern,” notes Peterson, “is seen in the fact that in December, 1850, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, and other Church [leaders] met in Young’s ‘upper room’ to pray. Here they concluded to ‘renew the Word of Wisdom.’” (Quoted in Peterson, 44.) By 1862 Brigham Young had curbed his own habits and encouraged the members to curb their bad Word of Wisdom habits as well. Then by 1867 Brigham Young began campaigning for a stronger emphasis on the Word of Wisdom.

Joseph F. Smith, fifth President of the Church, felt “the reason ...why the Word of Wisdom was given not by commandment or constraint was that at that time . . . it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation.” He reasoned that a merciful God would give individuals a chance to overcome undesirable habits before bringing them under law. (Conference Reports, October, 1913, p. 14) Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith felt that it was time for stricter observance. In 1902 he “urged stake presidents and others to refuse recommends to flagrant violators but to be somewhat liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea. Habitual drunkards, however, were to be denied temple recommends.


Five years later Heber J. Grant became Church President and in 1921, adherence to the Word of Wisdom was made a requirement for admission to the temple.

What we see here then, is nothing more or less then precisely the same types of developmental stages through which doctrines and practices pass that is true of virtually every other principle in the Church, as they developed from the First Vision onward. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.

All I see here is a concept that moved from counsel, to stricter observance and commitment, to commandment. A common pattern in the restored Church and, indeed, in the New Testament (the Law of Moses was fulfilled and many of its ordinances done away and replaced by a higher law and other, deeper ordinances. Outward observance was replaced be inward personal responsibility for conduct and self orientation).

I have no idea what Joseph Fielding Smith has to do with any of this present discussion, as the evolution of the WoW from a matter of counsel to the Saints being placed "under the law" regarding it went from the D&C to Joseph F. Smith and finally, Heber Grant, who made observance mandatory for Temple recommendation.

There appears to be no basis whatsoever upon which to call the transformation of the WoW from counsel to commandment a "myth", as Ray so tendentiously does here. On this rock-revelation-was the Church to be built, not on some notion of sola scriptora which Ray and some others here appear to be attempting to impose upon the Church from outside its boundries.

If we no longer practice animal sacrifice (and this must be construed to be a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its ancient Mosaic form), then the Lord's servants can reveal a principle in one form as counsel and persuasion, and then later bring the Saints "under the law" to that same principle. The law of tithing will eventually give way to the United Order. The one is preparatory, the other a fuller comprehension and practice of the same principle.

Keep kicking against the pricks guys, its a real gas.





This is precisely the function and purpose of the First Presidency and the Twelve; this is their calling and mandate. All of you who wish to have your own Church instead of the Lord's, and wish to follow your own psychological, emotional, and cultural predilections rather than the Brethren, are perfectly welcome to do so.

I would prefer to lean toward both the truth and the oracles, on a personal level.

[_TAK]

Thanks, Gramps, for my new sig line. That's a classic line, IMHO. What's really funny is that to a dyed in the wool TBM, what your dad says makes perfect sense. And to an outsider, it makes perfect nonsense.

Joseph Smith can be a true Prophet, and not only "feel the Spirit", but talk to and see God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Moroni, the Apostle Paul, and who knows how many other angelic figures, while boinking other mens' wives, smoking cigars, drinking whiskey and wine, opening a bar in his mansion, and whatever else. But you can't even have the Spirit enter your home at all because there's a box of (for God's sake) tea sitting in your cupboard.

It's actually pretty darn funny.

Damn you SB!! I was going to take that for my sig line.. lol!

[_Droopy]

Joseph Smith can be a true Prophet, and not only "feel the Spirit", but talk to and see God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Moroni, the Apostle Paul, and who knows how many other angelic figures, while boinking other mens' wives,

And of course, as we've been through this hobby horse a thousand times, there's not a shred of evidence to support such an assertion. This is an assumption based upon nothing more than appearance, not historical evidence.

Please, keep lying, keep prevaricating, and keep slandering that regarding which you have little or no comprehension. Its all for the best, I'm certain.

[_Droopy]

Currently the favorite kid hangout is Starbucks, for members and non members alike. It would not surprise me if the rules loosen on coffee in another 5-10 years.

The Church is going to alter a commandment because of social pressure or the behavior of a certain number of its less serious members?

Do you really not know better than this Liz, or have I missed something about you?

[_Ray A]

Fine then. I'm going to back off on the claim that BY made the WoW a commandment. However, the minutes of the 1852 Conference still stand, unless someone can source a plausible reason why they should be discounted as legitimate (Jason's bare assertion does not qualify as a plausible reason). The Saints, unitedly in conference accepting the WoW as binding doctrinally would be, indeed, the equivalent of the canonization of the concept (this is how we sustain the ministerial authority of our leaders several times during the year).

This is what I initially called you on, so you've backed off, but you still have your wires mixed up. There was no "binding doctrinally", because the doctrine as outlayed in Section 89 was "not by commandment". They eventually made it "binding", and from your own quote of my quote:

As gospel knowledge grew LDS leaders began to recognize the wisdom of D&C 89 and efforts appeared periodically to commit to greater adherence. “Additional evidence of serious concern,” notes Peterson, “is seen in the fact that in December, 1850, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, and other Church [leaders] met in Young’s ‘upper room’ to pray. Here they concluded to ‘renew the Word of Wisdom.’” (Quoted in Peterson, 44.) By 1862 Brigham Young had curbed his own habits and encouraged the members to curb their bad Word of Wisdom habits as well. Then by 1867 Brigham Young began campaigning for a stronger emphasis on the Word of Wisdom.

Joseph F. Smith, fifth President of the Church, felt “the reason ...why the Word of Wisdom was given not by commandment or constraint was that at that time . . . it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation.” He reasoned that a merciful God would give individuals a chance to overcome undesirable habits before bringing them under law. (Conference Reports, October, 1913, p. 14) Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith felt that it was time for stricter observance. In 1902 he “urged stake presidents and others to refuse recommends to flagrant violators but to be somewhat liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea. Habitual drunkards, however, were to be denied temple recommends.


Five years later Heber J. Grant became Church President and in 1921, adherence to the Word of Wisdom was made a requirement for admission to the temple.

All I see here is a concept that moved from counsel, to stricter observance and commitment, to commandment.

There are dual signals here. D&C 89 has not changed, it still says "not by commandment". So it's obviously a commandment of men.

I presume Jesus wasn't perfect, but had to "grow" before he could quit his winebibbing? How ludicrous. "The son of God" drinks wine, but his latter-day Saints who drink wine can't get to heaven. What this implies is that Jesus was either,

a) weak

b) sinful

c) both.