We Sometimes Take Important Things for Granted

I have a friend who once responded to a question about his favorite aspects of the LDS Church, and his reply reminded me of how often we who have been raised in the Church (particularly those whose membership is multi-generational) take some basic, important things for granted and lose sight of how rare and special they can be to others without our background.

I am bolding the part that hit me the hardest:

1) The sense of belonging.

Being part of a "club" or family where everyone is accepted.

As an introvert, being involved in social activities, like pot-luck dinners, that I wouldn't be involved with otherwise. Knowing that I can disappear to the kitchen and do the cleaning or cooking, etc and it is encouraged and not seen as weird..

Knowing you can walk into any ward and feel at home.

2) The health code.

I come from a background of generational alcoholics, it is a pleasure to be able to go to events and know that I will not be sneered at for not drinking, knowing I will not be involved in an alcoholic fight, there will be no violence and my children will not be subjected to that. Knowing I can take my kids to church/events and my son is not at risk of an asthma attack from 2nd hand smoke.

The hope that with church teachings as back up, my children will continue my lead and break the cycle of generational dysfunction.

3) The moral grounding.

My children are seeing wholesome values in action, and it is normal behaviour (not just mum and dad saying so).

They also are taught and shown clear boundaries and limits of what is acceptable.

The focus on families in a world where they have very few school friends with both parents in the home.

I realize that none of these reasons are specifically Christ-centered, but, as a convert with a faith crisis right now, these are the things that I want to stay for. The people are kind, good and honest - and I don't want to lose that.

Are Coffee and Tea Really That Bad?

Yes, coffee is bad in multiple ways - and for some people it is more addicting than tobacco and alcohol. I know quite a few people who drink coffee regularly who literally can't quit without getting terrible headaches - nearly migraines. I don't think there's a single benefit from coffee that can't be obtained from something else.

Tea? Some is bad for us; some isn't - and there are plenty of teas that are allowed by the Church in various places in the world. Wheat tea in Japan, where I served my mission, is an example. 

Ultimately, my main concern with using the things that are prohibited in the current Word of Wisdom policy is what I already said about coffee - that I don't know of a single benefit that can't be gained from something else, and there are definite risks for many people. That rarely gets mentioned and discussed, but it's important to me. (Wine is the best example, in my opinion. Who cares if a glass a night is fine for some people and provides some benefits? Those same benefits can be obtained from other things - that generally are cheaper, so why insist on drinking wine?)

My biggest concern about many of those who follow the current restrictions is that they often do so to the exclusion of the other counsel that is not part of the prohibitions. I've struggled with weight issues for the past 20 years, but I've lost about 50 pounds in the last nine months largely by paying attention to the non-prohibition parts of the Word of Wisdom and simply eating less. We should be much, much healthier as a people - and I believe a major part of that is our refusal to take the overall Word of Wisdom seriously enough.

I'm not saying the Word of Wisdom is an eternal law or that people who don't follow it religiously are sinning when they don't believe in it - but I think the underlying principles stated in it actually are eternal in nature: taking care of ourselves to the best of our understanding and avoiding addiction peddlers who care nothing about us but just want our money.

I believe those are really important things.

"Mild Barley Drinks", "Hot Drinks" and "Strong Drinks"

From a purely analytical standpoint:

I would say that "mild" beer is perfectly in line with the original spirit and message of the Word of Wisdom, but that many (if not most) of the current beer options are not. Generally speaking, beer is not nearly as mild as it used to be. Also, the original said explicitly, "not by way of command" - but that was changed decades later, due, in my opinion, to Prohibition, the radical increase in alcohol advertising and the rise of "non-mild" options being marketed as just fine and dandy - making more drinks truly addictive in content to a far greater extent than previously.

At the heart, I think that the change is a great example of the human need for clarification - the tendency to want to be commanded and/or command in all things. "Mild barley drinks", "hot drinks" and "strong drinks" morphed into "beer, coffee, tea and all forms of alcohol" - going from categories requiring personal consideration and decision to a list of specific products on a Do Not Consume list.

