Rumor WOW change?

[JohnnyL]

I'm sorry Sunain, but you're batting on a decidedly sticky wicket here.
You can quote any manual you like, any GC talk you like, or any Ensign article you like. None of them have the ability to convert a revelation directly from God stating it is not a commandment, to something meaning the opposite.
Just saying "it's a commandment" doesn't make it so.

Following the teaching of the Lord through His modern day prophets is NOT batting on "decidedly sticky wicket". As members of His church, missionaries, and leaders, we have been taught and we understand the direct scientifically proven reasons for the Word of Wisdom to be a commandment now.

The Savior himself gave numerous commandments in the Old Testament that have then been superseded and updated as time has gone on. Do we follow the Mosaic Law? No, it was superseded by a higher law, a new law.

As I said above, the Word of Wisdom is one such law. The prophets are His mouthpiece on the earth. We believe that the prophet is His word on the earth. I quoted 2 modern day prophets stating that it is a commandment. There is no debate on the topic. Prophets have taught it is a commandment. The church has now instituted it as a requirement for baptism. The Savior doesn't have objections to this because His prophets follow His word. When that scripture was given, He knew that going cold turkey would not work, so there was a transitional period to allow the saints to be able to conform with this commandment. This is fair, just like all that He does is fair and just.

It has been 168 years since President Young declared the Word of Wisdom was a commandment. Since that time, we see the Wisdom in that has been proven ten fold over. Requiring members at this point to follow it should be almost second nature but apparently after all this time, that is not the case. That is what I'm unfortunately sad to realize from reading this thread. Also sad to see so many members of the church quick to dispute the word of the Lord through His modern day prophets.

It's the buffet approach to the commandments, at least in "hope" or "wish" form.

While we heatedly condemn the people wanting polygamy again (commandment, not commandment ), we want our coffee/ tea/ tobacco.

Is it possible that to some, cleaning the chapel is more a commandment than the WoW?

[JohnnyL]

Just because they used the word "commandment" in reference to WoW, does not make it so, & does not overturn or trump the Lord's words in the revelation itself "not by commandment or constraint" - unless another official revelation comes forth to do so. It has to be canonized. What's with this cultural habit, now fully entrenched, of just quoting every Leader or Apostle opinion/quote like it is gospel truth or scripture?

And, even if the WoW were changed from "not by commandment" ("or constraint" - have we made it a constraint by restricting Temple attendance by it? Yes we have), how do you explain that it is still NOT prohibitionist like our current implementation/practice has become?

Has any President of the Church brought forth the new doctrine that the WoW is a “commandment” &, when he did, declared it as a revelation from God, and it was accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church? And if any man (including Church presidents or apostles) spoke a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works (like that the WoW is a commandment when the canonized standard-work/revelation says it is “not by commandment or constraint”), you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Yes, the motion was brought forth before church in General Conference by President Brigham Young on September 9, 1851. "The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter."

The Word of Wisdom:The Principle and the Promises
Boyd K. Packer - Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - April 1996

While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

It's clear that the WoW is not a commandment.

It appears I need to repost this again. The Word of Wisdom is a commandment not a church policy. Too many people here in this thread are stating otherwise.

When modern day prophets of the Lord, who are His voice upon the earth, state it is a commandment, it is a commandment. Obeying the Word of Wisdom is a requirement for baptism, not just being temple worthy. Modern day revelation supersedes previous scripture and prophets. This is the Lord's pattern just as it was in the Old Testament days. He continues to nudge us towards His higher laws.

The Word of Wisdom isn't even one of His higher laws. If the saints still have issue with it being a commandment, they no wonder we have yet to receive more that was revealed in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. It appears the body of the saints isn't ready still.

D&C 89:2. Is the Word of Wisdom a Commandment Today?

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.

Bishops and stake presidents are responsible for determining whether members are worthy to receive Church ordinances such as baptism or those available in the temple or to enter the temple to receive ordinances for others. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is a part of that worthiness.

