Latter-day Pharisees & the Word of Wisdom

195 views
Skip to first unread message

stanz

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 9:25:35 PM8/8/01
to
Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.

For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?

D&C 89:
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.

These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
winter, cold or famine right? Yet when I go to an LDS picnic, potluck
or campout, there is nothing sparing about the meat consumption. And
typically we are not picnicing in the winter, cold or famine.
It would be interesting to know how many pigs and cows die in
celebration of pioneer day in Utah in the middle of the dog days of
summer.
Yet when it comes to something as harmless as drinking the occasional
caffeinated soda, many Mormons are under the mistaken impression that
it is definitely forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, which it is not, nor
has the church ever taken a stand on the issue. Isn't this absaining
from caffinated soft drinks, just a pharisaic tradition of men rather
than a real commandment from God? Especially considering that a normal
8oz. chocolate candy bar has more caffeine (48mg.) in it than a 12 oz.
Can of Coke (46 mg). Every woman in the LDS church would be ready to
string you up for herasy if you suggested that chocolate was forbidden
by the Word of Wisdom, but drink a coke & "Oh my! Heaven forbid!
You're going straight to hell in a handbasket!"
The positive benefits (increased energy, allertness, headache relief &
added adrenaline)of small quantities of Caffeine (50-200 mg. per day)
vastly outweigh any negative effects. Granted, large amounts (over 300
mg./day) of caffeine can be addictive and lead to insomnia, anxiety
and nervousness, but nobody recommends drinking 6 cans of Coke a day,
but what about a Coke every other day, or once or twice a day? Is that
such a bad thing?
The effects of caffeine on small kids is much more concentrated, since
they are much smaller and no good parent would let their small
children consume quantities of caffeine to the point where it had
adverse effects, but in moderation it is not a bad drug. It is sort of
like aspirin which is recommended daily for people at risk of heart
problems. Caffeine is actually used in large quantities in Excedrin
and other aspirins to increase the effect of constricting blood
vessels in the brain, thus more quickly relieving headaches.
It may sound like I am trying to justify an addiction to caffeine, but
I rarely drink caffinated soda myself, maybe once or twice a month,
certainly never enough for it to become a habit. I just think it is
one of those issues that people latch onto, like the Pharisees of old
and say, "If I am living this traditional interpretation of the law,
then I am really righteous and you are not if you do not subscribe to
my personal interpretation." Even though they are clearly not even
living the spirit of the law. I am quite certain that if Christ were
on the earth he would not hesitate to judge these people and call them
what they are......Latter-day Pharisees.
Don't get me wrong, I can see and have experienced the benefits that
come from living what really is in the Word of Wisdom by abstaining
from drugs, alcohol, and hot drinks (which we know now through latter
day revelation means, tea and coffee) and I know it is divinely
inspired, and I am sure I would benefit from moderating my intake of
meat, which I have attempted to do, but when it comes to people's
personal gospel hobbies and pharisical beliefs that are not even
addressed by the scriptures, it makes me think, "Aren't there much
larger issues to deal with in your life?"
I know there are in mine!

CommUnitarian

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 9:39:00 PM8/8/01
to
>st...@mstar2.net (stanz)
wrote:


>
>These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
>winter, cold or famine right?

One must read the verses in the context in which they were given.

For instance, some sects refuse all medical treatment, and insist that
patients be anointed with oil, and then prayed over. What this overlooks is
that anointing with oil was pretty much the sum total of modern medicine in
Bible times. The patient was given the best medical care, and the situation was
then turned over to God. For a modern cancer patient to reject radiation
therapy in favor of anointing with oil, and then expect God to take up the
slack is sadly misguided.

Notice that the injuction in D&C is to use meat during times of famine, and
times of cold. The cold part is simply because modern refrigeration was not
available in those days and meat could not be preserved without packing it with
a great deal of salt (which is definitely unhealthy.) Anyone who has read
descriptions of African trading marts, with exposed raw meat hanging the open
covered with flies would have some idea of the difference between the 1830's
and the modern U.S.

Moses wrote an injunction against eating pork, which was good advice to
folks who did not have giant electric ovens to roast their meat in and kill
swine parasites. It does not apply to us today.

Some day, when the emotions of men and women are different, and a woman
does not crave to have the sole attention of the man she is married to, even
the Book of Mormon injunction against polygamy may become obolete.

Perhaps the word of wisdom is deficient in not advising us to avoid potato
salad at picnics or cautioning us against trying to microwave uncooked meat.

Raleigh
Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind.
--Col. Zachary Smith, USAF, awol.

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 10:19:45 PM8/8/01
to

stanz <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...

> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.

My favorite example from this year was on the lesson entitled "Be Not
Decieved but Continue in Steadfastness". The instructor wrote on the board:

A pint of cream.
A mispelled name.
A lack of seating.

And then had us guess what these all had in common. Someone who'd read
ahead answered, "They're all causes over which someone left the Church."
(The "apostates" in question were Thomas B. Marsh, Simonds Ryder, and
Frazier Eaton.)

Now, logic tells me that people have left the Church for far more legitimate
concerns. But the manual has zip to say about anyone with a real gripe
leaving the Church! C'mon Salt Lake! There are some of us out here who
resent being treated like imbeciles!!

> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
> D&C 89:
> 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.

Well, the WOW was given not by way of commandment, but as good advice.
Seems that more contemporary prophesy disagrees with Joseph's original
revelation. Perhaps the Saints in Joseph Jr.'s time weren't ready for the
higher law.

And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
non-alcoholic.

Even though the wine mentioned in Eph 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine,
wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" must have been potent.
Must be a mistranslation. Darn that inaccurate Bible anyway.

> These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
> winter, cold or famine right? Yet when I go to an LDS picnic, potluck
> or campout, there is nothing sparing about the meat consumption. And
> typically we are not picnicing in the winter, cold or famine.
> It would be interesting to know how many pigs and cows die in
> celebration of pioneer day in Utah in the middle of the dog days of
> summer.

I swear I've read this recently. You're not reposting, are you?

I must be off. Thanks for the diversion. Your points are well taken and I
feel you pain. You are right that there are much larger issues in life and
religion to be concerned with. You know, like not oppressing free speech,
and keeping religious belief systems out of politics.

-Xan

ForWhatItsWorth

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 8:45:50 AM8/9/01
to

"stanz" <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
>
> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
I would prefer to ask about another always-overlooked portion of the WoW:

D&C 89:17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the
horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field,
and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

Now, what "mild drink" do you suppose is made from barley, as also other
grain? Why, only that most ancient and honorable of uses for the humble
herb, the making of beer. Which, until Prohibition, wasn't even frowned
upon in the Church.....