I actually am okay with that stricter standards for those who want it and those who need it (probably the majority of people and certainly a large minority), especially those who are prone to addiction and the efforts of "conspiring men in the latter days", and I follow it to avoid eating meat in the company of those who abstain from meat and because I know myself well enough to know I am prone to addictive behavior - but the stricter standard is harder for those who neither want nor need it - who could partake in moderation without adverse health effects and/or addiction.

It also leads too often to judging others, even those who have not committed to follow the Word of Wisdom, as being spiritually unworthy or inferior in some way -  and that is a shame. 

"WWJD" and the Word of Wisdom

"What would Jesus do?" is a stupid question in lots of situations.

Jesus drank wine, and so did the early Mormon leaders, but that is irrelevant to whether or not we should do so now.

I believe Jesus also wouldn't have voted Republican or Democrat, probably even if either option had been available to him. I have no doubt Jesus would have drunk tea if it had been available to him - unless he didn't like the taste or smell - but I don't know if he would have drunk coffee, for multiple reasons. I can't stand the smell of coffee, and, my religion aside, I would never have started drinking it due to how horribly I react to the smell alone.

"Strong drinks" have been ramped up significantly in the last century or so. Wine and beer both are good examples of this, as are energy drinks. In and of themselves, I don't think drinking wine and beer in moderation is objective and eternal sin (and mild barley drinks were allowed in the original revelation), but "conspiring men" certainly have done a number in the area of strong drinks in our modern times. There is no doubt in my mind that addiction peddling has been expanded in ways that were unimaginable to most people hundreds of years ago and more. I see the beginning verses in D&C 89 as absolutely prophetic in that regard, regardless of what Jesus and Joseph Smith drank.  

The Word of Wisdom: Both Letter and Spirit of the Law

I think it is fascinating and instructive that the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) contains things that are accepted and enforced in our time as commandments, and that are included in the requirements of temple attendance, as well as things that are accepted generally in the same spirit in which the original revelation is worded - as "words of wisdom" but not clearly definable prohibitions.  

When this is discussed my members, the conversation often turns to meat consumption, but I see the question about meat as the same as a discussion about grains and fruits (and sleep, although that is not addressed in the Word of Wisdom). Healthy practices vary person to person and simply cannot be codified properly into one common standard that can be measured for temple attendance or even simple obedience. As a people, we can be Nazis about too many things already; the last thing I want is for a local leader to be able to start keeping charts on each member’s Body Mass Index, meat consumption, seasonal fruit decisions, etc.

In other words, I am fine with some portions of Section 89 being measured according to the letter of the law and others being left up to us as individuals to live according to the spirit of the law. After all, we aren’t supposed to be commanded in all things and, rather, are supposed to be agents unto ourselves – and I think the Word of Wisdom is perhaps the best practical example of how we can be commanded in some things and not in others, even in the same general area.

Teaching Youth the Word of Wisdom When They Have Heard about It for Years

I have been asked on more than one occasion about how I teach the Word of Wisdom to youth in the Church who have had lessons about the Word of Wisdom for years - about how to make it new, fresh or enlightening in any way. 

I teach it in that situation by focusing on two things:

1) The first few verses about "why" - that it was given in warning of addiction peddling in the future. I mention lots of other things that now are addictive and ought to receive the same scrutiny - and let them come up with a list, since that makes it personal for them and allows me to distinguish for them the difference between addictions and occasional actions.

2) The "what" - and I do that by talking about how dietary and health codes have changed over time, from the ancient Hebrew / Jewish code to what Jesus followed (differently than John, the Baptist, for example) to what we had with D&C 89 when it was counsel to what we have now (when addiction peddlers are running rampant) as a standard for temple attendance. 

How would you respond to such a question? 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Commandments - Measurable or Subjective; and, Changing Our Discourse about Modesty

While putting the finishing touches on my Sunday School lesson prep tonight, I realized that it has been a few weeks since I've posted a summary here. We had Stake Conference; my wife taught the following week; we had General Conference last week; I forgot to post the summary from the last time I taught the class. Here is a VERY abbreviated summary of that last lesson:

With the topic being "commandments", we talked about the difference between commandments that are fairly objective and easily measured and those that are more subjective and impossible to measure consistently or universally. Since the students had mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity in the first week's lesson, we focused on those commandments again - and added modesty as another discussion point.