For the first 18 years, there was a transition period. This allowed members, who may have been addicted to these substances, time to ditch the habit instead of trying to do it cold turkey.

D&C 89:2. Why Does the Lord Say “Not by Commandment or Constraint”?

“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by Pr ... the Lord. [See Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 183–84].” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14.)

President Heber J. Grant emphasized that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and warned those who did not obey it that “the day is gone by when the Lord will trifle with the Latter-day Saints. He has said that His Spirit shall not always strive with man.” (Gospel Standards, pp. 55–56.) Although the Lord allowed a time of adjustment for those who were already members of the Church when the Word of Wisdom was given, today it is expected that all Saints adhere to the commandment.

The Word of Wisdom

This revelation is known as the Word of Wisdom. Obedience to this commandment is a requirement for baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Great blessings are promised to those who show their faith by obeying this commandment.

Note that the church's official pamphlet on the Word of Wisdom also states "other harmful or addictive substances". Yes, we do not need to be commanded in all things but when we are, like with the Word of Wisdom, we are to obey to be worthy to have His spirit to be with us.

No amount of posturing or rumour mongering is going to change a commandment from the Lord. If such a change were to occur, like the church accepting gay marriage or sealings, it would completely fracture the church irreparably.

The Living Prophet: The President of the Church

The President of the Church presides over all priesthood quorums and the general membership of the Church. President James E. Faust (1920–2007) of the First Presidency explained: “He is the senior Apostle on the earth. He has been ordained and set apart as the prophet, seer, and revelator to the world. He has been sustained as the President of the Church. He is the presiding high priest over all the priesthood on the earth. He alone holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom under the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of this Church and is the chief cornerstone” (“Continuing Revelation,” Ensign, Aug. 1996, 5).

D&C Official Declaration 1

President Wilford Woodruff (1807–98) declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church:
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).

Any prophet trying to circumvent the Lord and His commandments will not be allowed to do so.

I'm sorry Sunain, but you're batting on a decidedly sticky wicket here.
You can quote any manual you like, any GC talk you like, or any Ensign article you like. None of them have the ability to convert a revelation directly from God stating it is not a commandment, to something meaning the opposite.
Just saying "it's a commandment" doesn't make it so.

So if a prophet says "my opinion" it will always remain that, and can't ever be truth?

So if a prophet says "suggestion" it can't ever become a commandment?

JS was a prophet, but no one from BY on down was?

I don't know about wickets much, but I do know that's shaky ground.

[Jesef]

I am glad you provided these links.

Brigham Young ran multiple stills. He provided liquor for pioneer day celebrations around Utah. He sold liquor to the railroad for $4/barrel. All while occasionally preaching on the virtues of the WoW.

Joseph Smith continued to smoke cigars publicly after receiving the WoW revelation.

Things are a bit more complicated than simply providing a few hand picked quotes. The fact is after historical research into this topic, any reasonable person must conclude that it wasn't taken very seriously by the majority of members, including leadership, for quite a while. It appears alcohol was taken seriously during prohibition, and tobacco and coffee/tea sometime after that.

I don't deny the hand of the Lord in the revelation or the wisdom found therein. I simply believe the Lord when He says it should not be a commandment, and nearly everyone involved in the Church at the time of the revelation felt that way too.

You don't seem to have read much from the links.

My comments fully respond to yours & your linked quotes. Yours do not adequately address mine (& others) or rationally explain the discrepancy. Thus your repeated statement appears to be strong confirmation bias affirming authoritative opinion turned tradition still masquerading today & taught as doctrine, in the absence of real or official & binding revelation/scripture, contradictory to the actual dictated canonized revelation/scripture still sitting there unaltered, un-revised. And also contradicting the content of said canonized revelation/scripture. Blinded by tradition literally it would seem. Awake!

It's laughable when someone tries a rebuke so miserably absent of the Spirit.
I'd suggest you truly humble yourself, forgive God and His leaders, pray, and live it in faith till you get an answer.

You're making progress. All these irrational/emotional responses are normal. Just process the contradictions & push through the cognitive dissonance (discomfort of considering/processing facts which do not confirm your strongly held beliefs). It's good, really. No offense intended & none taken. Truth is reality, things as they REALLY were, are, or will be - not fantasy or delusion, which is what we sometimes think they SHOULD be or wish them to be. It's like Christmas & Santa Clause in a way.

You (Sunain & JohnnyL) are under the false impression that Presidents of the Church can't have false opinions & that their opinions qualify as doctrine (particularly if they repeat each other). You need to read more history & do more analysis & comparison if you can't accept that this is simply tradition & culture, not truth/scripture. Blacks & Priesthood is a prime example. Brigham Young's teachings, commandments, & prophecies on Blacks & Priesthood are disavowed today - & he had scriptures to back them up - & they were parroted by subsequent Presidents & Apostles. His teachings on Adam-God were declared false by several later prophets, including Pres. Kimball. Apostle Bruce McConkie parroted a lot of BY's opinions in printed works like Mormon Doctrine & he had to disavow/deny them after the declaration of the 1978 revelation (we never got the dictated revelation by the way, just a declaration of it, canonized) as well as other formal corrections by Prophets/Presidents. Authorities have opinions - they teach them - they repeat & quote each other. The Lord's words & dictated revelations & canonized scriptures trump those opinions & interpretations. This is what you've got backwards. That's what President Harold B. Lee was saying in describing the process of canonization & it makes sense. Scripture is binding, opinions & interpretations are not.

You guys are free to believe your tradition as truth. It's largely fantasy, though, in my opinion. And it is in denial of several facts that you still have not addressed, like beer/ale, for example.

[JohnnyL]

You don't seem to have read much from the links.

My comments fully respond to yours & your linked quotes. Yours do not adequately address mine (& others) or rationally explain the discrepancy. Thus your repeated statement appears to be strong confirmation bias affirming authoritative opinion turned tradition still masquerading today & taught as doctrine, in the absence of real or official & binding revelation/scripture, contradictory to the actual dictated canonized revelation/scripture still sitting there unaltered, un-revised. And also contradicting the content of said canonized revelation/scripture. Blinded by tradition literally it would seem. Awake!

It's laughable when someone tries a rebuke so miserably absent of the Spirit.
I'd suggest you truly humble yourself, forgive God and His leaders, pray, and live it in faith till you get an answer.

You're making progress. All these irrational/emotional responses are normal. Just process the contradictions & push through the cognitive dissonance (discomfort of considering/processing facts which do not confirm your strongly held beliefs). It's good, really. No offense intended & none taken. Truth is reality, things as they REALLY were, are, or will be - not fantasy or delusion, which is what we sometimes think they SHOULD be or wish them to be. It's like Christmas & Santa Clause in a way.

You (Sunain & JohnnyL) are under the false impression that Presidents of the Church can't have false opinions & that their opinions qualify as doctrine (particularly if they repeat each other). You need to read more history & do more analysis & comparison if you can't accept that this is simply tradition & culture, not truth/scripture. Blacks & Priesthood is a prime example. Brigham Young's teachings, commandments, & prophecies on Blacks & Priesthood are disavowed today - & he had scriptures to back them up - & they were parroted by subsequent Presidents & Apostles. His teachings on Adam-God were declared false by several later prophets, including Pres. Kimball. Apostle Bruce McConkie parroted a lot of BY's opinions in printed works like Mormon Doctrine & he had to disavow/deny them after the declaration of the 1978 revelation (we never got the dictated revelation by the way, just a declaration of it, canonized) as well as other formal corrections by Prophets/Presidents. Authorities have opinions - they teach them - they repeat & quote each other. The Lord's words & dictated revelations & canonized scriptures trump those opinions & interpretations. This is what you've got backwards. That's what President Harold B. Lee was saying in describing the process of canonization & it makes sense. Scripture is binding, opinions & interpretations are not.

You guys are free to believe your tradition as truth. It's largely fantasy, though, in my opinion. And it is in denial of several facts that you still have not addressed, like beer/ale, for example.

No, your opinion on us is absolutely wrong. So much for man's opinion, huh?

I agree that prophets and anyone has opinions, and that those opinions can be, and I would judge absolutely, are wrong.
I have said that on this board about more than one apostle's GC talks.

Yes, repetition DOES have something to do with it (that witness thing Nephi and Moroni (among others) teach us). Though I would not say repetition makes something true.

BY's one clear wrong teaching on A-G, interestingly enough, was recorded wrong in the JoD. A margin note about the error was made, yet when the talk was republished, the error was maintained. I'd say we should also be careful about judging what we didn't ourselves hear (unless you're like me and you have to be careful about what you thought/ think you heard, too).

Surely if you know about all the things you've mentioned, you know BRM was reprimanded, then helped on the redo.

Once more, I believe what BY said about Blacks and the priesthood, and what everyone infers from it, are often two different things. Of course, that's my opinion, and I could be wrong.
And yet, apostles bore witness of that 1978 revelation. And you can get your own revelation, too, just like passionflower's new member. Many at the time did, though some, including a leader in our stake, refused to humble himself and ask--he already knew the prophet was wrong, and like heck if he would accept Blacks as equals or potential equals.

No, dictated revelations do not trump non-dictated revelations. There's no reasoning in that.

If someone could give logical reasons, certain things are possible. I don't see that has happened with the WoW, but in fact, quite the opposite.
I DID see that with the "principal ancestor" statement, for example (and I don't believe it was just because of DNA).

You are living in fantasy, unfortunately, and it's not bringing you joy, peace, or calm.

[JohnnyL]

Child bearing does not mean they needed to be children themselves. Now you are throwing Abraham under the bus to defend this perversion with nothing other than the suggestion that his wife after Sarah was capable of bearing children... It's an argument from silence.

Also, do you live by Old Testament morality? Anything that happened in that book from, incest, to genocide, to murdering children is on the table for you?

Oh now stop it, you know I was not throwing Abraham under the bus; rather I was asking if anyone here was willing to throw him under the bus.

So how old was Abraham when he had Isaac? Pretty old, much older than 60-ish. So Isaac grows up, meaning Abraham gets even older. Sarah dies, Abraham marries more women and makes babies with them. Since Sarah's pregnancy was considered a miracle it is mentioned in the Bible. The others were not. So therefore they could not have been older than their 30s. And considering how marriage worked in those days they were more likely teens.

So come on now, the bus is coming, you gonna toss a prophet of God in its way?

As for morality, Jesus quoted the Old Testament quite often. Show me where he condemned any prophet of the Old Testament.

I think you've already gotten your answer, just that some might not have realized the answer they gave yet.

[Robin Hood]

Just because they used the word "commandment" in reference to WoW, does not make it so, & does not overturn or trump the Lord's words in the revelation itself "not by commandment or constraint" - unless another official revelation comes forth to do so. It has to be canonized. What's with this cultural habit, now fully entrenched, of just quoting every Leader or Apostle opinion/quote like it is gospel truth or scripture?

And, even if the WoW were changed from "not by commandment" ("or constraint" - have we made it a constraint by restricting Temple attendance by it? Yes we have), how do you explain that it is still NOT prohibitionist like our current implementation/practice has become?

Has any President of the Church brought forth the new doctrine that the WoW is a “commandment” &, when he did, declared it as a revelation from God, and it was accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church? And if any man (including Church presidents or apostles) spoke a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works (like that the WoW is a commandment when the canonized standard-work/revelation says it is “not by commandment or constraint”), you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Yes, the motion was brought forth before church in General Conference by President Brigham Young on September 9, 1851. "The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter."

The Word of Wisdom:The Principle and the Promises
Boyd K. Packer - Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - April 1996

While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

It's clear that the WoW is not a commandment.

It appears I need to repost this again. The Word of Wisdom is a commandment not a church policy. Too many people here in this thread are stating otherwise.

When modern day prophets of the Lord, who are His voice upon the earth, state it is a commandment, it is a commandment. Obeying the Word of Wisdom is a requirement for baptism, not just being temple worthy. Modern day revelation supersedes previous scripture and prophets. This is the Lord's pattern just as it was in the Old Testament days. He continues to nudge us towards His higher laws.

The Word of Wisdom isn't even one of His higher laws. If the saints still have issue with it being a commandment, they no wonder we have yet to receive more that was revealed in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. It appears the body of the saints isn't ready still.

D&C 89:2. Is the Word of Wisdom a Commandment Today?

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.

Bishops and stake presidents are responsible for determining whether members are worthy to receive Church ordinances such as baptism or those available in the temple or to enter the temple to receive ordinances for others. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is a part of that worthiness.

For the first 18 years, there was a transition period. This allowed members, who may have been addicted to these substances, time to ditch the habit instead of trying to do it cold turkey.

D&C 89:2. Why Does the Lord Say “Not by Commandment or Constraint”?

“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by Pr ... the Lord. [See Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 183–84].” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14.)

President Heber J. Grant emphasized that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and warned those who did not obey it that “the day is gone by when the Lord will trifle with the Latter-day Saints. He has said that His Spirit shall not always strive with man.” (Gospel Standards, pp. 55–56.) Although the Lord allowed a time of adjustment for those who were already members of the Church when the Word of Wisdom was given, today it is expected that all Saints adhere to the commandment.

The Word of Wisdom

This revelation is known as the Word of Wisdom. Obedience to this commandment is a requirement for baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Great blessings are promised to those who show their faith by obeying this commandment.

Note that the church's official pamphlet on the Word of Wisdom also states "other harmful or addictive substances". Yes, we do not need to be commanded in all things but when we are, like with the Word of Wisdom, we are to obey to be worthy to have His spirit to be with us.

No amount of posturing or rumour mongering is going to change a commandment from the Lord. If such a change were to occur, like the church accepting gay marriage or sealings, it would completely fracture the church irreparably.

The Living Prophet: The President of the Church

The President of the Church presides over all priesthood quorums and the general membership of the Church. President James E. Faust (1920–2007) of the First Presidency explained: “He is the senior Apostle on the earth. He has been ordained and set apart as the prophet, seer, and revelator to the world. He has been sustained as the President of the Church. He is the presiding high priest over all the priesthood on the earth. He alone holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom under the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of this Church and is the chief cornerstone” (“Continuing Revelation,” Ensign, Aug. 1996, 5).

D&C Official Declaration 1

President Wilford Woodruff (1807–98) declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church:
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).

Any prophet trying to circumvent the Lord and His commandments will not be allowed to do so.

I'm sorry Sunain, but you're batting on a decidedly sticky wicket here.
You can quote any manual you like, any GC talk you like, or any Ensign article you like. None of them have the ability to convert a revelation directly from God stating it is not a commandment, to something meaning the opposite.
Just saying "it's a commandment" doesn't make it so.

So if a prophet says "my opinion" it will always remain that, and can't ever be truth?

So if a prophet says "suggestion" it can't ever become a commandment?

By jove, I think he's got it!

[Vision]

Or that a 60-y.o. man shouldn't marry a 14-y.o. young woman?

That has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. You shouldn't need someone to tell you it's wrong and you should stay away from anyone who tells you it's righteous.

At age 57 Lorenzo Snow married 16-year old Sara Minnie Ephramina Jensen. (had a child a year later. Lorenzo had actually been courting her since she was 14, but married at 16)

How old were the wives Abraham took after the death of his sister/wife Sarah? They bore him children but are not described as miracle births as was Sarah's. So they must have been at least 60 years younger than him.

You are going to need to do better than that if you are trying to build a case for a 57 year old man marrying a 16 year old girl.

Are you so blindly willing to follow the infallibility of the Brethren that you'd sacrifice your own morality and try to defend this garbage? Would you be ok with your 16 year old daughter marrying a righteous 57 year old man?

I'm not arguing with you, or against you but the legal marriage age was different in the early 1800's than it is today. We tend to look through todays acceptable norms in judging the past norms.

I whole heartedly agree with you on blindly following the infallibility of the brethren.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Or that a 60-y.o. man shouldn't marry a 14-y.o. young woman?

That has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. You shouldn't need someone to tell you it's wrong and you should stay away from anyone who tells you it's righteous.

At age 57 Lorenzo Snow married 16-year old Sara Minnie Ephramina Jensen. (had a child a year later. Lorenzo had actually been courting her since she was 14, but married at 16)

Ha ha ha!!! I hope anyone reading this reply can see how convoluted the reasoning is.
We NEED MUST HAVE DESPERATELY AWAIT a very clear, UNDENIABLE HEAVENLY WITNESS the WoW is a COMMANDMENT, and the principle worth following.
But for other things, what the heck, my own wisdom is enough.
Brilliant. ;(

Yes when it comes to adults marrying children my own wisdom IS enough. Also, Jesus said the WoW is NOT a commandment, no heavenly messenger needed.

Also, are you for real? Are you just an exmo trolling people pretending to be a TBM?

[Jesef]

That has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. You shouldn't need someone to tell you it's wrong and you should stay away from anyone who tells you it's righteous.

At age 57 Lorenzo Snow married 16-year old Sara Minnie Ephramina Jensen. (had a child a year later. Lorenzo had actually been courting her since she was 14, but married at 16)

How old were the wives Abraham took after the death of his sister/wife Sarah? They bore him children but are not described as miracle births as was Sarah's. So they must have been at least 60 years younger than him.

You are going to need to do better than that if you are trying to build a case for a 57 year old man marrying a 16 year old girl.

Are you so blindly willing to follow the infallibility of the Brethren that you'd sacrifice your own morality and try to defend this garbage? Would you be ok with your 16 year old daughter marrying a righteous 57 year old man?

I'm not arguing with you, or against you but the legal marriage age was different in the early 1800's than it is today. We tend to look through todays acceptable norms in judging the past norms.

I whole heartedly agree with you on blindly following the infallibility of the brethren.

Sure, girls got married at 16 in the 1800's, just like Disney movie princesses, & just like my own Baptist grandmother. But a 60/70/80-something great-grandpa polygamist preying on some teenage pretty young thing, or even worse minimum age pubescent girl, using cult-of-plural-marriage & priesthood keys & promises - well, that's just sick. To bring it home, imagine one of the Apostles today courting your 15-year--old daughter or niece. NO, not okay. That kind of generation gap is indefensible & inexcusable. It looks very cult-like, as does polygamy overall. Those girls were robbed of something beautiful in their lives. Anyone who would defend this kind of abuse - well - I would want to know they think this is okay so I can keep them away from me & my daughters. Disgusting.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Those girls were robbed of something beautiful in their lives. Anyone who would defend this kind of abuse - well - I would want to know they think this is okay so I can keep them away from me & my daughters. Disgusting.

This was a major issue for me in my relationship with the church. Not specifically polygamy as practiced (gross), but the fact that I had to defend this kind of morality in order to defend the Brethren and the Church. Sexual perversion, extreme events of misrepresentation and overt deception, racism, etc. I, like JohnnyL had to twist my morality into some sort of moral relativism wasteland in order to venerate the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelators.