Ah, well....

fwiw

<snip bis ende>


Fool Speck

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 10:22:27 AM8/9/01
to
st...@mstar2.net (stanz) wrote in message news:<81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com>...

> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.

While there are many of these instances, what is even more interesting
is what has been deleted, changed, or replaced. For instance, the
first edition of the D&C, section 101:4 reads:

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication, and polygamy: We declare that we believe, that one
man should have one wife: and one woman, but one husband, except in
the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

The first edition was printed in 1835, and was included in every other
edition until 1876. At that time section 132 was inserted. The RLDS
still retain this section in their version of the D&C.

This section was often quoted (verbally as well as in print) as a
rebuttal to accusations of polygamy, even when those quoting it knew
it was a lie.

The LDS consider the D&C sacred scripture and thus from the mouth of
God. I cannot recall any other scriptures of any of the world's
population that was known by them to be an absolute lie. And not only
a lie, but used as a deception in proselyting the innocent where they
would not find out the truth until they were nearly penniless, having
traveled thousands of miles to an isolated section of the world.

With irrefutable evidence such as this, how can anyone believe that
Mormonism is anything but a tainted, man-made religion?

> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?

While this is a matter of observance and not a reflection of the
source, there are plenty of other references that conflict. One is
the BoM's condemnation of David and Solomon's practice of plural
wives.

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which
thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord," Jacob 2:24. In
contrast to this, we read in Doc. & Cov. 132:1 that David and Solomon
were justified because of polygamy!

But as you mention, the WoW is really a logical morass when it comes
to interpretation:

It forbids hot drinks. How can iced tea or coffee ever be considered
"hot drinks"? Was the Lord unaware that technology was going to
progress to the point that ice was going to be available to anyone
year 'round?

If "hot drinks" meant all forms of tea and coffee, why didn't the Lord
just say "tea and coffee" instead of obfuscating a "plain and precious
truth"?

If the WoW were so important, why didn't Joseph himself observe it?
While residing in Nauvoo, there are many first hand accounts of his
violating the WoW. For instance he wrote in his journal that a
convert treated him to some old, excellent wine. He was observed
riding down main street Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Brigham Young quotes
Joseph as accusing Emma of poisoning his coffee.

In short, Joseph couldn't get a temple recommend today on any number
of points.

Mormonism has evolved into an entirely different religion, taking a
very convoluted path. It has changed from a rather liberal religion
into a very conservative religion, the leadership exercising just as
much control today as the membership will tolerate.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 11:03:04 AM8/9/01
to
In article <81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com>,
st...@mstar2.net (stanz) wrote:

> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
>
> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
> D&C 89:
> 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.
>
> These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
> winter, cold or famine right?

€ In Africa, thousands of children starve to death daily. This is
undoubtedly a time of famine, so fire up the barbee. .

>Yet when I go to an LDS picnic, potluck
> or campout, there is nothing sparing about the meat consumption. And
> typically we are not picnicing in the winter, cold or famine.
> It would be interesting to know how many pigs and cows die in
> celebration of pioneer day in Utah in the middle of the dog days of
> summer.
> Yet when it comes to something as harmless as drinking the occasional
> caffeinated soda, many Mormons are under the mistaken impression that
> it is definitely forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, which it is not, nor
> has the church ever taken a stand on the issue. Isn't this absaining
> from caffinated soft drinks, just a pharisaic tradition of men rather
> than a real commandment from God?

€ Yes. Pharisaic tradition tells it like it is. There will always be
amoung us those who get-off on controlling others. Such persons were
pretty obvoiusly those who managed to get an itinerant preacher executed
19 centuries ago by the Romans.

> Especially considering that a normal
> 8oz. chocolate candy bar has more caffeine (48mg.) in it than a 12 oz.
> Can of Coke (46 mg). Every woman in the LDS church would be ready to
> string you up for herasy if you suggested that chocolate was forbidden
> by the Word of Wisdom, but drink a coke & "Oh my! Heaven forbid!
> You're going straight to hell in a handbasket!"

€ For a pregnant woman, caffiene is probably not a good thing. However,
for those who are not pregnant, caffiene is the diet reduces the occurence
of bladder stones.

> The positive benefits (increased energy, allertness, headache relief &
> added adrenaline)of small quantities of Caffeine (50-200 mg. per day)
> vastly outweigh any negative effects. Granted, large amounts (over 300
> mg./day) of caffeine can be addictive and lead to insomnia, anxiety
> and nervousness, but nobody recommends drinking 6 cans of Coke a day,
> but what about a Coke every other day, or once or twice a day? Is that
> such a bad thing?
> The effects of caffeine on small kids is much more concentrated, since
> they are much smaller and no good parent would let their small
> children consume quantities of caffeine to the point where it had
> adverse effects, but in moderation it is not a bad drug. It is sort of
> like aspirin which is recommended daily for people at risk of heart
> problems. Caffeine is actually used in large quantities in Excedrin
> and other aspirins to increase the effect of constricting blood
> vessels in the brain, thus more quickly relieving headaches.
> It may sound like I am trying to justify an addiction to caffeine, but
> I rarely drink caffinated soda myself, maybe once or twice a month,
> certainly never enough for it to become a habit.

€ RCC priestcrafters preach that rubber leads to the hot place. LDS
priestcrafters preach that coffee leads to the hot place. My guess is
that both get off on authoritarian teaching.
-- - at the risk of being boring, ³I know that most men, including those
who are at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom
accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would
oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they had delighted
in explaining to colleagues, which they had proudly taught to others, and
which they had woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.²
- L. Tolstoy


>I just think it is
> one of those issues that people latch onto, like the Pharisees of old
> and say, "If I am living this traditional interpretation of the law,
> then I am really righteous and you are not if you do not subscribe to
> my personal interpretation." Even though they are clearly not even
> living the spirit of the law. I am quite certain that if Christ were
> on the earth he would not hesitate to judge these people and call them
> what they are......Latter-day Pharisees.

€ I think see an excommunication on the horizon.

> Don't get me wrong, I can see and have experienced the benefits that
> come from living what really is in the Word of Wisdom by abstaining
> from drugs, alcohol, and hot drinks (which we know now through latter
> day revelation means, tea and coffee)

€ However, "hot drinks" also mean iced tea and iced coffee.

> and I know it is divinely
> inspired, and I am sure I would benefit from moderating my intake of
> meat, which I have attempted to do, but when it comes to people's

> personal gospel hobbies ...

€ RE: "gospel hobbies": delightsome.

> and pharisical beliefs that are not even
> addressed by the scriptures, it makes me think, "Aren't there much
> larger issues to deal with in your life?"
> I know there are in mine!