First, I asked the students to list the things that are part of the Word of Wisdom. All of the first answers they gave were the things from which we abstain, with the things that are encouraged coming after the forbidden things. We talked about how easy it is to define and quantify the prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom - how they are easily enforced - and how that contributes to them being the focal point of most discussions about it. We talked about how impossible it would be (or how bad it would be) if local leaders had to try to enforce the more ambiguous aspects of meat, fruit, vegetable and grain consumption, for example.

We then talked about the Law of Chastity and how there are some things that clearly are forbidden for everyone, while there are other aspects that are more open to individual interpretation - and how local leaders often view and enforce the more subjective aspects differently, especially with respect to teenagers.

We spent most of our time talking about the principle of modesty and what it means in its fullest, purest sense - moderation, in all things. We talked about how we focus almost completely on how we dress when we talk about modesty- and how we focus inordinately on how women dress. Every student, male and female, understood that distinction and thought it was wrong without any need for convincing from me - and their conservative / liberal orientation didn't make any difference in that regard. We talked about how there is almost no way to "measure" modesty of dress universally and have a definition that everyone will accept and upon which they will agree. (As a simple example, I had the shortest and the tallest students stand and asked how long a modest skirt would be that both of them could wear. That caused some serious laughs, but we talked about how even anatomy-focused measurements [like covering the knee] are arbitrary standards that are culturally-based.) We talked about modesty in language - and in house size - and in car purchase - and in cost of clothing - and in any other way that deals with moderation as a principle.

I finished the lesson with a direct statement to all of them. I told them flat-out that we need to quit blaming women (of any age) for the thoughts of men (of any age). I told them that I believe in the principle of modesty, but that I do NOT believe in it as a way for one group to control the thoughts of another group. I told them that if a man lusts after a woman he is not justified in blaming the woman for it, no matter what she wears or how she acts. I told them the way we often talk in the Church seems to blame the women and/or put the responsibility on them to keep the men's thoughts in line - and that such statements are wrong, and the students need to help put a stop to it in their own spheres of influence.

Two of the young women in the group thanked me specifically after the class for that part of the lesson.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: The "What" and "Why" of Commandments; or, Often, We Emphasize the Wrong Thing

Last Sunday was the first lesson about commandments, the topic for this month.  To lay the groundwork for the rest of the month, we focused on two important questions:

What are commandments?

Why do we keep the commandments?  

I told the students that these questions sound like simple, Primary questions but that we were going to go a lot deeper and try to see them in their broadest, most powerful terms.  I then asked everyone to tell me what the word "command" means.  The responses included the following:

direction; order; advice; counsel; guideline; requirement 

I divided the list into two groups and asked them to tell me the difference between the groups:

order; requirement 

direction; advice; counsel; guideline 

They saw immediately that the first group described things that must be done (things that were harsher or might even include an element of force or strong expectation), while the second group described things that were more like suggestions (things that were softer and carried no hint of absolute necessity - things that were much more up to personal choice to accept or ignore).  Given that fundamental difference, the first group ("order; requirement") is the only group that fits "command". 

To emphasize the difference, I explained how "Let there be light" is translated in English and in Japanese (which is translated from German).  In English, as worded above, there is a feeling of almost benevolence and gentleness (of direction; advice; counsel; guideline) - as if God had said, "I will allow there to be light."  In Japanese, the wording is, "Hikare ga are" - which translates as an unyielding command that light exist, as if God had said, "There is going to be light, because I am God and command it to exist."  The follow-up statement that God "saw the light, that it was good" also carries an element of supervision - that God oversaw the process to ensure that the result was what he had commanded. 

I then asked the students who they should follow completely - in whom should they invest the ability to command them and their actions.  They immediately focused on God and understood when asked that obeying anyone else completely as a "commander" is "relying on the arm of flesh" and giving up individual agency.  We talked again, as we have in the past, about Lucifer's plan - about how the ONLY difference in the plan's was the focus on forced obedience vs. individual agency free of coercion (and the consequences of that difference).  That difference is encapsulated in our 11th Article of Faith, which says:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  

I simply pointed out that "all men" means "all people" - and that includes members of the LDS Church, as well.  Yes, we sustain and support our leaders and give deference to them and what they ask of us - but we do NOT obey any mortal leader as if s/he was God.  We always have to rely on our own consciences and ask ourselves, whenever any mortal asks or tells us to do something, whether or not what is being asked of us is in line with or opposed to our own conscience and what we believe God would command.  What mortals ask of us is "direction; advice; counsel; guideline", not "order; requirement; command".  Without that distinction, we risk putting mortals in the place of Lucifer and obeying for no other reason than we are told to obey.  That makes us no different than animals - or, in Mormon-speak, confined to our "natural (wo)man". 

