BYU has banned caffeinated soft drinks on campus for years.  I work for a few large national cable tv networks, and when they come to BYU, they often rant that they can’t find a good cup of coffee in Provo, and they are especially perplexed by the soft drink restrictions.  Often these guys fly in on red-eye flights, and a boost of caffeine is very helpful to keeping them alert during football and basketball broadcasts.  (I took one of those red-eye flights just this weekend, and drank some cheap cola to keep me awake.)

So, Coke and Pepsi are sold on campus, but without caffeine.  I find it an odd situation, and I don’t have much to say when these non-LDS people rant about banning caffeine on campus.  But it appears that President David O McKay was a bit more liberal on some of these Word of Wisdom issues.  We all know the admonition to “avoid the appearance of evil”, yet President McKay was more liberal than some on the subject of Coke.  Prince describes a situation where President McKay actually requested Coke.  From page 23, (emphasis in book)

During the intermission of a theatrical presentation, his host offered to get refreshments: “His hearing wasn’t very good, and I got right down in front of him and I said, ‘President McKay, what would you like to drink?  All of our cups say Coca Cola on them because of our arrangement with Coca Cola Bottling, but we have root beer and we have orange and we have Seven-Up.  What would you like to drink?’  And he said, ‘I don’t care what it says on the cup, as long as there is Coke in the cup.”⁸⁷ McKay’s point was simple and refreshing:  Don’t get hung up on the letter of the law to the point where you squeeze all of the spirit out of life.

But that’s not all.  Prince describes an interesting story concerning rum cake that President McKay ate. Also from page 23,

At a reception McKay attended, the hostess served rum cake.  ”All the guests hesitated, watching to see what McKay would do.  He smacked his lips and began to eat.”  When one guest expostulated, “‘But President McKay, don’t you know that is rum cake?’  McKay smiled and reminded the guest that the Word of Wisdom forbade drinking alcohol, not eating it.”⁸⁶

Some people have tried to add chocolate as being prohibited by the Word of Wisdom.  President McKay chided an apostle about this stance.  From page 23,

he gently chided Apostle John A. Widtsoe, whose wife advocated such a rigid interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as to proscribe chocolate because of the stimulants it contained, saying “John, do you want to take all the joy of of life?’”⁸⁵

Is anyone else surprised by these stories?  Do you think Mormons will ever relax to President McKay’s position on the Word of Wisdom?  When I was first married, my wife surprised me and cooked with wine.  Do others cook with wine, or do you avoid it for “the appearance of evil”?

In the LDS Church, we are asked to do a lot of things. Performances, if you will.  Daily prayer, multiple times a day, over meals, with spouse, family, personal and in our heart at all times; Daily scripture study, with family, spouse and personal; weekly Family Home Evening;  Monthly Home/ Visiting Teaching; Regular Temple Attendance (at least once a month) and Family History Work; Pay tithes and offerings (10% of increase plus Fast Offerings and other contributions); attend our meetings, Sunday, weekday and other; Accept and perform callings given to us by the Bishop or Stake President; Acquire, keep, use and rotate a 1 year supply of food, 3 day emergency kit, supply of funds for emergencies; Strictly observe the Word of Wisdom: perform acts of services for others, meals for the sick, moving families in and out of the ward, yard work, repair work, community service, etc.;  Attend a yearly Tithing Settlement with the Bishop and a bi-yearly Temple Recommend Interview. And more.

These performances are meant to assist us in becoming more like our Savior and Heavenly Father. There is a spiritual meaning and intention behind each of these acts that should be carefully considered as we are doing them. These acts are not an end to themselves, but the means to an end. In most cases, they are recommended, strongly recommended and with a recommended frequency, but the regularity of performance is really a personal choice.

I get concerned both for myself and others that we may fall into the trap the Pharisees found themselves in. That the performances themselves begin to overshadow their meaning and the true intent. I fear that going through the motions becomes more important than real intent of the act itself.

For example, the purpose of Home Teaching is to “watch over the members of the Church, home teachers visit their assigned families at least once each month to teach and strengthen them. Home teachers establish a relationship of trust with these families so that the families can call upon them in times of need.” (LDS Church Website). But, if that relationship of trust is never formed because the Home Teachers do not take the time to really get to know the family and each of its members, does it really matter than they show up once a month? I realize it is a reported statistic, but what it purpose of the report? To prove we have gone through the motions?

Another example. Regular Temple Attendance. Most members of the Church (80%) are blessed to have a temple within 200 miles of their homes.  This means that regular attendance is more possible than ever before. The days of saving up for a lifetime to attend once and receive Temple ordnances for you and your family are rapidly coming to an end. Though, it is probably still true for some.  We only need to attend once for ourselves. The other times we go have a benefit to us and a service performed for others. We get to experience the serenity of the Temple environs, learn more of the meaning of the ordinances and provide a service for those who have passed from this life without receiving temple ordinances. But, if in striving to attend once a month as directed, we rush, do not fully pay attention and just go through the motions, are we really doing as we are asked to do? Maybe once a month isn’t possible or the right frequency for us?

Here are two stories from my Jewish experience.

Years ago, one of my great uncles was traveling in Africa (Ethiopia, I believe) and, as a very observant Jew, wanted to attend synagogue for the Sabbath. After the service, a man came up to him and, observing that my uncle had a pen in his shirt pocket, spat on him and accused him of defiling the Sabbath by carrying a pen in his pocket. Carrying a pen would be forbidden because one might be tempted to write with it on the Sabbath and that is considered work.

My family and I attended a large family reunion at a famous Jewish resort in the “borscht belt” of the Catskill Mountains of New York. This resort had seen its better days but was world famous in its heyday. I must admit there were more different types of Jews there than I had ever seen, from the most observant Hasidim with their black suits and peyos (side curls) to others in shorts and t-shirts. I imagine my family was the only Mormons there.

On Friday night, at the start of the Sabbath, one of the two elevators was set to automatic so that one need not push any buttons for it to operate. In other words, the doors open, you get in, the doors close and the elevator goes to the next floor. The doors open, people get in and out, the doors close and proceeds to the next floor. It allowed the people to ride the elevator without doing any work (pushing the buttons).

Well my uncle got into the non-automatic elevator with two young ladies. They asked him to push the button for floor 2 because they got into the wrong elevator. They told him they could not push the buttons themselves. He said to them that the scriptures say that they should not work nor should they make anyone else work (See Exodus 20:10).  The two young ladies looked at him with a rather quizzical look. They did not understand what he was saying.  He then pushed the button for their floor.

So, I worry that we, as a Church might be getting a little too carried away with the performances (the checklist as we have discussed recently) we are asked to do without the thought of the spiritual significance of what we do.

In some cases, if a 1 year supply is good, a 3 year supply is better. If the Word of Wisdom means abstaining from coffee and black tea, then abstaining from any caffeine, “hot” drink or chocolate is better. If going to the Temple once a month is good, going every week is better.

The regularity of these things is really a personal choice and should be aligned with all the other things we are doing in our life and should be based on our own spiritual growth and development. After all, the objective is to become like Jesus and Our Heavenly Father,  become the best person we can, serve others and return to live with them in the eternities, not rack up a bunch of impressive statistics.

Brett Wilcox lives in Sitka, Alaska, with his wife and their four children.  As a Licensed Professional Counselor, Brett works with Alaskan adolescents in an experiential based wilderness program. Brett suffers from the delusion that his forthcoming fantasy novel will propel him into fame, fortune, movie deals, and the White House.

Sacrament meeting is definitely NOT the best place to come out of the closet. But by the time I made the announcement, I no longer had any misgivings about my identity or how I was going to live my life. I had even come to believe that God had led me to this point and was pleased with my choices. I knew there would be repercussions for going public at church — that if I didn’t have sense enough to be filled with shame, others would take it upon themselves to heap some, along with a generous portion of righteous indignation, upon my head.

