...anymore, are they?

That thought struck me as I was reading the Word of Wisdom "clarification" that was published in the New Era this past August.

Excerpts:

"Here are some facts about the Word of Wisdom:

"In Doctrine and Covenants 89:8–9, the Lord forbids our using tobacco and “hot drinks,” which, Church leaders have explained, means tea and coffee.1: [The footnote refers the reader to "Selected Church Policies and Guidelines".]

----
Again from the article:

"Green tea and black tea are both made from the leaves of the exact same tea plant. The only difference is that the leaves in black tea are fermented and in green tea they’re not. They’re both tea and against the Word of Wisdom. Some drinks have tea in them but don’t advertise that fact, so always check the ingredients. Also, iced tea is still tea." {{Note that the unnamed author of the article is relying here on nothing more than his/her own specious reasoning. They aren't citing any actual revelation or divine clarification concerning green tea. Worse, they ignorantly trivialize the differences between highly processed black tea and virtually unprocessed green tea. It's like saying that "the only difference between beer and barley tea is that beer is fermented and barley tea is not." Stupid beyond belief!}}


https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/vaping-coffee-tea-and-marijuana?lang=eng

-------

So, yeah.....What's missing from the above excerpts, and indeed from the entire article, is any claim that the "clarification" or any interpretation of the scope of the Word of Wisdom is or ever was revelation from God. They accurately state that according to D&C 89 "the Lord" forbids tobacco and hot drinks. But they don't anywhere claim that "the Lord" ever specifically revealed at any time to anyone that "hot drinks" means coffee and tea. Nope. They only state that, after the fact, "Church leaders have explained [that hot drinks] means tea and coffee.1"

Church leaders have explained.....LOL! Past Church leaders have "explained" a lot of crap that is now disavowed by current Church leaders.

As mentioned above, they support the "clarification" in the New Era by referring the reader to Section 21 of the "Selected Church Policies and Guidelines".

As soon as I saw the word "policies" I recalled that the Church has recently taken to dismissing the embarrassing history of banning Africans/people of African descent from the priesthood and temple endowment as something that was just a poorly understood "policy" that they are currently disavowing. So keep that in mind. They are NOT saying that the policy concerning green tea (for example) is doctrinal or that it is based on direct revelation of any kind.

In fact, here is what the "Selected Church Policies and Guidelines" actually say:


" 21.3.11

"Word of Wisdom

"The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

"Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician."

That's it folks.

Did you catch that first part? The whole coffee and tea ban (including cold drinks) is entirely based on the flimsy foundation of a "statement made by early Church leaders." They aren't even claiming that it was a clarification revealed to them by God. They're just hoping that the naive reader will assume that if the "early Church leaders" said something then it must be correct.

But doesn't that also apply to the formerly assumed necessity of ALL of those original elements of the temple ordinances that have since been deleted? The "early Church leaders" certainly SAID on numerous occasions that those things were ALL important. Worse, nobody has clearly stated that the deletions were directly commanded by God.

Doesn't it also apply to the teaching that Adam is our god and the only god worshiped by us? That was something preached in General Conference by an "early Church leader".

Doesn't it also apply to the notion that people of African ancestry are spirits who were less valiant in the pre-existence? Not only was that something that was said frequently by "early Church leaders", but it was never overturned by revelation. Kimball's "revelation" (actually his "I thought about it really hard for a long time and this is what I decided" decision/revelation) never repudiated those teachings about less valiant spirits in the pre-existence.

Well, long story short, they're clearly not being straight with the youth, who are the target of the New Era article. The name of the author of the article is not even given. The "clarification" is not even sourced to the current Prophet or the First Presidency. It's just an article in a church magazine that cites a bureaucratic handbook and an unspecified "statement by early Church leaders."

But impressionable young Mormons will read that and think that it must be straight from God because it's in an official church magazine.

It's really pathetic.

yeah, but what is really pathetic is that the arbitrary and ephemeral "policies and guidelines", notions and clarifications can actually keep someone OUT of the temple. They can cause someone to be cruelly shunned.

Mormonism has always been so slippery, that, even with a sincere TBM heart, I couldn't work with their ever-changing policies. Why wasn't I granted a temple divorce from a man who almost murdered me, yet my friend got a temple divorce, just because she "fell out of love" with her husband. We were both faithful Mormons. The only difference was that my friend's father was best friends with GBH (at the time, he was living) in his home ward. So, even if you can pin down the squirmy wormy rules, they still don't apply to EVERYONE equally, and usually not the same for women as for men.

Also, those rules might all change tomorrow.

Mormonism is rigged so that if your life path deviates one millimeter or if something unusual (like attempted murder) happens to you that is not your fault, you can never win.

that the label that best fits them is "sophist".

It's like Packer openly declaring that "some truths are not useful" and that the job of a Church historian is to find the hand of God in every little scrap of Church history and the corollary that if the hand of God can't be found in some scrap of church history, no matter how hard one squints and strains, then by definition that bit of church history is not worth telling to anyone.

Packer basically outed himself as a fundamentally dishonest person.

They twist, they spin, they distort as much as any sleazy politicians do. So what if they promote half of their relatives to high (PAID) church positions and give cushy jobs to the other half? It's not nepotism because...uh...because...uh...it's just how things worked out according to God's plan...yeah, that's the ticket. It was God's plan.

God is no respecter of persons, they say, but the GAs sure as hell do pay attention to who's who and who they like. Little Henry Eyring, nephew of Camilla Eyring and Uncle Spencer Kimball gets elevated to Apostle and then First Presidency like it was foreordained...yah. Foreordained. That's a fancy word for nepotism.

Melvin Ballard borrowed a ton of money for a business, then mismanaged the business and the building invested in burns down (insurance fraud perhaps?)...but miracle of miracles, the Church decides to buy the burned out building at a great price and make Melvin a paid general authority. It wouldn't be because of all of his family connections to Mormon royalty, right? Oh no....don't be a conspiracy theorist!

The whole thing is such a sick joke, and that comes into clearer focus by the day.

Very good points from both of you.

They need to claim revelation in order to avoid any responsibility for themselves. But they need to avoid claiming it in order to save the credibility of revelation for the really tough cases, the cases where they want to intimidate someone to shut them up.

Therefore you get this lukewarm mess of assumed third-hand revelation that only thoughtless people can accept. And you wonder why thoughtful people are leaving the church?

this was fervently preached by Brigham Young whobecame a dictator in Utah to the point of sending the Danites out to slit the throat of anyone who disagareed with him.

Doesn't it also apply to the teaching that Adam is our god and the only god worshiped by us? That was something preached in General Conference by an "early Church leader".

There is no empirical evidence that the word of wisdom was from God. It is a convenience "revelation" to further and agenda of mind control! PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD

They don't even have the courage to sign those gospel topic essays that are somewhere in their own website. Essays which attempt to explain some of their most difficult history and practices.

And then there is the "policy" about the children of gay parents that was first a policy then a revelation and then a policy that they maybe have changed that is still in their handbook.

According to a former CES institute director (now exmo), the church explicitly tells teachers not to use any church publication (church news and church magazines) as a source for revelation, doctrine or church policy. That's right!

The church wants a loophole to escape from making contradictory statements. You see, the church wants it both ways. They want the right to say "The Lord has spoken on this matter..." and they want the right to backpedal when the church is wrong.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to a former CES institute director (now
> exmo), the church explicitly tells teachers not to
> use any church publication (church news and church
> magazines) as a source for revelation, doctrine or
> church policy. That's right!
>
> The church wants a loophole to escape from making
> contradictory statements. You see, the church
> wants it both ways. They want the right to say
> "The Lord has spoken on this matter..." and they
> want the right to backpedal when the church is
> wrong.

Ken Clark addressed this in his Lying for the Lord presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKt7ozdKeBk

Imagine after all the perfecting your testimony voice, all the time spent working on your posture, your stance, training your wife to be the perfect helpmeet with the perfect red or blue suit and the scarf and the hair dated just enough, and then you make it. You are an apostle, even a prophet, and . . . . . nothing.