We then focused on the "why" of keeping commandments.   The students gave the following answers to that question:

to be protected; to gain help and strength; to be happy 

I asked the students to name some commandments that protect us, and they mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity.  Given the complexity of the discussion I wanted to have about why we keep the commandments, I stopped them there, and we focused on those two commandments.  

I took them through a discussion of how those two commandments could be taught: either through a focus on being protected or through a focus on gaining help and strength - and how each approach influences how we talk about being happy. 

With the Word of Wisdom, focusing on protection emphasizes the "don't" statements (strong drinks, tobacco, hot drinks, meat, etc.), while focusing on gaining help and strength emphasizes the "do" statements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruits, meat, etc.).  The "consequences" of obedience are "receiv(ing) health in their navel and marrow to their bones," "find(ing) wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures," "run(ning) and not be(ing) weary," "walk(ing) and not faint(ing)" and, ultimately, being passed over by the destroying angel.  I simply pointed out that there is NO distinction in the revelation between the "don't" and the "do" statements (nothing to indicate one is more important than the other) - and that when we focus solely on what we should not do and skip what we should do we are not keeping this commandment fully.  We focus on the "don't" verses primarily in an attempt to gain protection, but ignoring the "do" verses robs us of an important element of gaining help and strength and being happy. 

With the Law of Chastity, this difference is even more stark.  

We talked about the ways obeying the Law of Chastity protects us (avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, emotional harm, betrayal, etc.), and then I asked them why that just isn't enough in our modern world.  They didn't get it at first, so I asked them how our world now is different than it was in the past relative to the consequences of sex.  One of them said, simply, "protection" - so we talked about how birth control, contraception, abortion, etc. are so readily available now that many people might blow off the idea of keeping the Law of Chastity as a means of protection.  To avoid the obvious, natural consequences, they can say they are being protected even if they have sex.  (Obviously, that isn't 100% accurate, but people can and do make that claim - especially teenagers and young adults.)  Given that reality, I asked them how keeping the Law of Chastity provides help, strength and happiness.  

We were almost out of time, so we focused the discussion on self-control, trust, emotional stability and, ultimately, how all of those benefits and more help us become like God and become less animalistic or "natural".  We talked about how the Law of Chastity is "unnatural" and, therefore, must include blessings and benefits beyond just physical protection.  

To end the discussion, I pointed out how both the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity can be taught positively (focused on benefits, now and in the future) or negatively (focused on fear and/or punishment, now and in the future).  I told them that people respond to different motivations, so I understand why both a negative and positive approach are used - but, personally, I am motivated much more by the idea of actively gaining strength and help to protect myself than I am by being protected by inaction while living in a cocoon of fear.  I don't like to obey commandments passively (meaning simply not doing things because I'm told not to do things); I prefer to obey commandments actively (meaning doing things for reasons that are important to me).

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Meaning and Purpose of Modern Commandments

I just spent over 30 minutes typing the lesson summary for today, and I lost it somehow when I tried to post it.  Thus, I am writing an outline form summary this time. We talked about each component of the outline below, to various degrees.

The Meaning and Purpose of Modern Commandments, including Things We Often Don't Call Commandments

- Started by repeating that there are things I see as commandments and things that I see as rules built on commandments - and that the key is determining if there is a way to follow a commandment or a rule and be in compliance with the two great commandments to love God, self and others. Used the earring example from Pres. Hinckley's talk (where he said explicitly that he was expressing his own opinion) to show how non-commands can morph into being seen as commands by overzealous members. Referenced the Biblical concept of building hedges about the law. 

- Asked students to help me list commandments we hadn't discussed yet. Limited list to a few we could discuss adequately.  Final list was: Tithing; Word of Wisdom; Church Involvement (combined phrase by me from "Attend Church" and "Callings in Church"); Share the Gospel; Prayer.