The bishop had asked me to speak on the Word of Wisdom. I sometimes struggle with assigned topics, but this one felt like pure inspiration. Feeling passionate about the subject, I easily put together a talk made up of scripture, quotations from the Brethren, anecdotes, research, and statistics. All of that set the stage for my rather shocking disclosure. “Brothers and sisters, I’d like you to know that these things are true. I’ve tested these principles in my own life, and have been blessed by doing so. That’s why I can stand at the pulpit today and use the ‘V’ word in front of you and your children. You may have heard the rumors. I’m here to confirm that I’ve become…a vegetarian.”

Feeling as if I was armed with a carrot in one hand, a banana in the other, and suited with dark, leafy greens, I had thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the nation’s and the Church’s culture of unchecked carnivorism. My challenge went unanswered during Sunday school, but I sensed a tension that hung in the air. Before priesthood meeting officially started, a devout brother announced that according to the apostle Paul, the church had been warned against celibates and vegetarians. I was an apostate. The bishop rose to my defense. Another brother, siding with the first, made his statement by storming out of the chapel.

Since that fateful day in 2003, I’ve often considered what it means to be a Mormon vegetarian. Who are we? What motivates us? Why are we sometimes viewed suspiciously from within the church? And on the flip side, why is it that, in spite of the Word of Wisdom and the benefit of numerous supporting scientific studies, the vast majority of our church family continues to eat as much or more meat than our non-member neighbors? What prevents us from seeing the disastrous consequences that often result?

What exactly is a vegetarian? There may be as many varieties as there are flavors of Mormons. The most common are: Ovo (don’t eat meat but do eat eggs), lacto (no meat but do eat dairy), lacto-ovo (both dairy and eggs are OK), pescatarian (will eat fish), raw foodist, vegan (no animal based food or other products), flexitarian (will occasionally eat some meat), or some combination of the above.

Of course, food choices are merely part of the larger belief systems for most vegetarians. Here are some subjective generalizations I’ve observed in LDS vegetarians I know. We tend to see the Word of Wisdom as a spiritual law and our living it fully as a spiritual expression of our love and appreciation to God, and gratitude that He packaged the best nutrients in a dazzling assortment of tastes, smells, shapes, colors, and textures found within the plant kingdom. And many of us prefer food in its most natural state–whole, fresh, raw, organic, locally grown, and straight from the garden whenever possible. We view our bodies as our primary stewardships — as physical and spiritual temples. Our daily food choices honor our temples. We view life as sacred but not only human life–also the lives of animals, plants, and the Earth herself. We try to treat all creatures respectfully. Some show that respect by abstaining from the taking of animal life all together. Others eat meat (and thus kill) only rarely. Most see a whole foods plant-based diet as consistent with the diet of The Garden of Eden and the one that will prevail in the Millennium. Our food choices therefore reflect our willingness to live a higher law and to prepare for a brighter future.

Although I was raised on plenty of garden fresh fruits, beans, and vegetables, my favorite meal was pressure-cooked roast beef, whipped potatoes, and gravy. As a child, I didn’t understand the central role food and drink plays in the human culture. As an adult, I have learned that my own culture is largely invisible to me until it bumps up against other cultures. For example, I discovered that in much of the world, everything grinds to a stop in the absence of a coffee grinder and percolating pot. Neither did I realize for many years how rich and fat the American (and, by extension, the Mormon) diet is compared to that of the rest of the world and how much it contributes to our collective waistlines. When I first married my wife, I told her I would still love her even after she grew fat. She was far from flattered. But from observing my church and community culture, I didn’t think there was an option. Her mother was overweight as was mine, and so were many of the women around me. I associated fat with pregnancy and motherhood.

Shortly after we married, we moved to Japan and gradually adopted the food culture of the world’s longest-living people. I learned that obesity is more a result of our food and lifestyle choices, and not so much a result of genetics or motherhood. That fact would have been much more difficult to grasp had we not lived in Japan and partaken of their culture.

Occasionally, a few of our more outspoken Japanese friends commented on the obese state of Americans. Initially, I was amused but a bit offended. However, after living among the Japanese for a few years, my wife and I returned home and upon our arrival at the Los Angeles airport, we were both shocked at the sight — enormous people virtually everywhere, some being carted about the terminals in wheelchairs and golf carts. Our friends were right. Many Americans ARE fat. At my parents’ home, I loaded a plate with my mother’s delectable roast beef, potatoes, and gravy, but my stomach rejected (in no uncertain terms) my favorite childhood meal. Now it was my mother’s turn to be anything but flattered. Our bodies had grown accustomed to our Japanese diet. We hadn’t given up meat, but it had come to play a much smaller role on our plates. One of our most memorable culinary experiences in Japan was at a mountain restaurant operated by Buddhist priests. In a serene and unrushed setting, we enjoyed their vegan offerings. I remember that meal as an almost spiritual experience. And why not? Food is God’s offering to His children. The attitude with which we partake is our offering to God.

After living in Japan for over five years, we returned to the Wasatch Front with an adopted food culture, and we followed my father’s good example by planting a garden. Many meals consisted of nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, and we felt good for doing so. When we connected to the Internet, I discovered the book “Diet for a New America” by John Robbins who had renounced his family inheritance, running the Baskin Robbins ice cream empire, and had done so for spiritual reasons. He wrote of a stewardship and partnership with the Earth, animals, and his fellow humans. I sensed truth in his writings. Later, when I came upon an online essay entitled The Word of Wisdom: The Forgotten Verses, I was surprised, pleased, and ready to hear that many prominent church leaders had voiced opinions similar to Robbins’. Their statements provided church approval for my further shift away from meat, and I made the conscious decision to no longer partake of factory-farmed meat.

Through additional research, I become convinced that milk, the drink touted as “The Perfect Food” in my seventh grade health class, was indeed the perfect food for calves, but was far from perfect when consumed by humans. I gave it up and found myself freed from intestinal problems that had plagued me since my days at the Missionary Training Center, where I had dealt with stress by gorging myself three times a day on the standard American diet.

Giving up meat and milk set me apart both from the majority of my American associates and from the majority of my LDS brothers and sisters. But that was okay; I felt cleaner, leaner, faster, happier, and younger as a result. When I began to experience personally the benefits I’d heard so extensively reported by others, I felt compelled to share my knowledge and experience with family and friends. Surely, I thought with missionary zeal, they would want to enjoy the same benefits I had. I had limited success in my proselytizing efforts but usually only with those facing severe illness or even imminent death. Those who abandoned the lifelong food choices that had caused their health crises experienced almost miraculous improvements in as little as a month. Amazingly, their health care providers didn’t seem interested in learning about the simple dietary changes that produced such profound results. Some were incredulous. Could inexpensive garden vegetables be more effective than their pricey pills, potions, and procedures?  I’m convinced that the culture of the American medical system has blinded many of us to the healing power of plants.

Certainly, many of the benefits my friends are experiencing would qualify as the promised “hidden treasures” of The Word of Wisdom. Here’s a list of a few of the treasures I’ve discovered since adopting a more plant-based diet.

1. Our personal and collective food choices impact each other. The Earth has limited water, soil, air, trees, animals, etc. Meat production consumes, pollutes, and destroys huge amounts of the Earth’s resources. A plant-based diet is good for my fellow creations, for the Earth, and for me.

2. Life is sacred. When I consider the Great Creator, it is easy for me hear the words, “And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (Joseph Smith Translation, Gen. 9:9-11.)

3. Human beings are by nature and design plant eaters. Our bodies resemble the bodies of plant-eating animals, not meat-eating animals. Eating meat is a learned behavior. Our children grow accustomed to the practice before they even know that the meat on their plates comes from dead animals.

4. According to the Word of Wisdom, God is pleased when we abstain from meat. I want to please God.

I think back to that day in sacrament meeting. The brother who accused me of being an apostate now suffers from a debilitating chronic disease — a disease that strikes less often among vegetarians and which can often be held in check by eating a whole-foods, plant-based diet. The brother who stormed out of the chapel continued to suffer from the standard diseases of affluence until he died of a heart attack. One of his close friends, an enormous man, spoke at the funeral and reminisced about the times they shared watching TV and “stacking crackers.” I sat mortified in the congregation as this man unknowingly celebrated the cause of his friend’s death.