/
€ It is no surprise that the org. doesn't release infomation on the
bailout rate. / Did not someone say let no one judge you in eating or
drinking?

cheers, Mr. S.

--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 12:44:40 PM8/9/01
to
In article <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

€ Creation without fermentation? So when did God get around to creating
Yeast? How was it that the guests at the wedding feast in Cána came to
be falling down drunk?


> ...

cheers

Leigh Cowley

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 4:51:05 PM8/9/01
to
It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
remember is that it is a call for obedience. It does not matter
whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
We are to use all things in moderation. As for the meat question, as
it was answered, back at the time when the commandment was given, they
did not have any way to keep it. When it says to use only in times of
famine or winter, it means that this can be the only time you eat meat
as the whole part of the meal. Why? Because there was usually nothing
else to eat. When you have access to fruits and vegetables then use
it sparingly. I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
Leigh

Mids

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 5:51:29 PM8/9/01
to
Where does one go within the church to take a Gospel Doctrine Class. Do they
teach it at every ward? stake?

Thank you.

////////* * * * */////////
Mids
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

newguy

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:33:18 PM8/9/01
to

stanz wrote in message <81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com>...

I'm not sure stanz. When you get my age, 75, and having had to deal with
some serious medical problems that probably could have been passed had I
eaten better at a younger age. But your right about the church's fixation
with these 'hot drinks'. I don't think using tea and coffee is bad for one
if used with wisdom. Excess in anything, I think, will cause problems. As
for meat, my Dr. told me to eat red meat very sparingly after my heart
surgery, so, perhaps it is good advice coming from the WOW. I'm not a
Mormon, but health certainly is an important item in your life, along with
other isssues. I know they are mine. newguy


newguy

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:37:15 PM8/9/01
to

Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...

I don't remember reading that it was non-alcoholic. Perhaps you could
enlighten me? newguy
>


newguy

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:39:05 PM8/9/01
to

ForWhatItsWorth <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote in message
<3b7286e5$0$35...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net>...

Now, it certainly is not frowned upon out of church! newguy

Bryce

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 6:37:23 PM8/9/01
to

Leigh Cowley wrote:

> It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
> remember is that it is a call for obedience.

A call to whom? Remember that Joseph Smith himself split a bottle of
wine with his fellow captives in Carthage. Was he disobeying the Word
of Wisdom? Or has the nature of the Word of Wisdom changed since the
good old days?


>It does not matter
> whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
> make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
> are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
> commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
> commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
> teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
> such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
> personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
> personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
> his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.

Certainly, the Lord has allowed a lot of confusion to reign over the
subject of caffeine. Why doesn't He just give some "further revelation"
on the matter?


> We are to use all things in moderation. As for the meat question, as
> it was answered, back at the time when the commandment was given, they
> did not have any way to keep it.

Why is it that the same people who claim that "God's ways" are
unknowably higher than ours, yet also claim to be able to tell us
exactly what He was thinking in a given instance? Now Leigh claims,
without any evidence to back him up, that he knows God's reasoning
behind this commandment.

Contrary to Leigh's assertions, there was a way to preserve meat during
the summertime. It was called salting. So unless you can show me the
passage in the Word of Wisdom that exempts beef jerky, or explain how
dried meat is no longer meat, this is entirely your own speculation.


> When it says to use only in times of
> famine or winter, it means that this can be the only time you eat meat
> as the whole part of the meal. Why? Because there was usually nothing
> else to eat.

Yeah. It was certainly impossible to store grain through the winter.


When you have access to fruits and vegetables then use
> it sparingly. I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> Leigh

Funny how the Mormon Church seems to be softpedalling the "alcohol and
tobacco are evil" message in favor of the "it's a matter of obedience"
message. I asked a couple of missionaries about this a while back, and
got basically the same message Leigh is giving here.

The unfortunate side effect? Now, instead of being too weak to do
"what's right," investigators and inactive members are too weak to
follow a nearly arbitrary rule which some fellow claimed to be from God.


Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.

newguy

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 7:14:53 PM8/9/01
to

Fool Speck wrote in message
<9dcdb6ed.01080...@posting.google.com>...

Very interesting info, thanks. newguy


newguy

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 7:17:46 PM8/9/01
to

Mids wrote in message <20010809175129...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...

>Where does one go within the church to take a Gospel Doctrine Class. Do
they
>teach it at every ward? stake?
>
>Thank you.

It is taught in every ward during the second hour. The first hour is for
sacrament meeting. Then the Gospel Doctrine class. Finally, the women go
to Relief Society meetings and the men go to Priesthoofd meetings. newguy

newguy

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 7:21:17 PM8/9/01
to

Leigh Cowley wrote in message
<51ea418.01080...@posting.google.com>...

Apparently you are correct. newguy


R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 9:41:22 PM8/9/01
to
In article <tn63qpl...@corp.supernews.com>, "newguy"
<cerb...@saber.net> wrote:

> Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >stanz <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
> >news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...

> >> ... ... ...


> >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> >non-alcoholic.
>
> I don't remember reading that it was non-alcoholic. Perhaps you could
> enlighten me? newguy
>

// One of my Baptist neighbors told me that the type of alcohol produced
by fermentation 2000 years ago was not intoxicating. She also assured me
that the earth was really 6000 years old, just like the Bible says, and
that dinosaur fossils were artifically aged by God in order to convince
scientests that not every word in the Bible is true.

cheers, N.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 9:47:31 PM8/9/01
to
In article <3B7310A3...@yahoo.com>, Bryce <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
> > It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
> > remember is that it is a call for obedience.
>
> A call to whom? Remember that Joseph Smith himself split a bottle of
> wine with his fellow captives in Carthage. Was he disobeying the Word
> of Wisdom? Or has the nature of the Word of Wisdom changed since the
> good old days?
>
>
> >It does not matter
> > whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
> > make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
> > are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
> > commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
> > commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
> > teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
> > such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
> > personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
> > personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
> > his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
>
> Certainly, the Lord has allowed a lot of confusion to reign over the
> subject of caffeine. Why doesn't He just give some "further revelation"
> on the matter?
>

>... ... ...
€ My guess is that LDS "revelations" are fabrications.

cheers

Tyler Waite

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 1:06:48 AM8/10/01
to
What do you expect from a bunch of European cattle ranchers, dairymen, and
avid hunters? Eating meat is and has been in grained in them for
generations. Besides if you ruled out animal products they'd have to give
up JELLO!

The thing I think is strange is how so many mormons believe caffiene is the
offending chemical in coffee but if the caffiene is found in a soft drink or
like you point out in chocolate then all of the sudden caffiene isn't so
bad.