You go to the special room in the temple for the president and Jesus is not waiting. Peter, James and John are absent as well, and . . . nothing. Not even Moroni minus the gold leaf. And, you felt what we all felt. Nothing. And Peggy Lee in your mind begins to sing, "Is that all there is to being prophet?"

And you fight the urge to be honest with yourself and you say over and over to yourself . . .


"Better that one man should lie than that an entire church should perish in the truth." "I'm not in this for the ego strokes, the perks. I'm not in this for the ego strokes, the perks. I'm not in this for the . . . . . . ."


And then you remember Gordon's famous words, "I don't know that we teach that." And the door has been opened. A light goes on. Being vague is the way to go! Never let them pin you down.

Gordon, not Jesus has shown the way.

Whatever it is, the WOW is a restoration of, and an addition to, dietary law and all part of the legalism that is the core of Mormonism. A control mechanism, too.

Funny how God always needs a spokesperson to let everyone know what to do.

An all powerful God can't figure out how to get His own money or communicate directly with no ambiguity. Go figure. Gee, it's almost as if religious leaders use God to run their organizations to maintain power and keep everyone under control.

He knows your thoughts and has a spirit to whisper to you but can't coordinate it all with everyone. That is fairly a big epic fail there.

I keep telling you it is all a "long con"

Nobody points out that the "Lord" specifically said that the Word of Wisdom was NOT "by way of commandment."

But now they are quoting it to say that God "forbids" this and that... when on the very face of it, God insists that it is just ADVICE.

When JS needed money( which was all the time), he came up with a revelation to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon in Canada and sent a couple of his men to try it. It didn’t work and they came home copyrightless and penniless. When JS was asked what’s up with that doc?, he replied sometimes you get revelation from god, sometimes it’s Satan, or it can be your own dumb thinking. Pretty smart way to get out of that tight spot.

I think a modern prophet using “thus sayeth the Lord” would be a legal liability. They need plausible deniability. The lies are grandfathered in.

The lies of a middle-aged con man are now the lies of the grandfathers. Marriage and reproduction are the liar's job prerequisites.

How the WoW really got revealed:

"The situation that arose to evoke the revelation started with a combination of the efforts of the Kirtland Temperance Society (founded in 1830 and predominantly non Mormon), who were opposed to alcohol, tobacco and eating too much meat; and Smith training men in his ‘School of Elders' every day, meeting in a small smoke filled room above Emma's kitchen, with tobacco juice being spit all over the floor. Emma had the job of cleaning up following the meetings. The situation and results are available from several sources. This is just one:

"Thus Emma, faced almost daily with “having to clean so filthy a floor” as was left by the men chewing tobacco, spoke to Joseph about the matter. Davis Whitmer's account supports Brigham Young's description. “Some of the men were excessive chewers of the filthy weed, and their disgusting slobbering and spitting caused Mrs. Smith … to make the ironical remark that ‘It would be a good thing if a revelation could be had declaring the use of tobacco a sin, and commanding it's suppression.' The matter was taken up and joked about, one of the brethren suggested that the revelation should also provide for a total abstinence from tea and coffee drinking, intending this as a counter ‘dig' at the sisters.” Sure enough the subject was afterward taken up in dead earnest, and the ‘Word of Wisdom' was the result. (David Whitmer). (Des Moines Daily News, 16 Oct 1886:20 c. in: Newell & Avery 1994:47, also c: An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom, Paul H. Peterson - Masters Thesis, [no location provided]; Also: c. in Tanner 1987:406. See also Tanner 1987: Ch. 26 for excellent coverage). (Emphasis added).

and asked them what they thought about (i) the fact that no moral stigma or temple worthiness implications whatsoever would be applied against a member of the church whose daily eating habits included multiple milkshakes, soda pop, french fries and cheeseburgers, followed by cookies, fudge and slurpees for dessert; VERSUS (ii) the fact that moral stigma and temple worthiness implications WOULD BE APPLIED against a member of the church whose eating habits mainly included only two cups of weak green tea per day, greens, carrots, broccoli and small portions of meat once or twice per week.