[Vision]

A beach goer would know LOL.

https://www.google.com.au/search?source ... UBbu-DAyS8

I regularly avoid them when beach walking. I have only been stung once, and that was more than enough.
One of my sons was badly stung recently when surfing.

I've been to your country before. After 2 weeks there I called my wife and said send my stuff and as soon as the house sales let me know what airport you'll be flying into because we are relocating.

[EmmaLee]

Perhaps the Brethren will add the commandment of no energy healing to the WoW soon?

Elder Ballard - from his October 2017 General Conference talk -

"In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge and expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support. An official church statement issued one year ago states, “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises-in exchange for money-miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”

The Church handbook counsels, “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.” (21.3.6)

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing, but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful."

[mgridle1]

Perhaps the Brethren will add the commandment of no energy healing to the WoW soon?

Elder Ballard - from his October 2017 General Conference talk -

"In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge and expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support. An official church statement issued one year ago states, “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises-in exchange for money-miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”

The Church handbook counsels, “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.” (21.3.6)

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing, but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful."

There is a reason why they came out against energy healing. If you read Mormon leaks-as much as I dispise then. One of the main ways in which Denver snuffer gained adherents was through energy healings... At least that is what a stake president reported to salt lake

[EmmaLee]

Perhaps the Brethren will add the commandment of no energy healing to the WoW soon?

Elder Ballard - from his October 2017 General Conference talk -

"In some places, too many of our people are looking beyond the mark and seeking secret knowledge and expensive and questionable practices to provide healing and support. An official church statement issued one year ago states, “We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises-in exchange for money-miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders.”

The Church handbook counsels, “Members should not use medical or health practices that are ethically or legally questionable. Local leaders should advise members who have health problems to consult with competent professional practitioners who are licensed in the countries where they practice.” (21.3.6)

Brothers and sisters, be wise and aware that such practices may be emotionally appealing, but may ultimately prove to be spiritually and physically harmful."

There is a reason why they came out against energy healing. If you read Mormon leaks-as much as I dispise then. One of the main ways in which Denver snuffer gained adherents was through energy healings... At least that is what a stake president reported to salt lake

Agreed. It's just interesting to me how some in this thread who claim the WoW is a commandment just because the apostles say so, have no problem believing in and working in energy healing (and getting paid for it, to boot), even though the apostles say to avoid it and steer clear of it. Goose/gander, pot/kettle, cafeteria Mormons, and all that.

[Jesef]

Ok, for the sake compromise & for the sake of reason, let’s say that the word of wisdom was magically turned into a commandment in 1851 at an obscure conference that nobody remembers & could only find in the Internet age.

So, hypothetically it’s a commandment now, how do you get prohibition (NO alcohol) from that when it permits alcoholic wine for Sacrament & mild alcoholic drinks such as beer/ale? It’s right there in plain English (just like “not by commandment or constraint”). What’s your leap of logic this time? The history says Pres. Grant supported the Prohibition movement (for political reasons, if you bother to study the pesky historical details again, which you probably won’t). But there it is, the current prohibition practices directly contradict the actual revelation which permits a few forms of alcohol. And we label all such as evil/unworthy.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Agreed. It's just interesting to me how some in this thread who claim the WoW is a commandment just because the apostles say so, have no problem believing in and working in energy healing (and getting paid for it, to boot), even though the apostles say to avoid it and steer clear of it. Goose/gander, pot/kettle, cafeteria Mormons, and all that.

I see the exact opposite. I would expect those with a literal belief in Prophetic infallibility to be all over the energy healing scene. Of course the pronouncement against it was just to dissuade the less valiant from participating or to confuse the gentiles.

[EmmaLee]

Agreed. It's just interesting to me how some in this thread who claim the WoW is a commandment just because the apostles say so, have no problem believing in and working in energy healing (and getting paid for it, to boot), even though the apostles say to avoid it and steer clear of it. Goose/gander, pot/kettle, cafeteria Mormons, and all that.

I see the exact opposite. I would expect those with a literal belief in Prophetic infallibility to be all over the energy healing scene.
Ha! At least one of them posting a great deal on this thread is all over the energy healing scene - hence my 'cafeteria Mormon' comment.

Of course the pronouncement against it was just to dissuade the less valiant from participating or to confuse the gentiles.
Ah yes, no doubt.

[BeNotDeceived]

A beach goer would know LOL.

https://www.google.com.au/search?source ... UBbu-DAyS8

I regularly avoid them when beach walking. I have only been stung once, and that was more than enough.
One of my sons was badly stung recently when surfing.

I've been to your country before. After 2 weeks there I called my wife and said send my stuff and as soon as the house sales let me know what airport you'll be flying into because we are relocating.

[Silver Pie]

Makes you wonder how and why tea and coffee were forbidden in the first place???

I really do wonder who made that a rule. Was it Pres Grant? The saints were drinking coffee and tea when they came out west. Even Joseph had a little alcohol to calm his nerves the night before he got killed (wine, I think).

Also, the scripture says we should drink wine for the sacrament. I wonder who changed that and when.

[Silver Pie]

You forgot judging....

I sure did.

[Silver Pie]

I've heard that by simply dropping calorated beverages only (soda, juice, energy drinks, flavored water, etc) this results in a guaranteed 10-15 lb drop in weight.

That happened to me when I was a teenager. I loved root beer and 7-Up. I stopped drinking them and lost 10-20 pounds.

Sorry, that guarantee is wrong. I didn't lose any weight when I quit soda. I did when I quit sweets but not soda.

Were you treating soda like a meal? Hmm, that's strange there was no change for you Yeah, dropping sweets in general definitely helps. I remember my mother being excited about finding a source for Entenmann's fat-free pastries and feeling it was all fair game. But they just replaced the fat with extra sugar. She can look back at it now and laugh at her train of logic.

Lol, no. But I wasn't drinking much soda, come to think of it. Maybe a handful of times per month? But eating sweets was a daily thing.

I never fell for the fat free, sugar free ploys. Always seemed too good to be true.

If you don't drink much of it, I expect you wouldn't see much of a difference. Now, me, I was a sugar-holic.

[Silver Pie]

“HOT drinks are not for the body or belly.” - D&C 89

“The working group found no conclusive evidence that drinking coffee or maté causes cancer. However, the scientists did conclude from their studies that drinking very HOT beverages of almost any type probably causes cancer of the esophagus.
https://www.medicinenet.com/very_hot_be ... /views.htm

No more soup either, I guess.

I don't like hot things (caliente not picante), and hot soup would definitely be on the list.

[Silver Pie]

Cool thing is, the WoW can be modified without even changing a word in Sec 89. Just chalk it up to misinterpretation, er, new revelation.

Exactly on target: new revelation.

They could have a new revelation telling them to follow the scripture as stated: "not by commandment" and not to drink hot drinks (which are unnamed in the revelation).

[Silver Pie]

I think the reason tea was banned back in Joseph Smith's day

Rumors aside, I'm not so sure it was banned in his day.

[Yahtzee]

Makes you wonder how and why tea and coffee were forbidden in the first place???

I really do wonder who made that a rule. Was it Pres Grant? The saints were drinking coffee and tea when they came out west. Even Joseph had a little alcohol to calm his nerves the night before he got killed (wine, I think).

Also, the scripture says we should drink wine for the sacrament. I wonder who changed that and when.

It was Grant. But he really had a bee in his bonnet about alcohol and was a staunch prohibitionist. I'm not sure if that's a word. I wish I had my old research. I wrote a paper about it all in college and spent many hours at special collections at BYU.
There's some great quotes from and about early leaders partaking.
I still struggle with this after doing all my research. It was very political. But I prayed for years and my answer, for what it's worth, is that God wanted his people to take those more seriously.
I'm still bothered by it though (oh me of little faith).