I agree with Bryce there needs to be further light and knowlege on this at
the very least a rebuke for not following the meat advice.


Fool Speck

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 10:13:47 AM8/10/01
to
cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote in message news:<51ea418.01080...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

> I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> Leigh

Since Joseph Smith ignored the WoW, I guess he was culled from the
Church as well. But in my opinion, the irrefutable evidence which
comes from Church publications *proves* something much more nefarious
than his drinking coffee, using tobacco, and drinking alcohol.

While he was practicing polygamy,

1) he was breaking Illinois law,

2) he denied publicly he practiced polygamy,

3) he authorized publication of a section of the D&C which lied about
the official policy on polygamy while stating that polygamy was a
crime,

4) he ordered the destruction of a press that presented evidence that
he DID practice polygamy.

So much for honoring and sustaining the law.

The irrefutability of the above statements can be established by
references in LDS publications, with the exception of #1 which can be
established in Illinois statutes after 1833.

Do you have the courage to investigate this? I suspect not! Past
postings on this topic had the True Believing Mormons (TBMs) admitting
that the sources were valid. (After all, the citations were LDS
publications and were in context.) Their only recourse was then to
try to justify that a person can and should commit any sin if the Lord
commands it.

Steve

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 10:51:19 AM8/10/01
to
In article <9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com>,
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:

> cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote in message
news:<51ea418.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> > of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> > Leigh
>
> Since Joseph Smith ignored the WoW, I guess he was culled from the
> Church as well. But in my opinion, the irrefutable evidence which
> comes from Church publications *proves* something much more nefarious
> than his drinking coffee, using tobacco, and drinking alcohol.
>
> While he was practicing polygamy,
>
> 1) he was breaking Illinois law,
>

€ none of the "marriages" except the one to Emma Hale were legit. The
rest were mostly booty thangs. For example, from March to September of
1843, he "married" 7 teenbabes.

> 2) he denied publicly he practiced polygamy,
>

€ It was a commandment from "THE LORD" -- backed up by an angel swingin'
a flamin' sword - presumably in the direction of Smith's reproductive
equipment..

> 3) he authorized publication of a section of the D&C which lied about
> the official policy on polygamy while stating that polygamy was a
> crime,
>
> 4) he ordered the destruction of a press that presented evidence that
> he DID practice polygamy.
>

€ Worse yet, Emmons and Law had gotten wind of Joseph, Junior's covert
"Kingship" (4-11-1844). Would Americans be likely to vote for a Kingly
candidate for President?



> So much for honoring and sustaining the law.
>

€ Joseph, Junior's law was boink receptive young stuff.

> The irrefutability of the above statements can be established by
> references in LDS publications, with the exception of #1 which can be
> established in Illinois statutes after 1833.
>
> Do you have the courage to investigate this? I suspect not! Past
> postings on this topic had the True Believing Mormons (TBMs) admitting
> that the sources were valid. (After all, the citations were LDS
> publications and were in context.) Their only recourse was then to
> try to justify that a person can and should commit any sin if the Lord
> commands it.
>

€ Indeed, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

cheers, Steve

Leigh Cowley

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 11:45:22 AM8/10/01
to
Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain. He gave us a commandment to
interpret the way we want. Common sense tells us not to use these
substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
is given as revelation is a good standard to live by. But all this
means nothing if we do not obey. The purpose is to show obedience.
Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
what ever reason. The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
trying to be better then we were. Don't you think this is a worthy
goal? It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
further yourself. That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
commandment given. Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
task.
Leigh

stanz

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 12:17:04 PM8/10/01
to
cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote in message news:<51ea418.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
> remember is that it is a call for obedience.

Obedience to what? The word of God, or the traditions of men.
You contradict yourself if you say obedience to the Word of God and
then go wolf down a death tube. If you say the point is to be
obedient, then why do 99.9% of mormons wolf down meat like Trex's at a
BBQ when God has said, it is pleasing unto him that we not eat the
flesh of the beasts of the field or the fowls in the air, except in
times of winter, cold or famine? (Apparently he did not care about the
fish in the sea however, so fish on!)

> Those who
> are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
> commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
> commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
> teaches,

Time out, where's the part about the meat? Has the church come out and
said, "We have received a further revelation about the WOW. What God
really meant in D&C 89:12-13 is that it only applied to those without
refrigeration. Now that you have your freezer loaded with beef, go
ahead and wolf it down like a Trex at at BBQ?" or does the WOW still
apply to us? I am saying it does. The part about caffeine, since it is
not in the WOW, does not apply.
You are trying to give people a guilt complex about not following the
WOW or believing the way you do, when you don't even follow the
"commandment" yourself, unless you are a vegetarian.

> I personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
> personally.

How noble!

> I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
> his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.

It has however told us not to partake of drinks that contain
ingredients that are harmfull to our body under circumstances that
would lead to a habit,(to become addicted)Which is wise advice.
Unfortunately for your son if he does not heed the advice, aside from
the addiction problem, large quantities of caffiene can be very
delliterious.

> We are to use all things in moderation.

Exaclty. But apparently you were not as successfull at teaching your
own son this principle as you are at preaching it to us.

> As for the meat question, as
> it was answered, back at the time when the commandment was given, they
> did not have any way to keep it.

It is amazing that the Jews have been able to keep their dietary laws
for thousands of years prior to the Mormons and to this day, yet the
Mormons find it too difficult to do without meat, especially when it
is open season on deer in Utah!
I remember going to visit my girlfriend's mormon family in American
Fork, Utah for the first time. After she introduced me the first words
out of her uncle's mouth were, "Do you hunt?"
What kind of a question is that to ask of a prospective family member,
especially coming from a good mormon, who is commanded not to eat
meat?

> I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> Leigh

What is that supposed to mean? He gave us a law that we would not keep
so that we would be dissobedient and feel self righteous enough to
ignore God's commandments? Better start looking for a fig leaf to
cover up your nakedness Leigh, he's coming! Either it is a law or it
is not. Until we hear otherwise, it seems like hypocracy to pick and
choose which asspects of it we will follow.
If the original sin was for Adam and Eve to disregarding God's
commandment to not partake of the fruit, then what is the difference
between that and us ignoring his commandment not to partake of the
meat?
This mumbo jumbo about refrigeration seems like a whole lot of
justification to me. Until I hear that the prophet has received modern
revelation that it is o.k. to eat meat whenever we want, now that we
have refrigeration, I am going to take the Lord at his word and not
dance around the issue. Looks like I am going veggetarian.

Stan

newguy

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 12:30:01 PM8/10/01
to

R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
<2-0908011...@port20.dial.vcnet.com>...