1) Tithing

Meaning = "a tenth" (Stressed that there is no official calculation method dictated by the Church - that different members pay on gross, net, "increase", weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, annually, whenever they get money, etc.)

Purpose = from a student: Detachment and humility

Purpose = I added "Fund the Church" (Discussed Old Testament model and modern similarities and differences; discussed exactly what tithing funds and what it doesn't.)

2) Word of Wisdom

Meaning = Read verse 2; discussed "temporal salvation" (related to time; worldly; temporary)

Purpose = From verses 3-4, protecting the weakest saints from evil and designs of conspiring men (Described scene with men conspiring to market products to increase and spread addiction, to make more money, even while knowing the terrible effects on the consumers who buy the addictive products - planning early death, in many cases, specifically to make money. Used example of people who handed out chewing tobacco to elementary students at the county fair in Alabama when we lived there. Those are evil designs, created through real conspiracy.)

3) Church Involvement

Meaning = participating in the Church organization (Stressed that participation to whatever degree is possible is the standard, and that this standard is not definable to anyone except the individual participants. Thus, "properly involved" might be participation in every scheduled meeting or it might be someone who can't leave their house but calls or writes letters or knits presents or smiles at everyone they meet. Also discussed, again, my situation in Missouri when we couldn't attend anything but Sunday meetings and Wednesday activities - and my High Council assignments, due to our financial situation.)

Purpose = Broadening circle of friends to love and accept beyond what is natural (Establishing Zion in a real way, like the orchestra described in Elder Wirthlin's "Concern for the One" - valuing all instruments instead of just the piccolos.)

Purpose = Running the Church organization and not making 20% of the membership do 80% of the work.

4) Share the Gospel

Meaning = Teaching faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. (Discussed the practical and conceptual difference between "sharing the Gospel" and "doing missionary work".)

Purpose = Help people return to God and be like Him.

Purpose = Share what is valuable with others. (Discussed young man in class who will be baptized soon and other young man in class who invited him to come to church and learn about the Gospel and the Church. It was a very touching discussion to have a young man say, sincerely, "I asked him because I care about him," and to have the other young man say, "I am here because I want to be closer to God than I've been in the past.")

Talked about why we don't have more people in our church meetings who are different than we are in obvious ways - about why we tend to share the Gospel with people who are like us and with whom we are comfortable. Asked them to look outside their normal circle of friends when sharing the Gospel.

5) Pray

Meaning = "talking to God" and/or "communicating with God" (Discussed difference and stressed that everyone prays in whatever way they feel they can communicate with God. Shared that I have no problem having a prayer in my heart always - that I try to have and open heart and mind, to send thoughts and feelings heavenward whenever I have them - but that I struggle with formal, kneeling, spoken prayer. I understand the value of both, but the fact that I am praying continually makes it hard for me to break from that to verbalize formal prayers individually.)

I Wish the Word of Wisdom Was Not a Requirement of Baptism

I'm on record in multiple places saying I wish the Word of Wisdom was not a requirement of baptism and membership, especially since it's such a huge cultural issue in many places and because I believe everyone ought to have the same "grace period" the early saints had when it was given initially - and also because we (correctly, in my opinion) don't excommunicate members for not living the Word of Wisdom. If we allow members to remain members as they struggle with the Word of Wisdom, we shouldn't deny others membership for the exact same struggles.

Addictions are brutally hard for many to reject, and I think that is lost for some people who are from ancestry where church membership has not forced them to confront the addictions addressed in the Word of Wisdom. They get it intellectually, but they don't really understand.

I feel strongly about that, even as I have no problem with Word of Wisdom compliance being part of the temple recommend interview.

So What if Jesus Drank Wine?

I don't mean this to be flippant in any way, so please understand what I'm going to say:

As a devout Jew, Jesus drank wine ("real" wine, not just pure grape juice) - but he also abstained from things we eat regularly now. Personally, I think those who struggle to accept the Word of Wisdom because Jesus and Joseph Smith drank in their time make WAY too much out of the fact that the Word of Wisdom went from a suggestion to a command and that former prophets (and Jesus) didn't follow it. Lots of things go from suggestions or cultural practices to commands - but lots of things also go from commands to suggestions, cultural practices or even rejected absurdities.

This is going to sound paradoxical, I'm sure, but I am totally fine with the Word of Wisdom primarily because I see it as such a little thing for most but such a HUGE thing for some - not as a health code, but as an addiction avoider and debt controller. It goes back to the benefits of following versus the benefits of indulging argument - focused on the weakest of the weak.

If I'm strong enough to indulge without disaster, I should be strong enough to abstain without disaster. Therefore, for the strong, it simply isn't worth making it an issue, in my opinion. (and I use the word "worth" carefully and intentionally) However, if I'm NOT strong enough to indulge without disaster (and that applies to SO many people, even if a minority), I need an environment in which I can abstain without pressure or stigma or negative consequence. I'm willing to give up my "right to drink" (really, with no negative consequences of high value) if it contributes to even one person not becoming a drunk or raped at a party or a weapon behind the steering wheel . . . - and I know it contributes to that end for far more than one person.

At heart, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis for me - and I actually see the revelation itself as framed in that way. (not the individual ideal, but adapted for the weak to be a substitute communal ideal) I think the problem is that too many members interpret and treat it as a health code or individual ideal it never was intended or revealed to be.

Discussing Sex and the Word of Wisdom With Our Children

I am very open about sex with my kids - and I tell them why I believe what I believe. That, to me, is more important than listing do's and don'ts - explaining why I hold the values I hold.

A simple example of something about which I feel passionately and explain to my children very openly:

I don't want any of my children to drink, but I approach it slightly differently with my girls. I tell them directly that they don't know their own limits until they've passed them, and that if a girl passes her limit publicly, she is at the mercy of the boy(s) who are with her. Boys sometimes do horrible things when they are drunk, but girls often have horrible things done to them. (I know the reverse if true, also, but, generally, girls risk more when drunk than boys do.) 

This is NOT a "scare tactic" in my eyes, and I tell them without pulling any punches that public drinking is one of the leading causes of rape. It's just not worth the risk in my mind, so I tell them I associate the Word of Wisdom in that way with the Law of Chastity - especially for girls.

My Simplistic, Summary Explanation of the Word of Wisdom

For what it's worth, I view the Word of Wisdom in three ways:

1) Divinely inspired warnings about addictions that would be exploited greatly in the future and prey on the weak - which I think is spot-on.

2) General dietary counsel of the day, which can change over time - just like throughout scripture. (thus a total disregard in the temple recommend interview for consumption of meat now that freezers are nearly omnipresent and protein in available year-round in many parts of the world)

3) A cultural demarcation to "separate from the world".

I really believe the first one was inspired; the second is quite flexible; the third is no big deal for me, especially since I was born in the Church, have lived the Word of Wisdom all my life and see no real benefit from the alternative.

A Deeper Look at the Word of Wisdom as Merciful Meekness

I'm not sure if there is a way for someone who is "physiologically weak" and susceptible to addictive substances to transcend that particular weakness and "become strong" - in the sense that they could indulge and NOT become addicted. I'm not aware of any research that shows such an ability. In fact, the heart of AA is the conscious recognition that the alcoholic, in fact, is still an alcoholic - is still weak - even if he never drinks again. Therefore, the strong giving up something of very minor consequence for them to provide critical assistance to others who will need it until the day they die is something that exemplifies the heart of the Gospel, imo.

Phrased another way, there is ONLY one way that there can be full fellowship of the Saints in this particular discussion - and that is abstinence for all. Think about it, focusing on alcohol:

If alcohol was present at Church functions, those who need to avoid it in order to remain free from their addictive tendencies simply could not afford to attend. Any non-drinking alcoholics among the membership would be excluded from those activities - and for what? It would be for nothing but "my right to drink" - placing that right to drink above the potential harm to others either by exposure to the alcohol or the removal of full fellowship with the Saints. In the hierarchy of abominations, putting my own desire to have a beer or a glass of wine over another's need to avoid it is the height of selfishness.

There is an argument to be made for "private indulgence" vs. "public abstinence". That is a compelling distinction, but, if anything, it only highlights the classification of those who "can handle it" and those who are "weak". Furthermore, it encourages those who are weak to try to live a double life - drinkers in private but abstainers in public. Ask anyone who has lived with a drinking, private alcoholic about how they feel about that situation, and perhaps 100% will tell you it's worse than a public alcoholic - since it gives that person the facade of public respectability, which makes it harder for those who regularly are hurt by the private alcoholism to seek and get help.

The difference here is that I don't see this as principally "legalism". I see it principally as "merciful meekness". It is merciful, because it is a decision to not risk potential harm to another when that harm is in one's power to cause; it is meekness, because it is rooted in kindly generosity - which means giving something to someone else out of kindness and concern that need not be given.

Some people speak of "the weak becoming strong", but they never consider that the real challenge might just be to those who are naturally strong where addictive substances are concerned BUT weak in compassion and self-sacrifice. Which is more important to develop in order to become more Christ-like: the ability to drink responsibly or the ability to serve others through an active expression of self-sacrifice - even if that self-sacrifice is by giving up something (alcohol) that is a tiny little thing in the grand scheme of things?

Those Who Are Strong Enough to Avoid Addiction Are Strong Enough to Abstain

The core of the Word of Wisdom, according to the revelation itself, is the avoidance of addiction peddlers. D&C 89:4 makes this clear - and D&C 89:3 is probably the most overlooked, profound verse in the entire D&C. It says that the Word of Wisdom is NOT the ideal "law" - that, rather, it is "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."

When people claim that the Word of Wisdom cannot be revelation from God because it prohibits substances that are good for us when used in moderation, I always point out that such information is irrelevant to the actual wording of the Word of Wisdom itself. What is best for most is NOT the standard articulated in the revelation; what needs to be followed by the "weakest of all saints who are or can be called saints" is the standard. What does this mean?

There are saints who cannot handle any consumption of alcohol or use of tobacco (or other drugs) without becoming addicted. There are "conspiring men" who recognize this and spend millions of dollars trying to get these people hooked. Furthermore, there often is no way to know where your individual limit is until you cross it, and sometimes that simply is too late once you've crossed your own "addiction line". I know way too many people who think they are social drinkers but have moved past that quite clearly, and I know way too many people who got hooked on cigarettes or chewing tobacco after their very first use.

One more point - and this one is something that almost never gets discussed:

If you really are strong enough not to get hooked, you are strong enough to choose not to partake. If someone can't give up alcohol or tobacco or coffee - if he has to justify continued use by citing physical health generalities, there might be more "addiction" going on than he realizes - meaning he might not be as strong as he thinks.

I agree that the rest of the Word of Wisdom probably is a general health standard influenced by the understanding of the time, but the part that has survived in our modern emphasis is the "eternal" aspect - the avoidance of addictions that subject our will to "conspiring men" and weaken our ability to give our will to God. If God explicitly says, "This is not the ideal, but it's what I want my saints to live" - and if it initially wasn't enforced as a commandment (as stated in the revelation) but was changed later (I think) because the influence of those "conspiring men" grew and those in the Church had time to adjust to it - and if it now is a requirement for temple attendance (I think) because "conspiring men" are finding more and more and more ways to addict people and influence their acts and decisions - I can understand and accept that without any difficulty.

Fwiw, as someone who has come to realize he is prone to a bit of obsession and "addiction", I appreciate being raised with the Word of Wisdom and never having to go through the Hell of ditching an addiction. I appreciate being able to take hundreds of dollars a month that some of my friends spend on alcohol and tobacco (enriching already rich, conspiring men) and, instead, spend it on good things of my own choosing - like charitable causes and avoidance of consumer debt (another addiction of conspiring men - interesting how one feeds the other). I appreciate growing up in a culture that did not glamorize alcohol and tobacco use, keeping that type of temptation away from me in my most impressionable years.

I've seen the impact conspiring men have had on our society. It is enormous and absolutely appalling. I will NEVER criticize the Word of Wisdom, even if it does include outdated health statements - especially since the Church no longer stresses, emphasizes or even teaches them actively. For me, that's just another indication that our leaders are inspired to emphasize what still is relevant for our day and move beyond what is not.

Charity: Disputing Over "Unsettled" Doctrine Is Unseemly

In last week's resloution post, I parsed the word "unseemly" and talked about how it appears to mean acting properly in individual situations. I mentioned that there seems to be an underlying assumption of a universal standard, but that, in practical terms, there is a need to be in tune with what is appropriate and not appropriate when there might be tension between a universal standard and the culture of the situation. In this post, I want to delve into that potential tension and try to articulate a solution to it that I believe can work regardless of the situation - a "universal standard" that still allows for individual adaptation according to unique circumstances.

To introduce this standard, I want to quote extensively from Paul's words in Romans 14. I believe the entire chapter deals directly with this aspect of charity (that it "doth not behave itself unseemly"), but I am going to excerpt specific verses simply for brevity's sake. (Understanding that this still will be a long post.)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

To me, this says that we should welcome those whose faith is weak, but not in order to engage in "doubtful disputations". This phrase (doubtful disputations) might mean arguments that are centered on the weak one's doubts, BUT another alternative meaning that I believe fits the chapter better is "unsettled in opinion or belief; undecided". This can mean that we should not disupte with those whose faith is weak over issues/doctrines/ etc. that are unsettled or undecided. Again, I believe this fits the example that Paul gives in the following verses very well.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

This divides the people being described into two sides - those who will eat anything (including meat) and those who eat herbs (and not meat).

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

These two groups are working from different "cultural/religious standards" - and Paul's initial message to each group is to not despise the other simply because of those differences.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Here Paul recognizes that people view different things differently (probably in reference to the Sabbath and religious holy days in this verse), and he asks everyone to reach a conclusion individually that can be that person's "full" conclusion. In other words, he asks that each of us strive to understand our own situation and what God would have us do (even though he also says that we "see through a glass, darkly"), while accepting that others will reach different understanding for themselves.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

In this verse, Paul highlights a critical point - that those who disagree even with regard to things that they view as highly important (like the Sabbath and what is appropriate to eat) ALL do what they do "to the Lord" (as an expression of faith to God).

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

This is an important point:

We have to account for our own actions, so why do we worry about accounting for others' actions?

In that spirit, Paul adds:

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

There is a famous saying,

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

This saying was taken from this chapter (in Romans), and, while I am not saying that we should participate in everything that is acceptable in other cultures, I am saying that charity includes being able to recognize which cultural aspects that others follow are fine to follow while among them and not use as the source for "doubtful disputations".

My father used to say to us, when we asked about whether or not we could do something,

"Is it critical to your eternal salvation?"

He did this NOT to limit what we could do by viewing everything as critical, but rather he did this to help us see that there are MANY things we can do that really are NOT critical to our eternal salvation. I believe he was teaching us to be charitable in not behaving ourselves unseemly - by helping us realize that we don't need to enclose ourselves so tightly in proscriptive standards that we end up not being able to socialize with those whose standards are not as proscriptive (and vice-versa) - or whose standards are proscriptive in different ways.

21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

In summary, Paul restates his point - and he does so primarily to those for whom "eat(ing) flesh" and "drink(ing) wine" are not an offense and do not make weak. He is saying, in essence, that those who can handle it should not partake among those who can't. In our modern Mormon vernacular, he is saying that those who are strong should adapt their behavior to accommodate "the weakest of the weak who are or can be called saints".

I would add only this, to bring the entire discussion full circle:

Not only should we adapt our "physical actions" to accommodate the weak (by not eating and drinking that which would offend or weaken them or cause them to stumble), but we also should adapt our "verbal actions" to accommodate them (by not participating in doubtful disputations with them over standards that are "unsettled" and open to interpretation).

The responsibility is NOT on the weak; it is on the strong. If you think, for example, that the Word of Wisdom is trivial, inconsequential and not all that important, prove your strength by being charitable and abstaining for the sake of the weak - those for whom abstaining really is critical to their eternal salvation.

Diabetes and the The Word of Wisdom: Not What You Think

My second son has Type 1 diabetes. If someone does not have diabetes, why would we insist that they live in compliance with the "standards" that are such a vital part of my son's life? To ask everyone else to refrain from sugar simply because he has to be careful of his glucose intake would be ludicrous. Likewise, if others have not understood the Word of Wisdom and have not entered into a covenant to apply it in their own lives . . .

Part of my son's growth is learning how to watch out for and protect himself through living his own particular and unique ("peculiar") standards, while allowing others to live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciences.