The Word of Wisdom as Practiced Today

[Sleeping in EQ]

is from a change made at the April General Conference of 1932. The WoW was thereafter connected to temple worthiness and took the form in which we now know it.

Prior to 1932, there was a variety of practices amongst Church members (including leaders) in terms of the WoW. Sometimes leaders tried to crack down and other times they let things go. With prohibition in the U.S. in the 1920s, drinking alcohol had already been discouraged for several years, and the 1932 action had a larger political dimension.

Before 1932, some very prominent Church leaders did not keep the WoW as per D&C 89, and certainly did not observe it the way temple worthy members do today (yes, I know of some specific instances).

Elder Stephen L. Richards spoke at the 1932 conference in opposition to the change. One of his concerns was that Church members would become Pharasaic about the WoW and weightier matters would recieve short shrift.

D&C 89 is true to the "spirit" of the WoW as we practice it in that it connects embodied consumption with spirituality. D&C 89 is not by way of commandment. It implies (in verse 17) that drinking beer is OK (and was interpreted that way. I know there are seminary teachers in Idaho crying Postum, but they're up in the night).

D&C 89 is not the WoW standard for temple worthiness. The change presented to the Church in April of 1932, and accepted by Common Consent, is.

This isn't that tough (or rather, wouldn't be if Mormons had a better handle on their own history).

[All-American]

I'll drink to that.

[il Padrino Ute]

Drinking beer is ok? Non Sequitur will be back in the fold soon.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

is from a change made at the April General Conference of 1932. The WoW was thereafter connected to temple worthiness and took the form in which we now know it.

Prior to 1932, there was a variety of practices amongst Church members (including leaders) in terms of the WoW. Sometimes leaders tried to crack down and other times they let things go. With prohibition in the U.S. in the 1920s, drinking alcohol had already been discouraged for several years, and the 1932 action had a larger political dimension.

Before 1932, some very prominent Church leaders did not keep the WoW as per D&C 89, and certainly did not observe it the way temple worthy members do today (yes, I know of some specific instances).

Elder Stephen L. Richards spoke at the 1932 conference in opposition to the change. One of his concerns was that Church members would become Pharasaic about the WoW and weightier matters would recieve short shrift.

D&C 89 is true to the "spirit" of the WoW as we practice it in that it connects embodied consumption with spirituality. D&C 89 is not by way of commandment. It implies (in verse 17) that drinking beer is OK (and was interpreted that way. I know there are seminary teachers in Idaho crying Postum, but they're up in the night).

D&C 89 is not the WoW standard for temple worthiness. The change presented to the Church in April of 1932, and accepted by Common Consent, is.

This isn't that tough (or rather, wouldn't be if Mormons had a better handle on their own history).

I'm gonna agree with you that it probably garners more attention than it deserves. Of all the sins a Bishop might have to contend with, periodic (as opposed to abusive) Word of Wisdom violations are not high on the list. I'd much rather deal with a coffee-drinker than a child abuser or an adulterer.

That said, I remember this little anecdote related by Hinckley decades ago (and think it has since been reiterated): "I recall a bishop telling me of a woman who came to get a recommend. When asked if she observed the Word of Wisdom, she said that she occasionally drank a cup of coffee. She said, 'Now, bishop, you’re not going to let that keep me from going to the temple, are you?' To which he replied, 'Sister, surely you will not let a cup of coffee stand between you and the House of the Lord.'"

To the second question, "on what does the temple worthiness standard rest?" I can't see how you say "not D&C 89." Obviously, the "big 5" (coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, drugs) are not explicitly stated as such, but D&C 89 is still the foundation. When we teach the topic in Sunday School and review these prohibitions, there is no reference made to the 1932 declaration. And surely the 1932 declaration can be traced back to an interpretation of D&C 89, no?

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...ontentLocale=0

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Elder Stephen L. Richards spoke at the 1932 conference in opposition to the change. One of his concerns was that Church members would become Pharasaic about the WoW and weightier matters would recieve short shrift.

How prophetic.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm gonna agree with you that it probably garners more attention than it deserves. Of all the sins a Bishop might have to contend with, periodic (as opposed to abusive) Word of Wisdom violations are not high on the list. I'd much rather deal with a coffee-drinker than a child abuser or an adulterer.

That said, I remember this little anecdote related by Hinckley decades ago (and think it has since been reiterated): "I recall a bishop telling me of a woman who came to get a recommend. When asked if she observed the Word of Wisdom, she said that she occasionally drank a cup of coffee. She said, 'Now, bishop, you’re not going to let that keep me from going to the temple, are you?' To which he replied, 'Sister, surely you will not let a cup of coffee stand between you and the House of the Lord.'"