Amazing! Apparently the Bible is so true that we must change the real God
into the Bible God to support it. newguy


newguy

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 12:32:11 PM8/10/01
to

Bryce wrote in message <3B7310A3...@yahoo.com>...

>
>
>Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
>> It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
>> remember is that it is a call for obedience.
>
>A call to whom? Remember that Joseph Smith himself split a bottle of
>wine with his fellow captives in Carthage. Was he disobeying the Word
>of Wisdom? Or has the nature of the Word of Wisdom changed since the
>good old days?
>
>
>>It does not matter
>> whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
>> make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
>> are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
>> commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
>> commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
>> teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
>> such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
>> personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
>> personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
>> his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
>
>Certainly, the Lord has allowed a lot of confusion to reign over the
>subject of caffeine. Why doesn't He just give some "further revelation"
>on the matter?

Better yet, why did He make the damn stuff and if caffeine is that bad, why
doesn't he get rid of it like He did all the sinners in the Bible? newguy

newguy

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 12:34:16 PM8/10/01
to

Tyler Waite wrote in message <9kviqu$ifj$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...

The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy
>
>


newguy

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 12:35:11 PM8/10/01
to

Leigh Cowley wrote in message
<51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com>...

I could be more obedient if the Lord said to give up broccoli. newguy


newguy

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 12:43:14 PM8/10/01
to

stanz wrote in message <81c5f1d6.0108...@posting.google.com>...

Yes, would drink it if it had no effect on on you? newguy
I also keep the WOW because the Dr. told me after my heart surgery to eat
meat sparingly. Apparently you and I are very obedient people! :-)) newguy


Leigh Cowley

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 3:52:17 PM8/10/01
to
Steve, when I read your last post, I had to giggle. I did not mean to,
but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom? This is
something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?
Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
embellishing your point. It is always refutable. There are always
answers. You may not agree with it, but answers still the same. I use
to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
Smith take over the person of Brigham. Others could not. Many of those
who could not left the church. Those who did were ready to continue to
build the kingdom of God on earth. They went through some terrible
trials, and were blessed because they did. Those who left drifted and
eventually dropped from sight. This is just one example. There are
modern ones I could express, but suffice to say that even though we do
not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs. For
anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
Leigh

CharlesSWaters

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 2:33:04 PM8/10/01
to

"Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...

> Steve, when I read your last post, I had to giggle. I did not mean to,
> but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom?

This "giggling" reminds of the giggles that Joseph Smith may have got from
the teenagers he approached, married, and sent up to his bedroom. Of
course, I need to mention that one young lady refused to meet with Joseph
Smith because she didn't want to end up in his bed. She said, "I'd rather
be a virtuous women in hell than a whore in heaven". She later gave birth
to a future prophet of the church (Joseph was not the father), but I
digress.

> This is
> something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
> belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
> answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?

It wasn't answered well. The topic raises more questions than the Word of
Wisdom.

> Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
> embellishing your point. It is always refutable.

Yea, one can always refuse to open their eyes.

> There are always
> answers. You may not agree with it, but answers still the same.

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

The question is not the lack of *answers* but what are the truths?

> I use
> to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
> off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
> thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
> was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
> members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
> that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
> the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
> things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
> closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
> am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
> question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
> the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
> Smith take over the person of Brigham.

Did you answer the polygamy questions? Why not?

As to the Brigham sounding like Joseph, all writings on this are 50 years
after the fact, none contemporary. Even Woodruff who kept an extensive
journal said nothing about it. He, as prophet of the church, married again
polygamously in 1896 after the church had announced the end of polygamy in
1890. FYI. The story you vaguely recite appears to not have happened, but
was a later creation.

Sort of like the Elder Poelman talk in church conference in 1984. Some of
the other general authorities didn't care for it, so it was rewritten for
the Ensign publication without letting the membership know that this wasn't
the original talk. Not only that, but it was re-video taped with background
noises to simulate a conference event. The original recordings of the talk
that members have however still exist. In another 100 years when those
recording are no longer useable, anyone trying to substantiate what was
really said will be called an anti-Mormon and a liar. Isn't historical
revisionism fabulous? There is no contemporary evidence that the Smith
simulation in Young's talk occurred at all.

And, Brigham did lots of things to make sure he came to power, like ordain
all men he could to 70's so they would be taken out of the jurisdiction of
stake president Marks. Until Brigham, apostles had no authority over
stakes, only mission fields. Do you like doctrinal revisionism?

>Others could not.

Because it likely didn't happen.

> Many of those
> who could not left the church.

This is false.

> Those who did were ready to continue to
> build the kingdom of God on earth. They went through some terrible
> trials, and were blessed because they did.

>Those who left drifted and
> eventually dropped from sight.

This is false.

> This is just one example. There are
> modern ones I could express, but suffice to say that even though we do
> not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs.

One day, you will learn that the truth is more important than fabricating
justifications.

> For
> anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
> surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
> Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
> Leigh

--

Cheerio,
Charles

"Question with boldness even the very existence of a God; because if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a
blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson


CharlesSWaters

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 2:09:17 PM8/10/01
to

"Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.

Evolution gave a brain over 4 billion years of time.

>He gave us a commandment to
> interpret the way we want.

Really. Your references are?

> Common sense tells us not to use these
> substances today.

"Common sense" is ofteines irrelevant in matters of science and truth.

Your *bad* substances have many positive uses.

> If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.

No, the Word of Wisdom will someday be as *DEAD* as the heath code of the
Law Of Moses. Sooner rather than later.

> But all this
> means nothing if we do not obey.

Obey *you're* interpretation and rationalization?

> The purpose is to show obedience.

Illogical obedience is still illogical. If the church president were to
come to me, as a matter of *OBEDIENCE*, and told me that polygamy was to be
practiced again and I was to give my wife to him, I would decline the
immorality. Unconditional obedience to church leaders is satanic.

> Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> what ever reason.

As would be wise.

> The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
> trying to be better then we were.

We need more rational members who would wisely drink wine if it were
necessary to survive or improve health.

> Don't you think this is a worthy
> goal?

There is no positive morality in unconditional obedience.

>It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
> further yourself.

Why did you find it necessary to add this unnecessary point? Were you
accusing someone of something?

> That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
> follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
> commandment given.

NO one follows every command ever given. The happiest people do what's
right irregardless of commandments.

>Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
> do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
> prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
> task.

I am. But I might now or someday be your church leader, so be wise.

> Leigh

--

Cheerio,
Charles

And in the beginning there was nothing.
And God said, Let there be light.
And there was still nothing but now you could see it!
-- Anon

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 11:59:57 PM8/10/01
to
In article <tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com>, "newguy"
<cerb...@saber.net> wrote:

€ Excellent chortles.

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 10:25:04 PM8/10/01
to

R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-0908011...@port20.dial.vcnet.com...

I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement. Inane statements
like that made it harder rather than easier to have faith in my religion
when I was growing up.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 10:34:47 PM8/10/01
to

newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...

Indeed, newgy, indeed.

It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.

-Xan

>
>


R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 2:08:47 AM8/11/01
to
In article <9l2evd$79k9f$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-0908011...@port20.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <tn63qpl...@corp.supernews.com>, "newguy"
> > <cerb...@saber.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > >
> > > >stanz <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...
> > > >> ... ... ...
> > > >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> > > >non-alcoholic.
> > >
> > > I don't remember reading that it was non-alcoholic. Perhaps you could
> > > enlighten me? newguy
> > >
> > // One of my Baptist neighbors told me that the type of alcohol produced
> > by fermentation 2000 years ago was not intoxicating. She also assured me
> > that the earth was really 6000 years old, just like the Bible says, and
> > that dinosaur fossils were artifically aged by God in order to convince
> > scientests that not every word in the Bible is true.
>
> I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement.

€ One of us did not.

> Inane statements
> like that made it harder rather than easier to have faith in my religion
> when I was growing up.
>

cheers, Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 2:11:21 AM8/11/01
to

Fool Speck <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...

Feeling a little bitter lately, Steve? I feel your pain.

-Xan

>
> Steve


R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 2:14:17 AM8/11/01
to
In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

€ One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against "darkies".

cheers, Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 2:20:12 AM8/11/01
to

Leigh Cowley <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain. He gave us a commandment to
> interpret the way we want.

But if you interpret it the wrong way, you don't get a Temple recommend.

>Common sense tells us not to use these
> substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.

Fantastic. Then let my punishment be liver cirrhosis instead of denial of
the ability to serve in the Temple.

>But all this
> means nothing if we do not obey. The purpose is to show obedience.
> Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> what ever reason. The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
> trying to be better then we were. Don't you think this is a worthy
> goal?

A very worthy goal. But adults shouldn't punish other adults for not living
up to goals. Let God have his/her/its/their vengance for my sins. If God
exists.

>It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
> further yourself. That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
> follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
> commandment given.

No one follows EVERY commandment given.

>Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
> do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
> prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
> task.

It is not a statement in judgement of Mormons who don't always follow their
own moral code. It is a statement about the ridiculous and damaging methods
LDS leadership uses to enforce the moral code.

-Xan


> Leigh


Bryce

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 9:05:07 AM8/11/01
to

CharlesSWaters wrote:

> "Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message

[snip]


>> I use
>> to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
>> off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
>> thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
>> was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
>> members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
>> that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
>> the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
>> the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
>> things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
>> closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
>> am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
>> question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
>> the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
>> Smith take over the person of Brigham.
>
>
> Did you answer the polygamy questions? Why not?
>
> As to the Brigham sounding like Joseph, all writings on this are 50 years
> after the fact, none contemporary. Even Woodruff who kept an extensive
> journal said nothing about it. He, as prophet of the church, married again
> polygamously in 1896 after the church had announced the end of polygamy in
> 1890. FYI. The story you vaguely recite appears to not have happened, but
> was a later creation.

Wasn't it Orson Hyde who later wrote that he had seen the transformation
with his own eyes, even though he didn't get back to Nauvoo for at
least another week after the fateful meeting? I recall reading
something like that in Richard VanWagoner's "Sidney Rigdon."

It should also be pointed out that this entire episode destroys the
biblical inerrantist claim that legends cannot develop around a
historical event while the witnesses and participants were still alive
to refute the inaccuracies. In this case, it was the witnesses who
most eagerly developed the legend. If you've never read Elizabeth
Loftus' "The Myth of Repressed Memory," I would suggest it. It's an
enlightening look at how memory functions. Most people think it's like
having a video camera in your head, but really memory is a lot more
pliant than that.


> Sort of like the Elder Poelman talk in church conference in 1984. Some of
> the other general authorities didn't care for it, so it was rewritten for
> the Ensign publication without letting the membership know that this wasn't
> the original talk. Not only that, but it was re-video taped with background
> noises to simulate a conference event. The original recordings of the talk
> that members have however still exist. In another 100 years when those
> recording are no longer useable, anyone trying to substantiate what was
> really said will be called an anti-Mormon and a liar. Isn't historical
> revisionism fabulous? There is no contemporary evidence that the Smith
> simulation in Young's talk occurred at all.

I've never heard of this Poelman episode before. Sounds fascinating. I
found both the original and revised texts at:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml


[snip to end]


Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.

Bryce

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 9:31:36 AM8/11/01
to

Leigh Cowley wrote:

> Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.

Technically, it would be more correct to say, "The Lord has given us
brains," or "the Lord has given each of us a brain." I steadfastly
refuse to adopt your brainsharing program, and believe it to be
unworkable in practice.


> He gave us a commandment to
> interpret the way we want.

I just read a fascinating talk given in 1984 by Elder Ronald Poelman of
the First Quorum of the Seventy. He gave advice uncannily similar to
yours, saying that it was necessary for people to interpret the
commandments for themselves, and to critically examine which ones were
true commandments and which ones were simply artifacts of culture
unrelated to the Gospel.

It was great advice, and I can't imagine why the Brethren made him
revideotape a modified version which cut all those parts out. Oh,
wait. Yes I can.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml

> Common sense tells us not to use these
> substances today.

Common sense tells us only that these substances can be very bad if used
to excess.


> If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> is given as revelation is a good standard to live by. But all this
> means nothing if we do not obey. The purpose is to show obedience.
> Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> what ever reason.

What are you claiming here? While your attitude is a respectable and a
common-sense one, it sounds to me like you're implying that such was
the case with Joseph Smith at Carthage. If you didn't intend to imply
such, then I apologize. But Smith did not drink wine at Carthage
because there was nothing else available. He drank it simply because he
wanted to.


> The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
> trying to be better then we were. Don't you think this is a worthy
> goal? It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
> further yourself.

<morality style="cartoon" intent="sarcasm">That's where you're wrong.
We live in an entropic universe, and therefore your only moral
imperative is to grab as much for yourself as you can. In order to do
that, you have to be willing to step over or on anything that gets in
your way.</morality>

Everyone and their dog believes in self-improvement, at least in
theory. You seem to be claiming that Mormonism is unique in that
regard. In truth, the big difference between Mormonism and more
positive religions is this: Within Mormonism, the ideal that members
are supposed to shoot for comes from the heirarchy, not from within.


> That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
> follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
> commandment given. Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
> do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
> prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
> task.
> Leigh

Please, Leigh. I'm pretty sure that I've never criticized anyone in
the LDS faith simply for being "imperfect." If anything, I criticize
them for abdicating their own sense of moral reasoning, and replacing
it with "Morality from authority." Follow the Prophet and trust the
Brethren, for they cannot lead you astray. If the Brethren tell you
not to drink whiskey, then that's the thing to do. If the Brethren
tell you to take a second wife, then that's the only proper course of
action. If the Brethren tell you to wear red shoes during daylight
hours and walk backwards with your finger up your nose, then it is
immoral to do otherwise.

Mormonism, like Christian fundamentalism, is great for those who
require threats of damnation in order to bring them up to a generally
recognized minimum standard of morality. But for everyone else, it's
just a blinder that keeps them from seeing the world as it really is.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 10:19:20 AM8/11/01
to
In article <9l2irq$78n1h$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Leigh Cowley <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain. He gave us a commandment to
> > interpret the way we want.
>
> But if you interpret it the wrong way, you don't get a Temple recommend.
>
> >Common sense tells us not to use these
> > substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> > is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.
>
> Fantastic. Then let my punishment be liver cirrhosis instead of denial of
> the ability to serve in the Temple.
>

€ By faithfully following the WoW, one increases the chance:
1. of strokes beyond the age of 50 by 80% (Finnish study of long-time
tea imbibers)
2. of bladder stones by c. 60%. (caffein tends to dissolve the minerals
that comprise bladder stones)
3. of coronary artery deposits by not drinking ethyl alcohol. However,
for those who cannot stop after One drink, not drinking is clearly a
better choice than cirrhosis.

cheers

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 10:32:17 AM8/11/01
to
In article <3B7533B8...@yahoo.com>, Bryce <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
> > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.
>
> Technically, it would be more correct to say, "The Lord has given us
> brains," or "the Lord has given each of us a brain." I steadfastly
> refuse to adopt your brainsharing program, and believe it to be
> unworkable in practice.
>
>
> > He gave us a commandment to
> > interpret the way we want.
>
> I just read a fascinating talk given in 1984 by Elder Ronald Poelman of
> the First Quorum of the Seventy. He gave advice uncannily similar to
> yours, saying that it was necessary for people to interpret the
> commandments for themselves, and to critically examine which ones were
> true commandments and which ones were simply artifacts of culture
> unrelated to the Gospel.
>
> It was great advice, and I can't imagine why the Brethren made him
> revideotape a modified version which cut all those parts out. Oh,
> wait. Yes I can.
>
> http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
>
>
>
> > Common sense tells us not to use these
> > substances today.
>
> Common sense tells us only that these substances can be very bad if used
> to excess.
>

€ My guess is that mormonites are at a somewhat higher risk of
overimbibing due to the org's shame and guilt inculcation of children.
Thus, staying away from wine, beer, et cetera is the safest choice. The
RCC has the problem as well. I know two local priests who can't have one
drink unless it's the last one in the bottle. Alas.

cheers

Tyler Waite

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 1:14:02 PM8/11/01
to

> The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy
The WOW makes no mention of coffee or tea
It was clarified later to be that. Similarly David OMckay said decafinated
coffee was not against the WOW. Thus if coffee with caffiene is bad but
coffee without caffiene is not it seems clear that it is the caffiene that
is bad not the coffee. Other prophets back to JFS I think have counceled
against caffiene. So why not follow their advice?


Jeff Shirton

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 2:38:02 PM8/11/01
to
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9l2evd$79k9f$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...

> > > Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1@ID-

> > > >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> > > >non-alcoholic.

> I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement.


> Inane statements like that made it harder rather than
> easier to have faith in my religion when I was growing up.

I too almost posted a reply to correct you, asking how you think they
kept it from fermenting. But then I recognized the sarcasm.

I was about to say it was "subtle", but that's not quite true. Most of
us didn't realize it was sarcastic because far too many people actually
*believe* such things. I note as examples a number of LDS and I believe
the entire Seventh-day Adventist faith.

> -Xan

--
Jeff Shirton
------------------
Pray thee, take care, that tak'st my book in hand,
To read it well: that is, to understand.
-- Ben Jonson


Hertzdonut

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 3:14:05 PM8/11/01
to

Xan Du wrote:

>
> It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
> growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
>

I find the similarities between Baptists and Mormons quite striking. BTW, I was
raised Baptist. Perhaps that is why I find Mormonism so fascinating.

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 1:50:32 PM8/11/01
to

R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> ? One of us did not.

Verily. I was a little fuzzy when I wrote that. I apologize.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 3:38:41 PM8/11/01
to

R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-1108010...@port205.dial.vcnet.com...

> In article <9l2irq$78n1h$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Leigh Cowley <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> > news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain. He gave us a commandment to
> > > interpret the way we want.
> >
> > But if you interpret it the wrong way, you don't get a Temple recommend.
> >
> > >Common sense tells us not to use these
> > > substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> > > is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.
> >
> > Fantastic. Then let my punishment be liver cirrhosis instead of denial
of
> > the ability to serve in the Temple.
> >
> ? By faithfully following the WoW, one increases the chance:

> 1. of strokes beyond the age of 50 by 80% (Finnish study of long-time
> tea imbibers)
> 2. of bladder stones by c. 60%. (caffein tends to dissolve the minerals
> that comprise bladder stones)
> 3. of coronary artery deposits by not drinking ethyl alcohol. However,
> for those who cannot stop after One drink, not drinking is clearly a
> better choice than cirrhosis.

I think the spirit of the WoW is that certain foods, like meats, spirits,
and stimulants, are best used in moderation, and that other foods like
vegetables, fruits, and grains are the staples of a healthy diet. This is
really just common sense.

Coversion of the WoW into a commandment has ruined the spirit of good advice
in which it was given.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 1:51:31 PM8/11/01
to

R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
"darkies".

That is a Baptist teaching as well?

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 4:04:31 PM8/11/01
to

Jeff Shirton <jshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:eYed7.36248$O8.54...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...

> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9l2evd$79k9f$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > > Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1@ID-
>
> > > > >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> > > > >non-alcoholic.
>
> > I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement.
> > Inane statements like that made it harder rather than
> > easier to have faith in my religion when I was growing up.
>
> I too almost posted a reply to correct you, asking how you think they
> kept it from fermenting.

It must be special fermentation.

>But then I recognized the sarcasm.

I really try to stay away from sarcasm, since anger is usually what drives
me to that mode of communication.

> I was about to say it was "subtle", but that's not quite true. Most of
> us didn't realize it was sarcastic because far too many people actually
> *believe* such things. I note as examples a number of LDS and I believe
> the entire Seventh-day Adventist faith.

Interesting.

Thanks, Jeff.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 4:22:20 PM8/11/01
to

Hertzdonut <hertz...@nomail.ooo> wrote in message
news:3B7583FD...@nomail.ooo...

I met a Baptist at a bus stop once. We had an enjoyable conversation, even
after I told him I was LDS. :) We swapped a lot of common beliefs. It was
a very fine conversation, and I felt good knowing that there were "good"
Baptists in the world, despite the reaming I got from the Baptist minister
while I was on my mission.

Pleasant ecumenical experiences hinges upon the ability to build on common
belief and common goals. The LDS Church has failed to become part of the
mainstream Christian culture in this country because it is preoccupied with
taking control away from the "corrupt professors" of other Christian sects.

I find it interesting that the BoM teaches the story of Ammon, a faithful
son of Alma, who offered his *services* to the Lamanite king Lamoni before
he attempted to preach the Gospel to him. And yet, community service was
not an official component of the missionary program until the 1990s.

The LDS Church today still stands in isolation from its Christian brethren.
Our phenomenal growth rate (second only to the Jehovah's Witnesses in
percentages) can't make us popular. But our cultural superiority complex,
and isolationist mentality are probably key factors.

-Xan


Xan Du

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 5:12:15 PM8/11/01
to

Tyler Waite <twa...@informationinplace.com> wrote in message
news:9l3hq6$umj$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...

>
> > The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy
> The WOW makes no mention of coffee or tea
> It was clarified later to be that. Similarly David OMckay said
decafinated
> coffee was not against the WOW.

Ooh. I'd love to read that quote. Where'd you get it? Popular doctrine in
my house growing up was that unleaded was just as evil as regular.

> Thus if coffee with caffiene is bad but
> coffee without caffiene is not it seems clear that it is the caffiene that
> is bad not the coffee. Other prophets back to JFS I think have counceled
> against caffiene. So why not follow their advice?

Free agency?

-Xan

>
>


Wu Siu Yan

unread,
Aug 10, 2001, 7:14:53 PM8/10/01
to
No. It is mainly the practices of LDS. Nearly all Chinese Christians would
consider them devilish.
(Polygamy in the name of "Principle of Celestial Marriage", Priests (only
LORD may say this), elders (youth an elder), ...)
If the members of LDS would have listened to brother David Whitmer's word in
"An Address to All
Believers in Christ" (
http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htm ), throwing away the
devilish things in DC, LDS would be much welcome by all Christians.

Wu Siu Yan

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 9:30:55 PM8/11/01
to
In article <9l42ft$7d7qo$3...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...

> > >...

> > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
> > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
> > >
> > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> "darkies".
>
> That is a Baptist teaching as well?
>

€ Yea, verily, Xan. In the 19th century, the Baptists and the
Mormonites preached such feculence.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 9:35:10 PM8/11/01
to
In article <9l42gk$7d7qo$8...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

€ Verily, I say unto you that there are those who get-off on controlling
others.

cheers, Xan

R. L. Measures

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 9:43:51 PM8/11/01
to
In article <9l4dhj$78q$2...@hfc.pacific.net.hk>, "Wu Siu Yan"
<sy...@pacific.net.hk> wrote:

> No. It is mainly the practices of LDS. Nearly all Chinese Christians would
> consider them devilish.
> (Polygamy in the name of "Principle of Celestial Marriage", Priests (only
> LORD may say this), elders (youth an elder), ...)
> If the members of LDS would have listened to brother David Whitmer's word in
> "An Address to All
> Believers in Christ" (
> http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htm ), throwing away the
> devilish things in DC, LDS would be much welcome by all Christians.
>

€ Mormonites love bashing as much as they love green jello made with
walnuts, celery, fruit cocktail, and whipped cream topping. Throwing out
the devilish stuff would deprive the faithful of tasty bashing.

cheers, Wu Siu Yan


>
>
>
>
> > The LDS Church today still stands in isolation from its Christian
> brethren.
> > Our phenomenal growth rate (second only to the Jehovah's Witnesses in
> > percentages) can't make us popular. But our cultural superiority complex,
> > and isolationist mentality are probably key factors.
> >
> > -Xan

--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures

stanz

unread,
Aug 11, 2001, 10:29:29 PM8/11/01
to
"Tyler Waite" <twa...@informationinplace.com> wrote in message news:<9l3hq6$umj$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy

> Similarly David OMckay said decafinated


> coffee was not against the WOW.

Source Please?
Did they even have decaf coffee back in his day?

> Thus if coffee with caffiene is bad but
> coffee without caffiene is not it seems clear that it is the caffiene that
> is bad not the coffee.


> Other prophets back to JFS I think have counceled
> against caffiene.

Source Please? I think you think wrong. More Mormon Myth. I have read
that the church has taken no position on the consumption of caffiene.
I have searched this issue out on the church website and there are no
mention of caffeine in conference talks as far as I can tell. Until I
read otherwise from a GA, diet Dr. Pepper is the softdrink of my
choice.

>So why not follow their advice?

Right, why not? Show me where a prophet said, "Don't drink caffeine"
and I will follow that advice. Until then why don't we follow the
advice that comes directly from God and become vegetarians, except
during the winter, cold or famine? D&C 89: 12-13

STan

Tyler Waite

unread,
Aug 12, 2001, 1:03:29 AM8/12/01
to

"Bryce" <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B7533B8...@yahoo.com...

>
>
> Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
> > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.
>
> Technically, it would be more correct to say, "The Lord has given us
> brains," or "the Lord has given each of us a brain." I steadfastly
> refuse to adopt your brainsharing program, and believe it to be
> unworkable in practice.

No Leigh is correct. As you have noted yourself Bryce:
Once the prophet has spoken the thinking is done. Thus the Lord has given
us A brain. That brain is the one in the head of the current prophet.
Perhaps the song should be changed to we thank thee of God for A brain?

> > Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> > was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> > what ever reason.

Joseph gave the jailer money to go buy the wine to lift the mens spirits.
It was not given to them by the jailer. Read your church history! Also
when Porter set up the bar in the Nauvoo house the only one that got really
upset was Emma. Several of the apostles had a glass of wine at that bar a
few days(sorry don't remember the exact day just remeber it was during the
first few days when they were still trying to figure out what to do) after
the prophets death as well.

>He drank it simply because he
> wanted to.

and because he and the others were feeling a little low about their
situation.


Tyler Waite

unread,
Aug 12, 2001, 1:12:20 AM8/12/01