As the years have passed, my coming out at church has become a non-issue. Ward members are accustomed to our family’s diet. I did get scolded once for teaching primary children the Word of Wisdom “too well,” but overall, we fit in just fine. And we’re not alone anymore. Some members of our current bishop’s family are vegetarian as well. Vegetarian and meat dishes are served side-by-side at church socials. Occasionally, someone will ask how we stay so thin or what exactly we eat at home, but overall our food choices don’t seem to stir any pots. In fact, coming out proved less dramatic than I’d feared.  But I wonder what will happen when I speak in sacrament meeting and announce the gift I’m offering at the next ward potluck will be offered in the raw — raw food, that is.

According to Allen and Leonard ‘perhaps no doctrine was preached more enthusiastically by President Grant or stressed more in Church literature during his administration than the Word of Wisdom’ [3].  Arrington’s seminal (if not a little controversial essay) on the economic factors that led to the importance of the Word of Wisdom deals with the period till 1900 and misses some crucial occurrences in the lead up to this principle becoming a ‘commandment’.

The Personal

President Grant had a friend who had died young because of alcohol related problems (according to Truman Madsen it was cirrhosis of the liver [4]).  At the funeral President Grant records, in a sermon given in 1931, that ‘as I stood at his grave I looked up to heaven and made a pledge to my God that liquor and tobacco would have in me an enemy who would fight with all the ability that God would give me to the day of my death, and I have kept that pledge so far’[5].  Perhaps what haunted President Grant most was that this young man had given up his habits to serve a mission, but had quickly resumed them when he finished his service.

The Political

According to the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism ‘The [prohibition] movement intensified the Church’s interest in the Word of Wisdom. There is evidence that Church Presidents John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber J. Grant wanted to promote adherence to the Word of Wisdom as a precondition for entering LDS temples or holding office in any Church organization; and indeed, by 1930 abstinence from the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea had become an official requirement for those seeking temple recommends.’[6].   

It seems this interest became even more pronounced when the calls for repeal began.  President Grant’s concern can be seen in his April 2, 1932 General Conference address.  There was a controversial speech by Elder Stephen L. Richards at that same conference which will be discussed later.  But at the very least, it seems that President Grant’s emphasis on making the Word of Wisdom a requirement emerged out of a political context in which he saw liquor becoming a problem for the Latter-day Saints.  He had lived through and been an Apostle through some of the previous period of emphasis which Arrington documents, and perhaps did not want to see the Church membership go down that road again.

Perhaps President Grant saw the Church collectively as being like his friend.  He may thought the membership would enter a period of relapse; and he was trying to prevent it.

The Prophetic

What is surprising, is that in President Grant’s sermons on this issue and on the policy change he does not cite any direct revelation.  Interestingly, President Grant said in 1928, which seems to contradict Alexander’s thesis of the 1921 date, that ‘the Lord has not made this an absolute commandment’.  The implication here from President Grant however, is that if the Lord asks his people to do something then we should respond.  In addition, in a CHI (published in 1928) the Word of Wisdom was not explicitly mentioned as a requirement for the Temple, but was in the 1933 edition [2].  Thus although the issue seems to have been informally incorporated as policy its codification was not enforced until the early 1930′s in-line with the possible repeal of Prohibition. 

In addition, the evidence suggests that there has never been a sustaining vote on this issue [1].  I am not claiming that President Grant never believed he had received revelation on this issue nor that he never shared a testimony that he believed this principle was revelation.  What interests me is how, as a Prophet, he did not justify this change by referring to a revelatory experience but rather in a personal commitment to a principle and to political or social fears.  I would have expected an effort, like President Kimball discusses, of overcoming bias and prejudice that individuals hold in order to prepare for revelation.  For President Grant it seems that he moved forward in a different way.

Some Controversy

Stephen L. Richards who was an Apostle during this time gave a sermon, which was apparently not printed in the conference report because it angered President Grant.  It has been subsequently printed by Sunstone.  The sermon suggested that there was fanaticism in the way Church leaders had approached the issue of the Word of Wisdom, and other behaviours.  The date Sunstone give for the delivery of this sermon is the 9^th April 1932.  Although there was not a General Conference session on that day, Stan Larson (source – fn 79) in a footnote in his work on B.H. Roberts makes reference to a Salt Lake Tribune article and First Presidency meeting that discussed Richards’ talk on the 9^th and the day after.  Sunstone claim they got their transcript from the Church archives.  So there is some confusion in my mind at least about where this comes from.  However, according to Michael Quinn [7], on May 5^th 1932, Stephen L. Richards told the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that he will resign as apostle rather than apologize for his general conference talk which argued that the Church is putting too much emphasis on the Word of Wisdom. However on the 26^th May he later recanted and apologised for his remarks.  What this suggests to me is that this move may have been as much a personal drive from President Grant as from a revelation.  Moreover, it certainly was not wholly accepted at face value by all of the twelve.

Notes

1. Robert J. McCue, Did the Word of Wisdom become a Commandment in 1851? in Dialogue, no. 3 [Salt Lake City, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1981], p. 66-77.

2. Thomas G. Alexander, The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement in Dialogue, no. 3 [Salt Lake City, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1981], pp. 79

3. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 525 – 526.

4. Truman G. Madsen, The Presidents of the Church, [Salt Lake City, UT. Deseret Book, 2004).

5. President Heber J. Grant, Answering Tobacco’s Challenge in Improvement Era, 1931, (Vol. Xxxiv. June, 1931. No. 8.)

6. Joseph Lyons, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1584.

7. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power [Salt Lake City, UT.: Signature Books, 1997).

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

- Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves, Sunstone Magazine

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Perhaps unlike other Church business enterprises, however, is the fact that missionaries were sent to “serve God in a most unusual way,” according to this July, 2000 article on Deseret News about the LDS Church’s hunting preserves.

According to the information packet from Deseret Land and Livestock obtained by the Sunstone speaker on this podcast, a guided archery hunt to bag an elk can fetch $11,500 plus tax and license, as of the year 2001.  (A more detailed price list can be accessed at around the 28 minute mark of the podcast.) When asked in a letter by concerned members of the Church how the hunting preserves could be ethically justified, the Presiding Bishopric (who oversees the hunting preserves) offered no response or explanation.

Now, many Mormons own a gun and many go hunting.  Millions of Americans go hunting every year and it’s a big industry.  So what’s the problem with the Church getting in on the profits?  Well, when we consider LDS scripture and statements by General Authorities such as the following, it’s clear that we’re not “just another hunting enterprise:”

“And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.”  (Genesis 9:11, JST)

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)

“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)

“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

Something happened between the days that those statements were made and the present day where sport hunting for profit within the Church was suddenly considered to be a good idea — so much so that missionaries were initially sent to tend to the grounds.  How did we get from the days where the Church fostered such a high regard for animal life that Joseph Smith prevented the unnecessary killing of rattlesnakes; when the pioneers would lay their hands upon their oxen to bless them; when their animals were valued as they were the key to their survival, and hunting was done only because it was necessary to sustain their lives — to the days when they’re hunted down for recreation and profit?  What does that say about our culture and our religion? 

Did I miss a change in LDS teaching concerning reverence for the Lord’s animal creations?  Or is the only change that we’ve put a price on their heads?

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young and editor of the Juvenile Instructor, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any member of the Church.  In 1868 he began writing editorials advocating kindness to animals and in 1897 he founded a Sunday School-sponsored “Humane Day,” which became an annual event.  Most members of the Church know nothing about it, but this program continued in the Church for the next twenty years.

It is perhaps a bit ironic that leaders of the Church — in the days of when members were more dependent on animals for their food and clothing — were so frequently vocal about the humane treatment of animals, emphasizing that we should never take their lives unless it is to save our own, whereas today — when we are much less dependent on animals for our survival, and are supposedly much more enlightened on the subject of animal intelligence, emotion, and sensitivity to pain – the leaders of the Church are mostly silent on the issue of animal welfare and see fit to send missionaries to tend to sport hunting grounds. 