To the second question, "on what does the temple worthiness standard rest?" I can't see how you say "not D&C 89." Obviously, the "big 5" (coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, drugs) are not explicitly stated as such, but D&C 89 is still the foundation. When we teach the topic in Sunday School and review these prohibitions, there is no reference made to the 1932 declaration. And surely the 1932 declaration can be traced back to an interpretation of D&C 89, no?

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...____&hideNav=1

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/me...ontentLocale=0

In 1932 not partaking of four specific substances (the "harmful drugs" category emerged later) was connected to temple worthiness. Prior to that time it had not been (although some local authorities may have been more zealous than others).

I said that D&C 89 is consistent with the SPIRIT of how we practice the WoW today. The initiative put forward by President Grant in 1932 has much, much more to do with how we PRACTICE the WoW today, and how we connect it with TEMPLE WORTHINESS.

What is perfectly amazing (and I'm not pointing this at you, Tex) is how some have taken what I have said as some kind of WoW relativism. I am standing up for the WoW as taught in the Church today and have a good handle on the history of how that's come to be. In fact, I am undercutting people who would try to use 89:17 to rationalize having a beer. Can people on CB read? They certainly can't see past their own mullahness. Seriously.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Here's a little from Elder Richards' 1932 talk:

"In application of this question, I must mention some delicate matters. I call them delicate because I run a great hazard of being misunderstood when I discuss them. Take smoking for instance. Is there more or less tolerance for the user of tobacco by the Church, as represented by its officials and the faithful membership, than there was twenty-five or fifty years ago? I cannot say. I have no way of knowing. We feel that it is wrong and we inveigh against it. Men often construe the Word of Wisdom as a commandment against it and invest the practice of it with the stigma of sin. I think my own preaching against it may be so construed. Am I right? Are all of us right? Have not some of our people failed to distinguish between the offense and the offender?

I do not mean to say that I doubt the wisdom of the Word of Wisdom. I know that it contains God’s wishes and direction for the welfare of His children, and I am sure that those who fail to heed the teaching of it will lose blessings of great worth, but I am not sure that we have not estranged many from the Church or at least contributed to their estrangement by attributing to violation of our standards of health, harmful as it may be, a moral turpitude and sinful magnitude out of proportion to the real seriousness of the offense. Maybe I am wrong. I do not claim that my analysis is correct, but I think it is worthy of your attention.

I have said these things because I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

What is perfectly amazing (and I'm not pointing this at you, Tex) is how some have taken what I have said as some kind of WoW relativism. I am standing up for the WoW as taught in the Church today and have a good handle on the history of how that's come to be. In fact, I am undercutting people who would try to use 89:17 to rationalize having a beer. Can people on CB read? They certainly can't see past their own mullahness. Seriously.

I was pretty surprised by that as well. IF they are reading, they are certainly not bothering to try to understand.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In 1932 not partaking of four specific substances (the "harmful drugs" category emerged later) was connected to temple worthiness. Prior to that time it had not been (although some local authorities may have been more zealous than others).

I said that D&C 89 is consistent with the SPIRIT of how we practice the WoW today. The initiative put forward by President Grant in 1932 has much, much more to do with how we PRACTICE the WoW today, and how we connect it with TEMPLE WORTHINESS.

I can go with that. (The capital letters helped. Big words confuse me. )

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

What is perfectly amazing (and I'm not pointing this at you, Tex) is how some have taken what I have said as some kind of WoW relativism. I am standing up for the WoW as taught in the Church today and have a good handle on the history of how that's come to be. In fact, I am undercutting people who would try to use 89:17 to rationalize having a beer. Can people on CB read? They certainly can't see past their own mullahness. Seriously.

Obviously I missed something.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

is from a change made at the April General Conference of 1932. The WoW was thereafter connected to temple worthiness and took the form in which we now know it.

I agree with SIEQ general point about the 20th century development of the Word of Wisdom as a test of full fellowship. However, I did want to add that I believe that it was connected to temple worthiness before 1932, This is from Thomas Alexander's 1981 Dialogue article, The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement:"

After the inauguration of Heber J Grant's administration in 1918, however, the advice become less flexible. In 1921, church leadership made adherence to the Word of Wisdom a requirement for admission to the temple. Before this stake presidents and bishops had been encouraged to in this matter, but exceptions had been made. Apparently under this new emphasis, in March, 1921, George F. Richards, both as apostle and president of the Salt Lake Temple, phoned two Salt Lake City bishops about two tobacco users who had come to the temple and told the bishops "to try to clean them up before they come here again."

I recommend the article if you are interested in the 20th century development of the Word of Wisdom that led to it becoming a test of full fellowship. Our present conception of the Word of Wisdom really starts to become important after the death of Leronzo Snow.