P
paul_c
Guest
How is this consistent with the view that God was once a man. The laws of physics would have to be in place during that time, right?
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
It is not. The idea that God was once a man is speculative and not genuine Mormon doctrine.
D
dianaiad
Guest
The opinion of “Christian” book stores (which, by the way, tend to put books about Catholicism in the ‘cult’ section too…) do not prove that a belief system is, or is not, a cult.
In fact, in my opinion any book store that even HAS a ‘cult’ section has condemned itself as intolerant, ignorant and absolutely not worth the custom of any intelligent seeker of truth, Christian or not.
Oh, goodness, was that opinion stated a little too strongly?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yeah, well…it’s true. A LOT of Mormons transfer the evil to the thing, rather than to the promise to abstain from it. I think it makes that abstention easier. It is also true that you can’t become an alcoholic if you never touch alcohol, and you never become addicted to nicotine if you never touch tobacco. So…(shrug) there is some merit in both approaches.Well, I honestly think it is great that can you make this distinction Diana. I respect your ability to have an insightful opinion here. Unfortunately, in my experience, you are a rare breed among orthodox Mormons in that respect.
I have heard so many LDS talk about the inherent evils of all substances included in the WoW. Alcohol abuse is tragic and I don’t mean to minimize it, but the fact is, it is not universal. I know too many people who consume modest amounts of alcohol will no ill effects. But after hearing so many LDS, all of whom had presumably never had a sip of alcohol ever, talk on and on about how universally evil it is… Well, I admit, I got a little impatient and began to tune out these monologues after hearing them for the umpteenth time.
And I myself am a tea drinker. And while I admit I drink it because I like tea and find it very comforting, I was pretty jazzed when I found out that there are studies that show that tea is a healthful thing to drink. (Of course there are opposite studies as well, that being the nature of science and all.) For me, a female with a significant family history of breast cancer – well, when some scientific studies indicated that tea seemed to be helpful wrt breast cancer, it made me glad, since I’ve been drinking it for years.
But tea according to some Mormons who don’t see things as you do…well, it’s bad in their view, and I was felt as if I was somehow “less than”, an inferior human being, because I drink it.
However, given that JS not only drank, but served alcohol AND some of his closest companions smoked…and given that the WoW was NOT originally any sort of commandment (health advice only)…and that when BY asked the saints to abstain from these things as part of their covenant obligations as LDS–I think it’s fairly obvious what the situation is.
P
paul_c
Guest
That’s not what has been said here. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is really Mormon doctrine among the Mormon’s posting here. Why is that?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Nope.Theosis I have read different opinions by LDS followers as to the age of the earth and it’s existence. Is it true that even in educational settings that the age of the earth is taught to be 5000 years?
While there ARE literal 24/7 creationist type Mormons out there (my mother used to be one until Dad and I made her see reason…; ) ), the majority of us are either full on evolutionists or have some opinion along the range between those two ends of the spectrum. No church school teaches it; certainly BYU does not!
The thing is, the church actually has no official theological position on the matter, except to say that the creation of humans was deliberate; we were made in God’s image. There’s no requirement that we believe that He did it in any specific way.
So…yeah, we have literal creationists. We also have evolutionists. It is not considered a "salvific’ issue.
D
dianaiad
Guest
It doesn’t.
S
sablouwho
Guest
I have seen this happen in traditional Judaism as well. The foods that are prohibited are “demonized” by some. Others rationalize that “oh, kashrut was a health code, so they wouldn’t get trichinosis from pigs.”Yeah, well…it’s true. A LOT of Mormons transfer the evil to the thing, rather than to the promise to abstain from it. I think it makes that abstention easier. It is also true that you can’t become an alcoholic if you never touch alcohol, and you never become addicted to nicotine if you never touch tobacco. So…(shrug) there is some merit in both approaches.
You’re the first orthodox Mormon to say this to me as well. I’ve heard people insist that it was a commandment from the beginning, despite my pointing to the words in the D&C that state otherwise…
Sorry to be dense, but what are you saying the situation is (or was) re: the WoW?and that when BY asked the saints to abstain from these things as part of their covenant obligations as LDS–I think it’s fairly obvious what the situation is.
Z
zerinus
Guest
If you want to get a genuine understanding of Mormon doctrine, study the standard works of the Church. Then you will really know.
D
dianaiad
Guest
What part of "we made a promise’ passed you by, Paul?