 In the Deseret News article, referring to Elder Huff, who tended to Westlake, it says:

“Instead of knocking on doors, he spends his time bush- whacking in the thick brush along the southwest shores of Utah Lake, looking for the perfect place to nurture his birds by planting numerous stands of corn, rye and other grains….

Large holding tanks that are no longer used for farming now provide high-profile watering holes throughout the game preserve, attracting not only birds but rabbits, coyotes, deer and even antelope.”

Interestingly enough, President Joseph F. Smith made a very specific statement referring directly to hunting elk, deer and antelope, among others:

“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.4, p.48

President Smith seems to predict with amazing accuracy what is going on at places like Westlake, where ”prominent men,” (perhaps the “doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” that Elder Huff refers to in the Deseret News article) seem to be so “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” that they will literally spend tens of thousands of dollars to “go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for?  Just the fun of it!”

Indeed, a very elite, lucrative kind of “fun” that had (as of 2001) a six-year waiting list.

Information about these hunting preserves is very sparse, but according to Jim Catano, who contacted the Church’s public affairs department and was “told by the director that he would answer my questions, a second-tier media handler was assigned to inform me weeks later that they would not answer any of the questions I’d submitted in preparation for this article.”  (The article he was referring to can be accessed here.)  After deciding to drop into Westlake unannounced and being given a tour by manager Kevin Albrecht, he found out the following in 2001:

“Our efforts in bringing our opposition to the attention of the Church hierarchy have already had an impact. Not only do missionaries no longer staff the facility but “canned hunts” in which birds that have been raised in captivity are released just before the hunters go in are no longer sponsored. Kevin said he had had several meetings with upper management as a result of our activism, and canned hunts were one of the first things to be changed.

He told me that in a meeting he recently attended of commercial hunting facility managers, people from other parts of the country were surprised how low the daily bag limit is (2 per day as opposed to “as many as you can shoot for a price”) and that the facility no longer plants hatched birds but relies only on wild reproduction. He informed me how strict rule enforcement is and that members must report birds they think they’ve wounded but can’t find as part of their daily limit. He’s fairly confident that members do this although I have my doubts that all do.”

Since information about these preserves is limited, I decided to get in contact with Jim in order to ask him whether he had any new information since his update in 2001.  He said that he had contacted Farm Management Corporation (wholly owned by the LDS Church to run its farm properties) sometime prior to 2003, but they “refused to talk to me and give me any more information on the subject at a certain point.”

So, while there have been positive changes as the result of protest about the initial practice of canned hunting, Jim says that it “didn’t change (his) mind about the merits of the existence of this facility.”  The end result has remained unchanged: animals being hunted down for Church profit.

This isn’t about sustaining the lives of doctors and lawyers or meat going to waste.  Who eats coyote?  And $11,500 for a few elk steaks?  This is about the number of animals being purposely multiplied by creating the perfect conditions and attracting them to the preseve for the purpose of being killed “just for fun” – not because they need the flesh to live on, as President Smith stated above. 

Ironically, The Humane Society of the United States  has a webpage dedicated to praising the LDS Church for its teachings about animal life.  Do we deserve the praise?  Or have we given nothing but lip service to our supposed respect for God’s creations and their right to life?

Despite past teachings and statements by General Authorities on the subject of hunting and the taking of animal life, many of you have no personal problem with sport hunting.  Obviously, you have the legal right to hunt and I realize that I’m unlikely to change your personal views on the matter.  I ask you, however, whether you would be troubled by any of the following purely hypothetical situations:

• The Church preaches against alcohol consumption, but purchases a vineyard in California and profits from the sale of the grapes being harvested to produce wine.
• The Church teaches that pornography is wrong, but has a stake in a popular fashion magazine featuring scantily-clothed women in sexual poses.
• The Church opposes abortion but owns property in Florida that an abortion clinic rents.

Would you be prepared to defend these hypothetical scenarios in the same way that you defend the Church’s hunting preserves?

Of all the good ways to make a buck, is this the best we can do?  Are we or are we not, as a Church, sacrificing principle for profit?

Gerald E. Jones stated the following in in an Ensign article from August, 1972 called “The Gospel And Animals:”

“The prophets have been consistent in reminding men of their duty to the animal world. As the Lord told Noah, “… the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (JST, Gen. 9:11.) It is our sacred stewardship to care for the earth and all the creatures on it.”

The prophets have been consistent.  What about the Church?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Joseph F. Smith from an editorial published in the Juvenile Instructor in April, 1927:

“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”

Then I remembered that I’m married, so who cares if I look like a geek?  What, are they not going to go out with me?  I like being married for this and many other reasons.

But today I had another “oh, great” moment when I found the following headline:  “Video shows chicks ground up alive at egg hatchery“.  The quite disturbing (to me) video in question can be found here.  Great!  So not only are companies committing cruel acts towards animals, I’ve been contributing to this ever since I was born!

It’s not like I didn’t know that the animal harvesting business is cruel.  If you don’t believe me, a quick Google search of “meat industry cruelty” will convince you very quickly.  I remember once I boycotted Kentucky Fried Chicken for probably over a year due to the fact that some of their practices led to poor treatment of chickens, overcrowding, etc.  I’m in Kentucky, remember!  Avoiding KFC in Kentucky is like trying to avoid getting hit by raindrops in Portland.  However, a couple months ago my co-worker brought in a bucket of the Colonel’s Original Recipe and I just couldn’t resist.  It was just so good.

So I’m part of the problem, I suppose.  As I watched this video of these cute little helpless chicks being ground up alive, my mind pondered a few things.

First of all, isn’t it strange that this strikes me as “wrong”?  On Earth, Nature is incredibly cruel.  Lions must hunt down sick, weak gazelles, chase them down and bite them in the neck till they suffocate and die.  Polar bears have to eat baby seals.  That’s just the way Nature works, so why does it strike me as cruel?  It strengthened the idea, to me, that there’s something inside us that isn’t “of this world,” or else why would cruelty register at all?

Secondly, the practices at the egg hatcheries make sense, on paper.  Male chicks have little value to the industry.  They don’t grow big or fast enough to sell as food (I can think of a few starving countries in this world that would love a shipment of thousands of free male chickens, but that’s another matter), and they don’t lay eggs.  The hatcheries just do what has to be done.  Grinding them alive is a lot more humane than other ways to kill them.

Still, it bothers me.  I can’t help but admit that it bothers me, and there’s something inside that just wonders if what we’re doing is right.  Unfortunately, I can’t get around the fact that, by eating eggs, I’m condoning those practices as well.  What is the solution?  Should I stop eating eggs?  Should I go vegetarian?

Then I remembered a little something I read once.  It goes like this:

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

Umm, what if we all actually lived the Word of Wisdom?

Now don’t get me wrong, people.  I’m a burger-eating, kebab-loving American just like the next guy.  I wouldn’t consider myself “liberal” and I didn’t vote for Obama.  Before you label me as some kind of Communist, tree-hugging, pinko, PETA spy planted to infiltrate the Mormon blogging community, consider some facts.

Let’s assume that eggs are included in “the flesh of beasts and fowls of the air.”  Americans love meat.  Americans love eggs.  We can’t even get through a meal without one or the other.  Vegetarian sections of menus at restaurants are basically footnotes, and every big family meal needs a pot roast or a turkey or a ham, and as a result, we live in a culture that relies on meat.  This means the model of having a family farm, where you grow up with the animals and slaughter the fatted calf only during times of great celebration, is no longer viable as an option.

Think about the family farm.  Each meat eater must take care of the animals on the farm and slaughter them personally.  Each animal is rationed, fed, sheltered, and generally taken care of until it is necessary to eat.  Perhaps I’m wrong, but I imagine this model fosters a more compassionate relationship with the animals that are slaughtered.  For instance, most Americans would be revolted at the prospect of eating a family pet (say, a dog for instance).  Why?  Well, dogs are family, and you don’t eat family.  A familial relationship with an animal creates a reverence for that animal’s life.

In our current society most people don’t even associate the meat they eat with livestock, and they certainly don’t know how to slaughter an animal themselves.  This creates a disconnection between people and the animals they eat.  Due to the quantity of animals we eat, we now have to treat animals literally like items on an assembly line.  The Lord said “it is pleasing unto me that they [animals] should not be used” except during certain times like famine.  Christ even said that one sparrow doesn’t fall to the ground without God noticing (Matt. 10:29).

If we again assume that unnecessary animal suffering is displeasing to God, well, He already gave us a solution, didn’t he?  It’s in Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, quoted above.

And yet, when you ask a Latter-day Saint what the Word of Wisdom is, a disproportionately large amount of time is spent on whether decaffeinated coffee is okay, or whether hot chocolate and iced tea are “hot drinks,” or about tannic acid or prescription medication or medicinal marijuana, or whether we can drink Mountain Dew daily.  What about the direct consequences of animal suffering?  What if eating meat sparingly was explicitly part of the temple recommend questions?  Imagine if the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet mentioned, “The Word of Wisdom is not just about tobacco and alcohol.  Eating meat and eggs sparingly reduces overcrowding at egg hatcheries and cattle farms, which cause animals, which God gave us and commanded us to be good stewards over, to suffer from stress, pain, anxiety, and fatigue.”  Not to mention that the cattle and pig industries cause pollution of our air and water, but that’s a different post altogether.

I don’t think I’ll become a vegetarian anytime soon, and I’m not necessarily even making the argument that eating meat is fundamentally wrong.  Yet, the article and video were eye-opening, to me.  From now on, I’m going to drastically cut my meat and eggs intake, partly because of the effect it has on the environment, and the quality of life of the livestock and chickens we use, but also out of obedience to my Heavenly Father.

What if I cut down my meat consumption to perhaps one meal a day?  I usually have cereal for breakfast, but I eat meat for lunch and dinner.  If I cut out meat from one of those meals, I’d be roughly cutting my meat consumption in half.  It’s a place to start, anyway.  Perhaps soon, down the road a bit, I could cut out a little more meat than that.  I’m not expecting myself to make a huge, drastic lifestyle change right away, but think of the good that can be done if we all just cut down our meat consumption in half.

We are always looking for magical, new ways to change the World we live in for the better, yet we’re quite blind sometimes to living by what has already been revealed.  The Word of Wisdom was given almost 200 years ago.  It’s about time I start living it.

Years later, an older gentleman — another very heavy smoker — investigated the Church and, despite having smoked for several decades, managed to quit and was baptized.  A strong, active member now, he has never looked back and (as far as I know) never relapsed.  One can say that without his strong desire to be baptized, he probably never would have quit smoking.

Over the years, I’ve encountered a few people who have expressed a desire to be baptized but cannot because of a problem with the Word of Wisdom.  For some, it’s a case like the elderly gentleman I mentioned at the beginning.  Sometimes lifelong smokers, they have repeatedly failed to quit and know that they are enslaved to their addiction — even though they may have a testimony of the Gospel and a desire to be baptized.

For others, it’s not so much a matter of addiction, but rather a doubt that God cares so much about whether or not they have a glass of wine with dinner that he would keep them out of his Church if they were a good, Christlike person otherwise.

So, it’s a matter of pride, right?

Probably.  But perhaps their argument is not so hard to dismiss when we look at the history of the Word of Wisdom — which was given in 1833 “not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89: 2) and was not implemented in the strict fashion that it is today until after 1900 — making many of the early Saints, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, violators of this non-mandatory law due to their consumption of banned substances.

Also, if we want to get technical, how many Mormons are truly living the Word of Wisdom?  How many of us are eating meat “sparingly” and only in times of “in times of winter, or of cold, or famine?” (D&C 89: 13)

Most of us will probably agree that adhering to the Word of Wisdom is a good idea.  I’m not attempting to argue otherwise because I love what it stands for.  But, when someone has a sincere desire to be baptized into the Church and is worthy in every way – except that he has failed to quit smoking, or perhaps has a beer or a glass of wine on occasion — are we perhaps forgetting the spirit in which the revelation was given?  Or is the current policy the way that the Lord always intended it to be and to change it would be lowering the bar?

Discuss.

But there was another curious (if bold) comment he had made…he points out how he feels in certain areas he hasn’t earned his morals, and that many members aren’t “earning” their morals. If one isn’t truly “earning his morals” from following guidance like the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity, then how do we avoid or move past simply practicing a modern and vain form of legalism?

The meaningful part for this discussion was:

I worry that Brigham Young’s fears may be prophetic – the LDS Church cannot stand wealth. It cannot withstand success. We have grown fat and complacent in our certainties and blessings. We have taken our moral rightness for granted. We have taken our status as chosen people for granted.We have been given a pearl of great price, and thus far, we seem content to use it as a paperweight.

That is the fundamental flaw with Mormon fundamentalism. It’s smug. It’s prideful. It’s complacent. It takes it’s own blessed status with God for granted…

The trouble with the “cultural conservative” view in Mormonism…is not that they advocate for strong morals. The problem is that they really did nothing to earn those morals.

I never slept with any woman before my wedding night. But, while I am grateful for that, I take no moral self-satisfaction from it. The truth is, I didn’t have sex with girls before then because I was raised not to. And frankly, I was too shy as a teenager to ever get to the point with a girl where sex was even a possibility. I earned no right to feel smug about my “purity” as opposed to the drunk frat boys I kept hearing about. What did I earn? What basis for pride on the issue did I ever have?

But modern Mormon culture takes exactly this position. The modern generation of Mormons rest on laurels they have not earned, tout morals that are not truly theirs, and pray to a God that they cannot know – because their preconceptions keep getting in the way.

The cry of “all is well in Zion” has gone on long enough. I think I’d like to see some new sermons.

How can one truly earn his morals? I mean, obviously, a drunk frat boy who converts will see the clear distinction between his past and present life (and the hope is that he’ll feel he’s moved “up”)…but that’s it wouldn’t be safe to say that all of the BIC youth should be shuffled into big sin just to show them what it’s like.

Or is the point simply that we shouldn’t take moral self-satisfaction anyway? After all, if we’re all counseled to be humble, isn’t it silly to dash all that away by being proud of having the Gospel when instead one should remain humble to have it?

And relating to that legalism thing…are we fulfilling the spirit of things through our obedience to the letter of things? Or is the the case that unearned morals still obstruct our view of trying to show true charity to others?

Do you think Seth is on to something, or is he just an angry, angry man?

So why do we keep up with it? Why do we persist?

For the past few weeks, I have been doing a lot of recruiting and networking events. I’m not even going to lie — even in such a poor economy, I’m living quite well as multiple accounting firms try to convince me to intern for their firm. So, included with that are all kinds of fringe benefits — plenty of events and activities and dinners and mixers and whatnot.

And I dunno…maybe it’s a Texas thing…but many times at these various events, they’ll only have two drinks available — tea and water. And even at one, they only had one drink available: tea. I don’t know what happened to the water.

So, I guess this is no big deal for everyone else and I’m putting a magnifying glass on something that is really quite trivial to everyone else, but occasionally, I have been asked why I won’t touch my glass.

I don’t drink tea.

Well, ok…but why not? This is Texas, after all! (I’ve had someone say that).

In many ways, it would be so easy to say, “Because of my religion.” But, I realize this is a copout answer (and not even a true copout answer for me, since I’m living on the dark side of the moon now). I mean, certainly people would understand if it was against your religion…but seriously, is that it?

Personally, I had tea once…it was disgusting. But that’s also a copout answer (because there are many things I have not tried [which coincidentally also fit in the word of wisdom], so I couldn’t necessarily use that excuse).

But it seems to me…and maybe this is dark-side-of-the-moon thinking…that we should be acting not because our religion restrains us (which is what the answer, “Because of my religion” so often sounds like), but because we personally are motivated not to do certain things and are motivated to do other things. I can say…I am not motivated to drink, so I do not. I’ve seen others succumb to the peer pressure, but maybe I’m a robot and immune to it. Whatever the case is, if I don’t want to do something, I’m not going to do it*. (Unfortunately for my bishop and parents, I suppose, this also applies to the church or parental requests.) *But perhaps the whole point of peer pressure is that group pressure can change your very wants.