They conceded that the green tea drinker is the one who would likely be in trouble--especially if they honestly answered the temple recommend worthiness interview questions and confessed to regularly drinking weak green tea.

Then they stared off into space like deer staring at headlights...almost as if their brain CPU was struggling to process something and kept getting "error" results. It was awkward and funny at the same time.

As gluttony---AKA treating the corporal temple your Heavenly Father has given you like crap-----is okay, even righteous, it's almost like God is invested and heavily dependent financially on his investments in the sugar business whether it be from beets or cane. If only HRH Elohim had invested in tea and coffee stocks as well, the spittoons could go back in the temple----which, would actually be a restoration oddly enough--and the dwindling of tithing wouldn't be forcing him to begin selling off galaxies to Lucifer who not only invested in coffee, and tea but also alcohol which is the real reason for the word of wisdom.

> If only HRH Elohim...


I suspect that calling Elohim a royal hemorrhoid is going to get you at least a good talking to by Holy McGhost. You are SUCH a rebel!

>I suspect that calling Elohim a royal hemorrhoid ...

Now, now. The correct biblical word is emerod (I Samuel 5-6).
Elohim will be even more upset if you don't use proper King James language. The only other acceptable languages would be pure Adamic or reformed Egyptian.

My heavens, D&D, that is a spectacular, hilarious, and inspired rant.

I stand in awe!

I once asked the missionaries why someone would be worthy for the temple when they choke down 6 Monster energy drinks daily, but I drink one coffee and seen as unworthy.

Their answer was because it says so!!! No logic, no reasoning, just have faith.

My wife drinks diet coke by the cases per week while knowing there is no healthy effects, but she then says all the research saying coffee is good for you is flawed and bias. WTF!!!

Do not apply logic.

My mother asked me if I knew where to get green tea in tablet or capsule form as she had heard it was really good for one of her ailments. Of course I'm like 'why not just drink the tea?'

"I could NEVER to that!"

Not kidding. That happened. They follow the letter of the law. Period. No thinking necessary.

modern Mormons are just like the Pharisees (the bad guys) of the New Testament.

Obsessed with petty little rules and constantly claiming that obedience to the rule is what is important and that the question of whether the rule has any intrinsic value or logic to it is secondary at best.

But they can't see it. They'll read about the Pharisees and talk about how silly the Pharisees were to be obsessed with all their man-made rules. But then they'll strain at a drop of water tainted by proximity to an unprocessed tea leaf only to then turn around and swallow a gallon of slurpees.

Bingo!

Pharisees. Mormons have turned it into an olympic game.

AND you had a living, breathing oracle, a person on Earth who's authorized to reveal your mind, your will, your wisdom to people;

starting with getting people out of:

hunger


diseases & injuries

hatred, greed, lies

all the different types of hurting that people (your spirit sons & daughters) do to each other (crimes, other lesser offenses).

What would you tell your oracle, your prophet?

Please!

I do believe an appropriate Christmas gift for Russ and gang might be some Tarot cards.

And some tea leaves and tortoise shells and, my favorite, sheep entrails!

Magicians know for a trick to work, you can't let people see it very often.

Himalaya Tsunami Scene From "2012" (2009)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQR8k0mlSeI

" It was impressed upon my mind"
Therefore it is doctrine

Well, what do you expect from a magazine that publishes articles with titles like, "How I Fight Illness with Faith" and "You Physical and Spiritual DNA"?

A funny thing I noticed in their WoW reference chart: In the article "What the Word of Wisdom Is," under the column "Enjoy"--

"Meat (just not too much)"

Whereas in Section 89 itself, the "Lord" says--

"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."

That's very different from "Enjoy this, just not too much!" In fact, it sounds like just the opposite. But if the church ever decides to take a different tack and crack down on meat consumption, if someone brings this up they can always say it was just in a church magazine, not a revelation, not the words of a prophet, etc. This is the equivalent of "speaking as a man," only now it's "speaking as an official but somehow fallible church publication that is closely monitored but somehow not, unless we need to cite it in support of a future policy clarification but still not if we need to throw it under the bus. Stop asking questions."