Ok, as a Catholic you believe in transubstantiation, right? In other words, the wine of the communion becomes, in a very literal and mystical way, the blood of Christ. Is it vital that this begins with wine? Is there something intrinsic in wine that nothing else would do? (and this isn’t a rhetorical question; I honestly do not know what the Catholic position is on this.)
So…what if there were no wine? What if the priest was there, and the communicant was there…but the only thing available was water–and for some reason there never WILL BE wine? Does that mean there can never be communion ever again?
I don’t know the answer in Catholic theology, but that actually did happen to Joseph Smith; a point at which there was no wine for communion. Not being Christ, HE could not turn the water into wine, but when he sought advice he received a revelation. Basically he was told that it wasn’t the form of the liquid that mattered, but what it represented. Water would do. Kool Aid would do. MILK would do. As a result, we use the simplest form; water and literally broken bread. We get a loaf of bread, and we tear it into small pieces. That is also symbolic, I think…it puts the emphasis where it belongs, on what it symbolises, not upon the material form of it.
Considering that we do not believe in transubstantiation, but rather that communion is a symbol of, and represents, the body and blood of Christ, then it doesn’t much matter what we use; bread and water, wine and wafers, milk and cookies—the point is the faith of the partakers, the authority of the priesthood involved, and the spirit of the sacrament.
After Joseph was murdered and the saints were being driven out, they were discouraged; in disarray, depressed and in some rather serious trouble. Many of them would die on the way west…many more would arrive with fewer fingers, toes and noses than they began with. ALL of them lost homes, family members, property…they gave up everything to be Mormon, and they felt like they had just been defeated. Brigham Young, whatever ELSE you might think of him, was a genius at dealing with this. He got everybody together. He organized them, encouraged them, and got them going in the right direction: west. One of the things he did was to ask everybody to make a promise; to make part of the Word of Wisdom a covenant between us and God. We will not use tobacco, alcohol, coffee or tea. Since everybody ELSE in the world uses these things, we will be different. We will not use them. We were ‘set apart’ by the world, so we went another step further in that; something that identifies us to ourselves and to others as different.
You have to admit, it certainly does that.
…and if a bunch of Mormons want to demonize the substances rather than recognize the real reason we abstain from them, well…that’s human nature. The fact is, when used unwisely those substances ARE harmful…and tobacco isn’t good for you no matter how little one uses. While there are some alcoholic drinks that are good for you, grape juice has the same advantages. As for coffee and tea? Well, I guess we’ll just have to say…sorry, we don’t drink that. We are Mormons.
And THAT, my friend, is why we don’t. We are Mormons. We promised not to…and it is part of who we are.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Hmmn… I don’t know. I’m of the opinion that since God created the universe, He also created the physical laws by which the universe operates. However, that’s just me.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Which ones?
T
TheosisM
Guest
Simple: wine is used because that is what Jesus used.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Possibly because, in spite of what the anti’s accuse us of, Mormons have minds of their own and actually use them to form their own opinions.
As it happens, core LDS doctrine isn’t as wide ranging as the antis want it to be.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I’ve heard that as well. In fact, it makes sense. I would imagine that God would want to protect His people, right? There might well be other reasons for them to avoid swine, but that, I imagine, would have been one of 'em.
I’ve honestly never heard a Mormon say that to me, sablou…Hmmn. It was certainly strongly worded advice, though.You’re the first orthodox Mormon to say this to me as well. I’ve heard people insist that it was a commandment from the beginning, despite my pointing to the words in the D&C that state otherwise…
The Word of Wisdom ALSO tells us to avoid meat in the summer, eat mostly grains and vegies (especially wheat), and to behave in other rather healthy ways. However, nobody is going to be refused a Temple recommend because they serve hamburgers on the 4th of July picnic…but they WILL be if they serve (and drink) coffee or beer at that same event.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Indeed…but why did He use wine? Did He make a specific demand for wine rather than some other beverage, or…was it simply handy because that’s what they happened to be drinking?Simple: wine is used because that is what Jesus used.
Please don’t get me wrong; tradition is great and there’s no reason to disparage that as a reason for using wine. It’s just that…what happens if wine isn’t handy and water is? What’s more important, the wine–or the communion of saints that the wine serves? It is that question which Joseph faced that day, and our use of water/bread rather than wine/wafers is our answer to it.
T
TheosisM
Guest
I don’t think that it’s looked at as “why” Jesus used wine instead of something else. It’s just that He used wine, so that’s what is used (and perhaps why the usual response to the Mormon Sacrament is "they use water?!?
)If there is no wine, then the Mass is not done (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). The “rules” require wine made from grapes. Now, Catholic parishes “reserve” consecrated hosts in the tabernacle, so that a Catholic can partake of the Eucharist outside of a Mass (deacons take the Eucharist to the sick, for example). It is of course important to note that Catholics believe that Jesus is fully present (body, blood, soul and divinity) in the bread and the wine each, so that one does not have to partake in both to receive the “full” Eucharist (hence why it is only required that the priest partake of the wine). So in theory, if there was a time or place that wine was not available, hopefully there are consecrated hosts available for Catholics to partake of.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, this is a different view for both of us. For us, what is required is some form of liquid, some form of ‘bread’ (very broadly defined…) and the priesthood authority. There doesn’t have to be any consecrated anything, since whatever we use is consecrated during the administration of the Sacrament. It makes things a lot simpler, if less…I’m not certain what word works here; “formal” isn’t quite right. Having specific consecrated wafers and a specific wine (from grapes) helps, I’m certain, to get those about to participate in the spirit of things; they are very powerful symbols, those things that are made specifically to become the Host. It adds to the…pageantry? No, that’s not quite right either.I don’t think that it’s looked at as “why” Jesus used wine instead of something else. It’s just that He used wine, so that’s what is used (and perhaps why the usual response to the Mormon Sacrament is "they use water?!?
If there is no wine, then the Mass is not done (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). The “rules” require wine made from grapes. Now, Catholic parishes “reserve” consecrated hosts in the tabernacle, so that a Catholic can partake of the Eucharist outside of a Mass (deacons take the Eucharist to the sick, for example). It is of course important to note that Catholics believe that Jesus is fully present (body, blood, soul and divinity) in the bread and the wine each, so that one does not have to partake in both to receive the “full” Eucharist (hence why it is only required that the priest partake of the wine). So in theory, if there was a time or place that wine was not available, hopefully there are consecrated hosts available for Catholics to partake of.
Am I making ANY sense?
H
Holly3278
Guest
Catholics lack nothing for salvation but Mormons lack plenty. Catholics should be trying to convert Mormons (and we do) not the other way around.
S
sablouwho
Guest
I’ve actually heard another explanation that I find much more plausible, taught to me by one of my profs who is an OT expert. It’s basically a version of what you just said about BY in a reply to PaulC upthread. The gist: Leviticus was written by the P source (priestly writer/writers–this according to documentary hypothesis) during the exile. At the time the Israelites were downtrodden (as they often were). Poof!! All of a sudden we have these old laws, ahem…written by their ancestor, the prophets Moses!-- that further differentiates them from other groups of people. It gave them an identity, made it impossible for them to eat with people outside of their own group, and helped them survive by giving them an identity. They didn’t know that Moses didn’t really write it…I’ve heard that as well. In fact, it makes sense. I would imagine that God would want to protect His people, right? There might well be other reasons for them to avoid swine, but that, I imagine, would have been one of 'em.
My prof speculates that the prohibition on pigs might have come about because “hey, our enemies, the Philistines, eat them. Let’s tell our people not to.”
I’ve wondered about this in a few ways. My first question was: Why follow only part of it? Of course, if one subscribes to the view of the WoW as you do regarding BY, well, then, yes, following only part of it (the parts that he made into a “practice/promise/policy”) makes sense. But for those LDS who seem to think it really is a commandment from on high, only to follow part of it…well that doesn’t make sense to me.The Word of Wisdom ALSO tells us to avoid meat in the summer, eat mostly grains and vegies (especially wheat), and to behave in other rather healthy ways. However, nobody is going to be refused a Temple recommend because they serve hamburgers on the 4th of July picnic…but they WILL be if they serve (and drink) coffee or beer at that same event.
Another question that I have had is: What about the parts of the “health” aspects that are not actually healthy for large groups of people? For instance, eating all those grains preferentially over animal protein is, in my case and in the case of a sizable number of people with the same condition (it isn’t celiac, btw), is a recipe for sickness, not health.
I guess the answer to the query I’ve asked above depends on how one views the WoW origins. Truly revelation from God thru JS? That, to me is more than a little iffy because I know that this is not a healthy way for me or others with my condition to eat. And God would, presumably, know this too. Thus it is hard for me to understand how he would inspire a prophet to give “health” advice that would wind up not being healthy for groups of people. But if it is just some advice that JS gave, his own best attempt, well, that’s something different.
- Status