So, what’s been more interesting of a question to me is…how do we want to do certain things, and learn to want to not do other things? It’s easy to realize that “we act because we are motivated to act in certain ways.” And it’s also easy to recognize that, with free will, we can choose to act against our natural motivations (although the jury is out on whether this is a net positive in all cases). But this just backs the question up one step, and now we have to wonder about what motivates us and how we can change these motivations.

• Intercessory prayer for the sick only has a health benefit when the sick person knows about it.    Does prayer for the sick make them healthy?  If so, how does it work?  It is simply placebo effect (sounds a lot like being healed according to your faith) or is there more to it?
• Prayer and meditation actually change the brain’s development; those who frequently pray have much more developed frontal lobes.  Maybe we could replace TR questions with a simple brain scan.  I kid.
• Those who do not attend church have twice the risk of dying in the next 8 years as those who attend church weekly.  Risk levels vary based on church attendance.  (1992, Univ. of TX study).  Conclusion:  Go to church or die.
• Those who attend church live 2-3 years longer than those who do not.  (Univ. of Pittsburgh Medical Center).

So, why all these health benefits?

• Community centers.  Social benefits of church attendance or being in an extended family of believers.  Some congregations deliberately work together to promote health or weight loss.
• Friendships.  Individual relationships can provide the extra support needed to relieve stress, to feel understood, and to care for each other when ill.
• Physical sensations associated with houses of worship.  As a hospital can contribute to wellness (or illness if dirty or depressing), so can houses of worship transport one’s body by creating feelings of comfort and health.
• Belief that the body is a temple.  When you believe that your body is sacred or divine, you are not only more likely to take care of it, but you create health through your emotional state.
• Prayer’s impact on the brain.  Prayer and meditation can literally transport the body and create health.

So, while every church has health benefits, what are the unique components to Mormonism that lead to a healthier life?

• Focus on Families. Healthy family relationships that are supportive and free from abuse are probably the number one prolonger of life.
• Visiting/home teaching.  The sense that someone knows and cares that you exist is a powerful force for those who might otherwise succumb to despair or feel they are alone in illness.  Friendship is one of the great health benefits of religion.  Plus, you may get a rush of endorphins when your VTers just can’t get to you in the month, feeling like you have extra time in your schedule.
• Fasting.  Many religions and spiritual disciplines prize fasting for its health benefits in clearing the body of toxins.  Mormon fasting also has the benefit of altruism; those fasting feel good about donating the cost of the skipped meals to the poor.
• Lay clergy & participation expectations.  The more engaged you are in your religion, the more likely you are to reap health benefits from fellowship, service, and a sense of purpose or meaning.
• Prayer.  Prayer can literally help your body heal in transcending the temporal concerns that might plague you.  Deepest prayer accesses parts of the brain not normally used.
• Priesthood blessings.  Rituals associated with healing allow faith to release the benefits to the body, much like a placebo effect.  The better the ritual, the more convincing environment for faith (think suspension of disbelief).
• Temple attendance.  Boring?  Mystical?  Transcendent?  If for no other reason, the temple provides a health benefit through silent meditation (anything above a stage whisper is gauche) and complete isolation from outside distractions such as blackberries and whining kids.
• Tithing & church welfare. Especially in trying economic times, it’s a comfort to know that there is a fallback with church welfare for those full tithe payers.
• Word of Wisdom.  If for no other reason than eschewing alcohol and tobacco, the WoW would have health benefits for those who might otherwise O.D. on harmful substances.  In times of stress or illness, though, eliminating coffee and tea and eating meat sparingly can have additional health benefits.

What are the components to Mormonism that could lead to reduced health?  Are any of these unique to Mormonism?

• Stress.  This varies from person to person, but there seems to be a correlation between high levels of belief, perfectionism (expecations of perfection from oneself and others), and responsibility (aka stewardship).  If we could just get rid of that pesky middle one, all would be well.  IOW, “be ye therefore perfect” could land you six feet under.
• Two words:  Funeral potatoes.  It’s hard to imagine a more cholesterol laden food.  Oh, wait.  Honey butter.  Possibly fry sauce.  So-called Mormon foods are neither good for the body, nor for the belly.  If you want to develop a hefty pair of Relief Society arms, go to a ward potluck.
• Repression.  Repressing one’s feelings can lead to depression, ulcers, and can weaken the immune system and make one more prone to all kinds of illness.  Those who feel they have to put on a mask to fit in to Mormon culture are going to be less healthy, first emotionally, then physically.  There has to be room in the culture for a diverse array of people to feel comfortable being their authentic selves.  We literally kill people when we don’t accept them for who they are.  And last I checked, “Thou shalt not kill” was still one of the top ten no-nos.

So, is Mormonism more or less healthy than other faiths or about the same?  Are there times when someone should leave the church for health reasons?  How can we make church healthier for all?  Discuss.

Jeff Lindsay [The Word of Wisdom] outlines principles of healthy living that go far beyond the scientific knowledge of the 1800s and much of this century…The 1833 dietary guidelines sound much like the recommended “food pyramid” produced by federally-funded research in the past decade.

For me and perhaps many of you it has been one of those solid concepts that when you feel rickety about some of the doctrine you can always count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom.

What I never was taught though that before the word of wisdom there was the Temperance Movement.

Temperance Movement

In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society June, 1830, the Millenial Harbinger quoted in full, and with the hearty personal endorsement of Alexander Campbell, an article from the Philadelphia “Journal of Health,” The above in turn was quoting a widely circulated book, “The Simplicity of Health,” which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.

Fascinating Facts on the Word of Wisdom/ Temperance Movement (The last one being the most fascinating of them all)

The church today interprets hot drinks to mean tea and coffee, although there is evidence that in the early history of the church all hot drinks were forbidden.

Word of Wisdom is by Lester Bush (physician). He shows how, contrary to recent assertions, the Word of Wisdom was actually what “medical science” in the 1820s and 1830s preached. Bush claims that the Word of Wisdom would have been far more useful (and prophetic) to the 19th Century Mormons had it included instructions to use only clean water and to adequately dispose of waste. In fact, “hot drinks” and some alcoholic beverages may have saved the lives of many 19th Century Mormons had they drank them instead of the unsanitary water in Nauvoo, along the plains, and in Utah.

Although church leaders stress some portions of Joseph Smith’s Word of Wisdom, other portions are almost completely ignored. Mormon writer John J. Stewart observed: “The admonition to eat little meat is largely ignored, as are some other points of the revelation”

Temperance Societies were organized in great numbers during the early thirties, six thousand being formed in one year

The Temperance Society succeeded in eliminating a distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty-seven days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling abstinence was announced, and that the distillery at Mentor, near Kirtland, was also closed at the same time (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, pp.39-40).

On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members. Among its members were listed a George Smith, several Morleys, a Wells, a Coe, and a Lyman. names all associated with the history of Mormonism

A few years before the Word of Wisdom, Robert Owen had abolished the use of ardent spirits in his community at New Harmony.

Whitney R. Cross points out that “the temperance movement … began much earlier… During the 1830′s it attained national scope. … Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord’s design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong … Josiah Bissell…. had even before the 1831 revival ‘got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.’ ”

Joseph tested the saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman of the first Presidency related Joseph Smith trying the faith of the saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time he had preached a powerful sermon on the word of wisdom and immediately thereafter he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.phpCISOROOT=/MTGM&CISOPTR=3327&CISOSHOW=3264

Questions

Do you have a problem with the temperance movement being, so to speak, the forefather to the word of wisdom?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance movement does that make it feel a little less inspired to you?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance Movement why don’t we show it in the manuals?

Can you still count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom or does the Temperance Movement make it feel rickety?

Does it really matter where the word of wisdom came from – it’s a net positive if you live it?

http://ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/934

What is Knowledge?

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft.”  (1839)

(Note the singular use of the word “truth.”)  How does an open canon (ongoing revelation) enable members of the church to accept all truth as it is revealed regardless of the superstition, bigotry, ignorance or priestcraft of the day?  How does ignorance, bigotry, superstition and priestcraft still creep in?  What can individual members do to embrace truth and eschew superstition, priestcraft, bigotry and ignorance?

“Knowledge is necessary to life and godliness. Woe unto you priests and divines who preach that knowledge is not necessary unto life and salvation. Take away Apostles, etc., take away knowledge, and you will find yourselves worthy of the damnation of hell. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation.”  (1843)

Joseph Smith takes his definition of “knowledge” for granted.  He seems to use it to mean revelation, not facts, scientific evidence or information.  How does this definition alter our view of the role of knowledge in our salvation?

How to Gain Knowledge

The lesson gives examples of how to gain knowledge, all of which are based on learning from those who know more, not through scientific experimentation or scholarly research.  Even revelation can be viewed as gaining knowledge from a Person (God) who knows more than we do.

How can we seek out the best teachers?

What Are the Obstacles to Gaining Knowledge?

The lesson outlines several obstacles to gaining knowledge (or one might say obstacles to revelation):  Word of Wisdom violations, creeds, and doubt and darkness.

Word of Wisdom.  When the School of Prophets was convened for 4 months of study, the Word of Wisdom was given to the members of the school so their minds would be clear and open to “knowledge.”  (Not as a temperance movement or a cultural marker of obedience as it is used today).  How does considering this original view of the Word of Wisdom change your perception of it?

Creeds.  JS specifically felt that other religions’ adherence to creeds was an obstacle to “knowledge” (remember that he used the word knowledge synonymously with revelation).

“I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”  (1843)

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.”  (1843)

“I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God. To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.”  (1843)

How do creeds limit our ability to receive revelation or accept changes to our current thinking and interpretations?

How do creeds compare with the efforts to correlate church materials (rather than remaining completely open to multiple interpretations and speculations)?

There are times when this total open-mindedness seemed to cause Joseph problems (e.g. Kinderhook, etc.).  Are there ways in which this complete open-mindedness can cause current members problems (e.g. speculation, wishful thinking, foolish notions)?  How can we avoid that?

Doubt and Darkness.  When we listen to teachers who do not have more (spiritual) knowledge than we do, or we allow doubt to overcome belief, we stop gaining additional (spiritual) knowledge.

“Knowledge does away with darkness, suspense and doubt; for these cannot exist where knowledge is. In knowledge there is power. God has more power than all other beings, because He has greater knowledge; and hence He knows how to subject all other beings to Him. He has power over all.”  (1843)

“When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves.  When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”  (1844)

“As far as we degenerate from God, we descend to the devil and lose knowledge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved, and while our hearts are filled with evil, and we are studying evil, there is no room in our hearts for good, or studying good. Is not God good? Then you be good; if He is faithful, then you be faithful. Add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, and seek for every good thing.  A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.”  (1842)

How do we sometimes let doubt create distance between us and additional spiritual knowledge?  How does listening to bad (spiritual) teaching cause us to lose (spiritual) knowledge?

Does pursuit of knowledge (facts, information) sometimes lead to loss of knowledge (spiritual knowledge, revelation, closeness to God)?  How can we avoid that while still embracing learning?

So, this is a pretty good lesson, IMO.  What do you think of some of the questions it poses?  Discuss.

The beginning of the lesson talks about Joseph’s re-translation of the Bible (the JST) that resulted in clarifying passages and words throughout the Bible, the Book of Moses, the expansion of Matthew 24, and several “spin-off” revelations as Joseph asked for further enlightenment about different principles, including D&C 74, 76, 77, 86 and 91.  From the Book of Moses:

“For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”  Moses:  1:37, 39

The “Plan of Salvation” as we have it today resulted from JS’s efforts to restore “plain and precious” parts of the scriptures that would more clearly explain what happened before we were born, what happens after we die, and why we are here on the earth.  Some components that were restored or clarified by JS:

• That we existed before birth in a pre-mortal world with God & Jesus.  Exactly what this looked like is still up for grabs, though.  Did we live in families?  In BYU-approved housing?  Was there a dress code?
• That there was a plan, and we all sanctioned it.  Even those who have never voted in a single election apparently weighed in on this one.
• That Satan had an alternate plan that was rejected, resulting in his being cast out.  I always wonder if we had debates or if we vacillated at all; or were we just so dang smart we immediately saw through that “bad” plan?
• That matter is eternal; that God “organized” rather than “created” the earth.  That we are eternal in nature, without beginning or end.  This puts us on much more equal footing with God than in other faiths, and is considered blasphemous to some.  Yet, as a Mormon, I have to say this is one aspect of our religion that totally ROCKS!
• That obtaining a body, gaining knowledge and growing in faith are the purpose of life on earth.  This is a Mormon way of putting it; the Protestant version is that we believe our works save us rather than grace.  It is through grace we are saved; it is through our progression we increase our ability to withstand glory (God’s and our own).
• That beings with bodies are more powerful than beings of Spirit only.  The body is not a corruption that defiles us; it glorifies us and is a part of the soul.  This is again, a very unique teaching of Mormonism.  The body is not just a hollow husk that we gratefully discard at death; it is essential to our progress, and it is more glorious and powerful than spirit alone.
• That each of us has moral agency and will be held responsible for our choices of good or evil; that those choices affect our ability to receive and channel spiritual light.  We are constantly in motion, either progressing or digressing.  This idea that it’s not really possible to stand still is probably true, but a little disturbing.  Life is long.
• That our eternal reward is not pass/fail, but is based on the degree of glory we have attained through enlightenment, faith, increasing our intelligence, and becoming like Christ and our father in Heaven.  Another aspect of Mormonism that I find very appealing; we are not “God’s pets,” but His children.

Q:  Are there other specific aspects of the plan of salvation and the purpose of life that we know because of revelations to the Prophet Joseph Smith that I missed?

Q:  Which of these do you find most compelling, enlightening and helpful?  Are there any you don’t care for or find helpful?

Q:  Do you like our plan of salvation more or less than those proposed by other religions (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism)?  What do you like and not like?

Eternal Intelligences

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.  God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”  (1844)

Q: How does this influence the way we understand our own nature?  How does this influence how we should treat other people?

Q:  Are you one of the stronger or weaker intelligences?  How do you know?  When you meet a weaker intelligence, do you think “I am so awesome!”?  Do you think that’s what happens when a stronger intelligence meets you?

Bodies Rule!

“The design of God before the foundation of the world was that we should take tabernacles [bodies], that through faithfulness we should overcome and thereby obtain a resurrection from the dead, in this wise obtaining glory, honor, power, and dominion.”  (1843)

“We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body. The devil has no body, and herein is his punishment. He is pleased when he can obtain the tabernacle of man, and when cast out by the Savior he asked to go into the herd of swine, showing that he would prefer a swine’s body to having none. All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not.”  (undated, JS quoted by William Clayton)

Q:  How does this knowledge affect the way we should care for our bodies?  How is this unique perspective different from other religions?  From secular views?

Q:  How can we strengthen the connection between our bodies and spirits to make our bodies receptacles of light?

You Wish The Devil Made You Do It

“President Joseph Smith … observed that Satan was generally blamed for the evils which we did, but if he was the cause of all our wickedness, men could not be condemned. The devil could not compel mankind to do evil; all was voluntary. Those who resisted the Spirit of God, would be liable to be led into temptation, and then the association of heaven would be withdrawn from those who refused to be made partakers of such great glory. God would not exert any compulsory means, and the devil could not; and such ideas as were entertained [on these subjects] by many were absurd.”  (1841, paraphrased in Times & Seasons)

“Satan cannot seduce us by his enticements unless we in our hearts consent and yield. Our organization is such that we can resist the devil; if we were not organized so, we would not be free agents.”  (1841, JS quoted by William P. McIntire)

Q:  Does this view marginalize Satan’s influence because we are really the ones who are free agents and responsible for our actions?  Would you rather you could blame Satan for your shortcomings?

Q:  Does Satan like his job or does he think it totally blows but he’s just putting on a happy face for the minions?  Does he get burned out?  Is he just watching the millennial clock?

For the teachers out there, good luck!  For the rest of you, discuss.

Take this assessment and find out:

(Taken from D. Jeff Burton’s For Those Who Wonder : forthosewhowonder.com. Similar to a Correlation Department survey on Religion and Life conducted among LDS Church members in the mid-1980s)

So share if you dare, or simply sit back and contemplate the combinations and their consequences for our church!

D&C 89:1 refers to the WoW as:  A Word OF Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

Huh?  What was the point of the Word of Wisdom?  How can we really reap its benefits?

I can think of three different ways to look at the Word of Wisdom:

• A (possibly antiquated) health code.  This is the most common view of the Word of Wisdom, which is why everyone’s always trying to “prove” with articles that coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco are going to kill us all.  If we are just looking for a health code, should we update it to say eat carbs sparingly or eat lots of good cholesterol?  Should we prohibit trans fats and require skim milk?  IMO, this is a pretty shallow interpretation, and leads to check-the-box compliance.
• A way to unite the Saints. So, is it designed to unite the Saints in a unique practice that is “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints“?  Joseph Smith was very concerned with uniting the saints to make them a holy people ready to receive the Lord’s blessings, just like the city of Enoch.  Even the principle of plural marriage, at least as practiced by Joseph, seems to be more focused on knitting the family of the earth together than on any other purpose.  So, should we practice the WoW to unite ourselves as Saints?
• Making the body holy.  A unique tenet of Mormonism is that the body is an integral part of the soul and not something to be reviled.  One original point of the Word of Wisdom, at least to Joseph, was to allow the Saints to become cleansed, holy vessels, ready to receive the Spirit and be filled with light.  IMO, this is the deepest reading of the principle, and one that is not discussed much.

So, following the 3rd interpretation, how can we ground ourselves more firmly in our bodies while opening the body to receive spiritual light, if that was the intent of the Word of Wisdom?  Actually, Hindus have been doing this for thousands of years (and you can, too! – although maybe not for thousands of years) through meditation and massage designed to open the seven energy centers of the body or “Chakras.”

What is a Chakra? One of seven energy centers located through the midline of the body that govern psychological properties.  Chakra therapy is designed to open any blocked energy centers.

What are the Seven Chakras? (diagram to the right, listed bottom to top below)

• Root Chakra:  Feeling grounded and secure, feeling at home in your body.
• Spleric (Sacral) Chakra:  Being open, passionate and lively, feeling comfortable with sexuality and intimacy.
• Solar Plexus (Navel) Chakra:  Being willing to self-assert and be decisive, having self-esteem and knowing what you want.
• Heart Chakra: Being compassionate, kind and friendly.
• Throat Chakra:  Being able to express oneself through talking and artistic expression.
• Third Eye Chakra:  Being able to visualize and be creative, having insight and access to fantasy.
• Crown Chakra:  Being at one with the world, having wisdom, and being free from prejudice.

You can take this quick on-line quiz to see which of your Chakras may be blocked and how that affects your personality, your link between body and spirit and your spirituality.

So, is this a useful way to look at the Word of Wisdom?  Should we strive to live it on all three levels to get the full benefit?  Or is this just mystic mumbo jumbo in your opinion?  Which of your Chakras are under or overactive (please share!)?  Do you like to supplement concepts of the restoration with concepts from other cultures and faith traditions in this way (“treasuring up the good of other faiths”)?

Discuss.

I recently started drinking plain, black coffee at work. Not only do I feel better, IT’S FREE! The company I work for provides it in the break rooms. I love being thrifty.

My work is tedious, boring and stressful. I’d love to give up work! My traditional culture, big family (sahm wife and 6 kids) keep demanding to sleep under a roof and eat 3 meals a day. Big families are very expensive.

*I* slept just fine in a dirt hole rolled up in a piece of tent canvas back when I was in the Army. They’re such babies! *rolls eyes* DW doesn’t find that budget-cutting idea amusing…

I knew for sure that soda pop was killing my health. I knew this beyond a shadow of a doubt and with all the fiber in my bowels. It made me sick!

I changed my delivery method to plain, natural, black coffee – wholesome beans right from God’s garden going into my cup, with a little roasting and brewing between.

The early members of the Church didn’t make much fuss about the Word of Wisdom. It wasn’t enforced with any rigor until the 1920’s, nearly 75 years after the revelation was given to Joseph. Our pioneer ancestors fueled their journey across the plains with coffee and tea. They enjoyed beer and wine on occasion. Some of these items were listed in pioneer supply inventories. I’d have been in good company with the likes of Brother Joseph, Brother Brigham and many others of great prominence. The WoW has been flexible, and emphasis has changed at times over our ~175 year history.

Did I make a smart, rational choice based on my direct health experience and my attempt to pick the best option? Coffee was the lesser of evils for me. That makes it good, right? Am I being prudent and adapting a spiritual concept of health for my situation?

I am not making a perfect choice. I am making a better choice. I’m making the leap of faith that closer to health is better. Perhaps I am blinded and just want to justify my actions.

Do I need to be called to repentance and go back to the righteous and “approved” caffeine delivery beverages? Health is not what the WoW is about, it’s about obedience.

Let me have it! Don’t hold back.

Anyone who’s been to a family reunion has surely noticed that even if we have been apart for a long time, when we get together, we notice our similar traits.  Are those commonalities due to nature or nurture?  Truth be told, probably both, but it has been proven that many criminal behaviors, such as violence, are influenced by genetics.  Are other sins and personality traits also hereditary?  Here are a few to consider (think of your own family or your spouse’s):

• Naivete, gullability
• Passive-aggressive behavior, being a martyr
• Being self-absorbed
• Holding grudges
• Over-intellectualizing
• Rationalizing
• Laziness
• Addictions
• Sarcasm and criticism
• Melodramatic outbursts
• Gluttony
• Being passive or indecisive
• Anger issues
• Permissiveness
• Cheating at cards – you people know who you are
• Pyromania

Here’s a case study.  A good friend of ours got arrested once for shoplifting.  He was just a kid at the time and was really upset while they were booking him.  He begged them not to tell his mom.  One of the officers rolled his eyes at this, and they all thought this was hilarious.  As it turned out, his mom was regularly picked up for shoplifting.  Coincidence?

So, what’s the point of all this navel-gazing?  What is to be gained from considering our familial weaknesses?

• Learn from their mistakes.  Sometimes you have to know the good, the bad, and the ugly to make use of the lesson.  Frankly, white-washed journals just don’t cut it in my book.  I’d like to know who these people really were.  Warts and all.  Because I can probably relate.  But that’s just me.
• Self-knowledge, understand our own motivations.  It can help you to know that you really do have a lot in common with these people.  Despite all evidence (or wishful thinking) to the contrary.
• Be a better parent.  Do any of you ever feel like you are raising one of your parents (because one of your kids is just like one of your parents)?  I have had that feeling.
• Marry wisely.  Maybe you need to marry someone with similar flaws so you can relate.
• Mix up that gene pool.  Or perhaps its time to bust out of that familial rut and mix your angry genes with some passive genes or your skeptical genes with some gullible genes.

As the saying goes, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.  So, do you think the sins we have to work through in life are influenced by genetic factors?  Is this one of the untapped benefits of genealogy?  What traits do you think you got from your family that you are hoping you didn’t pass on?  Do you think about your family traits this way?  Discuss.

Here’s the idea: I post two contradictory passages from scripture or statements by authoritative LDS folks (that’s the evidences part) and you suggest how they can be harmonized, or were never in conflict in the first place, etc. (that’s the reconciliations part). The title is taken from John A. Widtsoe’s regular column in the Improvement Era where, as editor, he would field tough questions from LDSaints and answer them. Here goes:

And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
Doctrine and Covenants Section 89: 7-9

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Matthew 15:11

Discuss, friends: