I made a special trip to see it at it's first showing in a town 50+ miles away. So did 4 other people, from parts unknown. It was 11:20 am and I got my pick of the plush velvet seats that recline back and have plenty of elbow and leg room. I also had a cup of freshly brewed Earl Gray tea by my side. There was no hint of protests as I entered the theater and I only had to suffer through 8 previews before the movie started.
I couldn't really tell by looking at the others in attendance what their motivations could possibly be for seeing this movie. One was an elderly lady, alone, about 68 or so. The others were men: a farmer type, a clean cut young yuppie type, and a white t-shirted man who smelled of oil changes. I couldn't even guess what their backgrounds were, but one thing was probably certain, they aren't Mormons. No garment lines, no nervous looks about the shoulder. I was probably the only one there who knew anything beforehand of the history surrounding this event. I wanted to see how it could possibly be turned about as "lies, and vicious attacks against a peaceful Mormon religion".
My Opinion: 90% correct.
I have read enough historical accounts and participated in enough temple rituals to testify that the anointings and washings were depicted correctly (for 1857 time period) that the words of the temple oath were correct, and not out of context (again for the 1857 time period) and that Brigham Young's speeches were correctly quoted, word for word, right out of the Journal of Discourses. The only argument that can be made against this is that the Journal of Discourses is a book of recorded sayings made by Brigham Young, not actual writings of Brigham Young. But the same can be said for the Bible, since Jesus was never proven to have written a gospel either. Or the Book of Mormon for that matter, Joseph claimed to have translated Reformed Egyptian text written on gold plates, but there is no evidence other than his own claim of ability. There is ample evidence to show that he mistranslated other documents, but I digress. Anyway the point I'm trying to make here is that I can mostly agree with the culture and the climate of fear that was cultivated by Brigham Young's words and the strict obedience of each apostle and bishop on down the chain of command. Loyalty was the same as worshiping and honoring their God.
Understandably, Mormons do not want their prophet to be depicted in this manner. If they have to admit that Brigham Young was not a 'divinely inspired leader', then they cannot claim to have the correct version of 'restored truth'. Their whole religion traces back from prophet to prophet in an unbroken line of priesthood authority since the claim of Joseph Smith to have been hand picked by God himself, and having received the priesthood keys directly from Peter, James and John. In this manner, Mormons holding priesthood authority from their church, have been given this authority (even if indirectly) from Jesus and his apostles. A break in the chain means authority has been lost. If Brigham didn't have it, or had it and lost it due to sin, then nobody after him can claim authority of the priesthood. The whole structure of the Mormon church depends upon Brigham Young more than it does Joseph Smith. There were many different breaks off of Joseph's original church after he died, and most of it was due to arguing amongst the apostles over which of them had the right to carry on the church. The RLDS is NOT the only break-away sect of the original Mormon church.
Getting back to the movie...
Much of the movie is based on actual events. Thus, it cannot be called 'a complete fabrication designed to hurt and destroy the Mormon church'. Just like the Titanic movie, with the love story of Rose and Jack, this movie weaves a possible love story between two worlds, Mormon and Gentile, in the characters of Emily and Jonathan. The fact that Mormon critics would rather focus on this subplot as if it were the real story, or pick apart the cinematography or the dialogue as if it negates the actual event, goes to show what lengths the church and it's members will go through to obfuscate and blur the actual message of the movie. Does Jack and Rose's love story have to be proven plausible in order to prove that the Titanic sank? Of course not. And do we really have to spend time trying to demonstrate how unlikely it was that Emily and Jonathan were ever real people and could have fallen in love in 10 days and vowed to be together no matter what? Does that make the ENTIRE MOVIE false? No!!! Mountain Meadows was the site of a massacre, a fact that laid hidden for over a hundred and thirty years till someone accidentally uncovered the bones with a backhoe. Ever since then the church has done nothing to try to solve the unanswered questions, get to the truth, admit fault, or even widely discuss it among the members. And in 1999 when the current prophet had his chance to do so when dedicating a monument to those innocents slaughtered, he explicity told the crowd gathered, "that which we do here must never be construed as an admission of fault or complicity in the events that ocurred here". Wow, what a guy.
Here we are now about 8 years later, and members are STILL just now learning about this dark day in Mormonism's past. How many Catholics have been raised in their faith completely unaware of the crusades? How many protestants have never heard of the Salem Witch trials? Yet thousands of Mormons are still completely ignorant of this historical holocaust right here in the U.S. and why is that? Because it not only makes the church look bad, it makes them look human and fallible, and UNINSPIRED. Never again will anyone see Brigham Young as a humble decent servant of God, like they view Gordon Hinckley. After seeing him portrayed in this light, they will be hard pressed to excuse his fanatical, paranoid views and refer to him as a prophet of God. How could they possibly spin this to make Brigham Young look like the victim of twisted words? They are HIS words!!! Not out of context in any respect. He actually said these things about non-Mormons and how to 'help people obtain celestial glory by killing them.' Does that sound a little reminiscent of Islamic fundamentalism?
I hope that this movie does what it should: scares the piss out of you. To think that we all have the potential to become right-wing nutjobs and force our views upon one another in the name of God is scary shit. We see it overseas and pat ourselves on the back thinking, that would never be us, because we have democracy. Mormons don't operate on that scale, they have leaders and priesthood authority to guide them. Their only duty is to harken to the counsel of the bretheren, and if they have a problem doing that, they are chastised, made examples of, released from callings, denied temple access, disfellowshipped from the church and denied the rights of speaking, praying or taking the sacrament, and in harsher cases fully ex-communicated for failure to adapt themselves fully to the lifestyle of the church. Had some coffee or alcohol over the weekend? Loose your speaking and teaching privileges. Struggling with paying a full tithe? Loose your temple recommend. Question doctrine and tell others about your doubts? Look forward to disfelloshipment. Write an article in a widely distributed magazine that talks about your own views? You can be excommunicated. Every one of these scenarios have happened, even to people I know personally. And loosing your right to attend the temple, especially at critical times like an upcoming wedding for a neice, or chaparoning a youth group is like living along side the Mormons in a ghost world. They see you, but won't acknowledge you. They know you're there, but wish you weren't.
This movie brought out all the vileness of cult-think mentality. I saw a scene where a man was caught with a woman in bed, and his punishment was immediate castration, with his nuts nailed to the doorway as a warning to others. There is an actual historical account of this within the journals of the old saints, newspaper articles and letters to loved ones. This is where the real history is, not in the whitewashed manuals the church prints out. I saw a scene where a wife was killed for attempting to return to her first husband and her children, after being forced to become the wife of another man. This happened MANY times in Brigham Young's church. You know how I know this? Because it is STILL happening in the lives of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, et al, located in Hilldale, UT and Colorado City, AZ. They still adhere to polygamy, blood atonement, the trading of wives to those higher up on the 'God ladder', and the taking on of young teenage girls as new breeding wives for the old apostles, sometimes men 30-40 years older. Why do you think Warren Jeffs is in jail, stealing art?
I saw scenes of mass murder on the prairie, the men separated from their wives, shot point blank by their Mormon 'protectors'. I saw scenes of women and children being chased about, bludgeoned, shot, stabbed and throats slit, and do you know how I know that's true? Because when the bones where disturbed, actual forensic scientists and archeologists described the many ways in which all of these people were brutally killed. Who squashed that as fast as they possibly could? The church of course, with it's 70% population, it's not hard to find members in every level of government willing to squash the investigation and put these bones back into the ground as quickly as possible EVEN IF IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. And they thought they would make nice with a little dedication ceremony 9 years later. To this day, the church still owns all of that land, the spot where 120 men, women and children were killed in innocent blood, and they adamantly refuse to hand over the site to federal stewardship because it's not in the interest of the church. Damn straight it isn't. Those bones could be dug up all over again and some real answers could be found, or at least all of the evidence could be weighed, like the ratio of arrows to bullets for example. No, it's much better for the church to keep it all buried, wait about 50 years for everyone who ever heard of it to die off, and then walk about as if it never happened like they did for 100 years before.
The U.S. Government held a trial, all the testimony is documented, most everything you would ever want to know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre is in books or online. And the church should be worried. All I can say is that it won't be comfortable calling yourself a Mormon for quite a while. Is that something to be worried about?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
September Dawn Opens Friday!!!
The following article is from the LA Times:
Fanatics and a forgotten massacre: September Dawn' tells of a still-controversial 1857 attack attributed to members of the fledgling Mormon faith.
By Chris Lee
DEPENDING upon which version of history you believe, the terrible events of Sept. 11 -- the wholesale massacre of innocent victims -- can be explained as either an act of war or the result of religious fanaticism taken to a horrible extreme.
But some might call it the "other" 9/11. On that day in 1857, in a remote quadrant of southeastern Utah territory, a wagon train consisting of 140 homesteaders -- men, women and children striking west for California from Arkansas -- were gunned down, bludgeoned and stabbed to death in an attack attributed to local Mormon militia.
Approaching the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as this marginalized chapter of U.S. history has come to be known, modern Mormons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continue to struggle with its legacy. But "September Dawn," an independently financed historical drama that arrives in 1,000 theaters Friday, takes a critical view of the religious fundamentalism it presents as having precipitated the attack -- most controversially, the alleged influence of the Mormon leader referred to as the "American Moses," Brigham Young.
The movie, originally set for release in May, has reportedly prompted hand-wringing in the Mormon community, where some worry it will perpetuate outdated notions about the homegrown American religion, arriving as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, strenuously campaigns to win the Republican Party's presidential nomination. (A spokeswoman for the church declined to comment about the movie.)
Co-writer-director of "September Dawn" Christopher Cain dismisses the idea the movie puts a bad light on Mormonism, correlating the religious zealotry the film depicts with the clash of cultures that has led to America's "war on terror" and twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I don't have an agenda with the Mormon Church," Cain said. "What I do have is a theoretical view of how we can look at what's happening today."
"We live in a time where the news is dominated by the religious, fanatical world -- a time where a 20-year-old kid with his whole life ahead of him can walk onto a bus and blow himself up and war is being waged by a bunch of nut-cases 'over there.' Well, it happened here 150 years ago. I just saw this [movie] as an opportunity to look at how this happened in our own backyard -- and not that long ago."
Pioneers in peril
"SEPTEMBER Dawn" opens with former Arkansas militiaman Capt. Alexander Fancher (played by Shaun Johnston) leading a wagon train through rural Utah toward the gold-rich West Coast. They make camp, intending to rest for a few days but are met with deep suspicion by locals.
Terence Stamp portrays Young as a territorial governor who declares martial law and warns church members to turn away any "Gentiles" who stray into Mormon territory: "If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats," Young is recorded as having said in a sermon, his siege mentality a holdover from earlier persecution and the murder of Mormon prophet Joseph Smith in 1844.
Mormon Bishop Jacob Samuelson (played by Jon Voight) permits the wagon train a two-week grace period in Mountain Meadows but instructs his son to spy on them.
The movie's central narrative, a Romeo and Juliet-style romance between the Mormon boy and a homesteader girl, accounts for most of the action leading to its heart-rending climax -- an attack the movie portrays as having begun as a siege by Paiute Indians in cahoots with the Mormon on Sept. 7 and finished four days later: The Fancher party was offered a truce, but every homesteader older than 6 was ultimately shot at point-blank range.
According to Tom Kimball, a sixth-generation Mormon who is book review editor for the Mormon History Assn., the film has been put on a "do not watch" list by LDS Church officials.
"It's blacklisted already," he said.
Nonetheless, Kimball said the Mountain Meadows Massacre has been the subject of intensive discussions this year. In May, the association held a conference hosting more than 800 Mormon scholars at which the massacre was Topic A.
"Here's what's not in dispute: There was a siege, on the 11th the Fanchers were offered a negotiation, and when they accepted it, they were walked off and shot," Kimball said. "What's in dispute is why and who ordered it. Some people are pointing the finger at the Fanchers and the Indians."
Most church-sanctioned histories portray the Mountain Meadows Massacre as a war crime -- an overreaction to intruders they perceived as a threat to Mormon sovereignty. Others say the motive was economic: a chance to loot the wagon train.
In the September issue of Ensign, an official magazine of the LDS Church, historian Richard E. Turley Jr. writes of "disagreements, miscommunication, prejudices and political wrangling" that had created a divide between the Mormon territory and the federal government leading to the Utah War in 1858. He sets the scene for the attack on the Fancher party as coming during a time of high tension amid the government's decision to send "an army to put down perceived treason in Utah" and the Saints' fears that soldiers would be arriving at any time to "to oppress, drive, or even destroy them."
The movie, however, puts the blame squarely on Young. He is heard in voice-over by Stamp, cursing Gentiles, encouraging vengeance, "blood atonement" and "avenging the blood of the prophet" among other exhortations.
"All Brigham Young's dialogue was taken directly from speeches and documents," said Cain. "You heard words like 'blood atonement.' These are religious terms, not self-preservation terms. Religious connotations and terminology were being used to fire their people up."
Will Bagley, author of the controversial award-winning book "Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre," feels the depiction is accurate, citing the script's reliance on the "Life and Confessions of John D. Lee," written by Young's trusted lieutenant, who was the only person convicted in connection with the attack.
Lee (who appears as a deeply conflicted character in "September Dawn") was executed in 1877, claiming to the end that he was being unfairly led to his death -- "sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner" -- and insisting that it was Young who had ordered the attack.
"The movie is about the consequences of fanaticism," Bagley said. "Historians will argue about what caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But I think it's a dodge to say it wasn't a religiously motivated act. Like all acts of vengeance, it was pointless, cruel and self-destructive."
For Patty Norris, president of the Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants and a direct descendant of Capt. Fancher, "September Dawn" is a form of redemption, righting historical misconceptions that the homesteaders were aggressors rather than victims.
"The Mormons have historically tried to excuse their actions after the fact," Norris said. "And the people of Utah have misunderstood the Fancher Party. Some people have said, 'They got what they deserved. They were horrible people.' "
"So I'm thrilled there finally has been a movie made. It needs to be told that the people on the wagon train were good people, totally unaware about what they were facing."
For his part, Voight was drawn to his role -- a man of the cloth whose deep piety results in mass murder, carried out in part by his own son -- as a means of addressing what he sees as a pressing issue.
"I'm not one who goes looking for those references, but it is a chilling irony that this happened 150 years ago on Sept. 11," Voight said.
"This film is obviously very relevant today in terms of what we're faced with: religious fanaticism endangering all democracy. It's our own history, and I hadn't known it before."
***MY THOUGHTS***
If you would like to find out if this movie is coming to a theater near you, this link can help. I am going to put myself in the role of movie reviewer, and I intend to see this movie at it's very first showing possible on opening day. I will be my own judge of whether it's "full of lies" and "made to stir up hate against the church". Just like the DaVinci Code for Catholics, and the Passion of the Christ for Jews, the Mormons are expected to be picketing the opening days of this movie as well, which is only going to increase curiosity and make this movie more available to smaller towns. In my neck of the woods, the movie theater was right across the street from the Catholic church. They were all for attending "The Passion" but couldn't let the DaVinci Code pass through without handing out their 'information sheets'. They even bought out the theater a couple of times to keep others from watching it, and you know what? It stayed for another week!!! Now, I don't want to take the chance that this movie might not make it to my hometown, so I am going a little out of my way to see it on opening day. I'm even going in the middle of the day at it's first showing just to avoid the crowds. I am also going to wear this tee-shirt to fend off anybody with 'information sheets'.
It's not the people I hate, it's the entity. It's like trying to defend big tobacco companies, or heath insurance companies. The only ones who do so are those with a vested interest in it. Everybody else has the freedom to look at both sides of the issues and decide for themselves. If you speak out against them, and you're an employee, you get fired. Same for the church. Only firing is called ex-communication for apostacy. It's just another word for whistle-blower.
Fanatics and a forgotten massacre: September Dawn' tells of a still-controversial 1857 attack attributed to members of the fledgling Mormon faith.
By Chris Lee
DEPENDING upon which version of history you believe, the terrible events of Sept. 11 -- the wholesale massacre of innocent victims -- can be explained as either an act of war or the result of religious fanaticism taken to a horrible extreme.
But some might call it the "other" 9/11. On that day in 1857, in a remote quadrant of southeastern Utah territory, a wagon train consisting of 140 homesteaders -- men, women and children striking west for California from Arkansas -- were gunned down, bludgeoned and stabbed to death in an attack attributed to local Mormon militia.
Approaching the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as this marginalized chapter of U.S. history has come to be known, modern Mormons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continue to struggle with its legacy. But "September Dawn," an independently financed historical drama that arrives in 1,000 theaters Friday, takes a critical view of the religious fundamentalism it presents as having precipitated the attack -- most controversially, the alleged influence of the Mormon leader referred to as the "American Moses," Brigham Young.
The movie, originally set for release in May, has reportedly prompted hand-wringing in the Mormon community, where some worry it will perpetuate outdated notions about the homegrown American religion, arriving as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, strenuously campaigns to win the Republican Party's presidential nomination. (A spokeswoman for the church declined to comment about the movie.)
Co-writer-director of "September Dawn" Christopher Cain dismisses the idea the movie puts a bad light on Mormonism, correlating the religious zealotry the film depicts with the clash of cultures that has led to America's "war on terror" and twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I don't have an agenda with the Mormon Church," Cain said. "What I do have is a theoretical view of how we can look at what's happening today."
"We live in a time where the news is dominated by the religious, fanatical world -- a time where a 20-year-old kid with his whole life ahead of him can walk onto a bus and blow himself up and war is being waged by a bunch of nut-cases 'over there.' Well, it happened here 150 years ago. I just saw this [movie] as an opportunity to look at how this happened in our own backyard -- and not that long ago."
Pioneers in peril
"SEPTEMBER Dawn" opens with former Arkansas militiaman Capt. Alexander Fancher (played by Shaun Johnston) leading a wagon train through rural Utah toward the gold-rich West Coast. They make camp, intending to rest for a few days but are met with deep suspicion by locals.
Terence Stamp portrays Young as a territorial governor who declares martial law and warns church members to turn away any "Gentiles" who stray into Mormon territory: "If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats," Young is recorded as having said in a sermon, his siege mentality a holdover from earlier persecution and the murder of Mormon prophet Joseph Smith in 1844.
Mormon Bishop Jacob Samuelson (played by Jon Voight) permits the wagon train a two-week grace period in Mountain Meadows but instructs his son to spy on them.
The movie's central narrative, a Romeo and Juliet-style romance between the Mormon boy and a homesteader girl, accounts for most of the action leading to its heart-rending climax -- an attack the movie portrays as having begun as a siege by Paiute Indians in cahoots with the Mormon on Sept. 7 and finished four days later: The Fancher party was offered a truce, but every homesteader older than 6 was ultimately shot at point-blank range.
According to Tom Kimball, a sixth-generation Mormon who is book review editor for the Mormon History Assn., the film has been put on a "do not watch" list by LDS Church officials.
"It's blacklisted already," he said.
Nonetheless, Kimball said the Mountain Meadows Massacre has been the subject of intensive discussions this year. In May, the association held a conference hosting more than 800 Mormon scholars at which the massacre was Topic A.
"Here's what's not in dispute: There was a siege, on the 11th the Fanchers were offered a negotiation, and when they accepted it, they were walked off and shot," Kimball said. "What's in dispute is why and who ordered it. Some people are pointing the finger at the Fanchers and the Indians."
Most church-sanctioned histories portray the Mountain Meadows Massacre as a war crime -- an overreaction to intruders they perceived as a threat to Mormon sovereignty. Others say the motive was economic: a chance to loot the wagon train.
In the September issue of Ensign, an official magazine of the LDS Church, historian Richard E. Turley Jr. writes of "disagreements, miscommunication, prejudices and political wrangling" that had created a divide between the Mormon territory and the federal government leading to the Utah War in 1858. He sets the scene for the attack on the Fancher party as coming during a time of high tension amid the government's decision to send "an army to put down perceived treason in Utah" and the Saints' fears that soldiers would be arriving at any time to "to oppress, drive, or even destroy them."
The movie, however, puts the blame squarely on Young. He is heard in voice-over by Stamp, cursing Gentiles, encouraging vengeance, "blood atonement" and "avenging the blood of the prophet" among other exhortations.
"All Brigham Young's dialogue was taken directly from speeches and documents," said Cain. "You heard words like 'blood atonement.' These are religious terms, not self-preservation terms. Religious connotations and terminology were being used to fire their people up."
Will Bagley, author of the controversial award-winning book "Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre," feels the depiction is accurate, citing the script's reliance on the "Life and Confessions of John D. Lee," written by Young's trusted lieutenant, who was the only person convicted in connection with the attack.
Lee (who appears as a deeply conflicted character in "September Dawn") was executed in 1877, claiming to the end that he was being unfairly led to his death -- "sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner" -- and insisting that it was Young who had ordered the attack.
"The movie is about the consequences of fanaticism," Bagley said. "Historians will argue about what caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But I think it's a dodge to say it wasn't a religiously motivated act. Like all acts of vengeance, it was pointless, cruel and self-destructive."
For Patty Norris, president of the Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants and a direct descendant of Capt. Fancher, "September Dawn" is a form of redemption, righting historical misconceptions that the homesteaders were aggressors rather than victims.
"The Mormons have historically tried to excuse their actions after the fact," Norris said. "And the people of Utah have misunderstood the Fancher Party. Some people have said, 'They got what they deserved. They were horrible people.' "
"So I'm thrilled there finally has been a movie made. It needs to be told that the people on the wagon train were good people, totally unaware about what they were facing."
For his part, Voight was drawn to his role -- a man of the cloth whose deep piety results in mass murder, carried out in part by his own son -- as a means of addressing what he sees as a pressing issue.
"I'm not one who goes looking for those references, but it is a chilling irony that this happened 150 years ago on Sept. 11," Voight said.
"This film is obviously very relevant today in terms of what we're faced with: religious fanaticism endangering all democracy. It's our own history, and I hadn't known it before."
***MY THOUGHTS***
If you would like to find out if this movie is coming to a theater near you, this link can help. I am going to put myself in the role of movie reviewer, and I intend to see this movie at it's very first showing possible on opening day. I will be my own judge of whether it's "full of lies" and "made to stir up hate against the church". Just like the DaVinci Code for Catholics, and the Passion of the Christ for Jews, the Mormons are expected to be picketing the opening days of this movie as well, which is only going to increase curiosity and make this movie more available to smaller towns. In my neck of the woods, the movie theater was right across the street from the Catholic church. They were all for attending "The Passion" but couldn't let the DaVinci Code pass through without handing out their 'information sheets'. They even bought out the theater a couple of times to keep others from watching it, and you know what? It stayed for another week!!! Now, I don't want to take the chance that this movie might not make it to my hometown, so I am going a little out of my way to see it on opening day. I'm even going in the middle of the day at it's first showing just to avoid the crowds. I am also going to wear this tee-shirt to fend off anybody with 'information sheets'.
It's not the people I hate, it's the entity. It's like trying to defend big tobacco companies, or heath insurance companies. The only ones who do so are those with a vested interest in it. Everybody else has the freedom to look at both sides of the issues and decide for themselves. If you speak out against them, and you're an employee, you get fired. Same for the church. Only firing is called ex-communication for apostacy. It's just another word for whistle-blower.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Word of Wisdom Problem
Blog Author's Note: This essay was written by Joel McDonald, who maintains a site here. I thought it was so well written, I decided to present it here, in its entirety, on my own blog. Please note: sections that state “commentary” are Joel’s comments, not my own. My thoughts will be presented at the end of the essay with my *** notations.
Like many religions, Mormonism has a dietary code which all adherents are directed to follow. This code is known as the Word of Wisdom, and the faithful believe that these dietary directions came straight from the Lord by revelation in 1833 to Joseph Smith Jr. Smith is considered by Latter-day Saints to have been the first of many prophets in these final days. For Mormons, it is vitally important that they obey the Word of Wisdom, as failure to do so can result in the loss of their salvation. There is a problem though with the application of this revelation in today’s Mormonism.
The problem is that the religion doesn’t enforce the complete dietary code, even though they claim that the words of the written revelation are the words of the Lord. Mormonism chooses only to enforce certain parts of the code, making those parts more important than the others, while the written revelation does not refer to any part as being more important, or more damning, than another.
Lastly, in reading the written revelation, one must question whether or not the Lord, or Joseph Smith, ever intended the Word of Wisdom to be enforced in a manner that would, by technicality, restrict those who live contrary to it from gaining Eternal Life.
Piecing Together The Word of Wisdom
Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants and Commentary
What follows is the written revelation of the Word of Wisdom from Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants, a book considered scripture by Mormons. Commentary is also included to point out significant details and aid the reader in understanding the passage.
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327–329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet. 1–9, Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed; 10–17, Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals; 18–21, Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings.”
Commentary: This is the introduction of the revelation in section 89, but not part of the revelation itself. Supposedly Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph, was angry with Joseph over the mess left by the brethren of the church after meetings, and it was Emma’s displeasure which lead him to, as Mormon’s claim, inquire and receive the revelation from the Lord (1). The introduction also breaks down sections of the passage where important items can be found.
“A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion— To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days— Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints. Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you:
Commentary:
Smith opens by saying that the revelation following his “inspired introduction” is given by “greeting; not by commandment or constraint”. This opens the way for argument regarding whether the Word of Wisdom should be treated as a commandment at all. Mormonism does treat The Word of Wisdom as a commandment. Mormon missionaries teach potential converts, as part of a lesson titled “Commandments” that, “The Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith a law of health called the Word of Wisdom…To be baptized and confirmed [you] must…obey the Word of Wisdom” (Preach My Gospel, 78). Baptism, according to Mormonism is essential for salvation. Failure to obey the Word of Wisdom can keep a person from being baptized, thus keeping a person from being saved. This seems to place a great deal of weight on obeying something that the Lord is written to have said was given “not by commandment”. Failure to obey the Word of Wisdom can also limit the progress that a Mormon makes within the church as failure to obey makes one unworthy to serve in various capacities in the church and unworthy to go to the temple, which is necessary to gain the highest level of salvation in Mormon doctrine.
Admittedly, he does go on to say that the Word of Wisdom is the “will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days”. To many, following the will of God is important. However, by combining what is written about the Word of Wisdom being given “not by…constraint” and also being “the will of God”, it seems that anyone who follows the principles of the Word of Wisdom will be blessed by God, but not damned because they choose not to follow the revelation. It is also mentioned that the revelation is given to aid in the “temporal salvation” of a person, not spiritual salvation. Yet in today’s Mormonism, the choice not to follow the revelation effects one’s spiritual salvation arguably more than their temporal salvation.
In fairness, Smith did say that, “No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the word of wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 117). However, Smith’s enforcement of the resolution seems inconsistent with his actions, as will be illustrated later.
“In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.”
Commentary: In the chapter, “The Lord’s Law of Health” in Gospel Principles, it can be read that, “The Lord commands us not to use wine and strong drinks, meaning drinks containing alcohol” (3, p. 193, emphasis added). Again the church teaches that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, when the Lord clearly opened by saying the revelation was given “not by commandment”.
The Lord reveals that the will of God is that no man (and probably woman) should drink “wine or strong drink”. At this point, the meaning of wine is clear; however, what does “strong drink” mean? The church interprets the phrase to mean any alcoholic drink. It’s possible, however, that “strong drink” could have meant liquor. This would mean that beer is permissible. Keep this in mind, as the subject of beer will be discussed again shortly.
There is an exception given here to the drinking of wine. The Lord states that wine can be used for “sacraments”. The catch is that it needs to be “pure wine, of your own make”. The interpretation is “pure wine” is that the wine used for sacraments is to not be fermented, this non-alcoholic. From this Mormons conclude that Jesus must have only drunk non-alcoholic wine. This is a misguided attempt at merging the Jesus of the Bible with the modern revelation of Joseph Smith. It is historically inaccurate that Jesus would not have drunk alcoholic wine. In fact, Jesus is accused of being a drunkard in the Biblical account of his life (4). Mormons practice baptism by immersion to follow the example of the obedient Christ. If drinking wine was acceptable to Christ, why restrict those who drink wine from following his example by being baptized?
“And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.”
Commentary: The Lord is very clear here about tobacco not being used in or on people’s body.
“And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.”
Commentary: What is the meaning of “hot drinks”? Mormons interpret the ambiguous phrase to mean coffee and tea. Why hot chocolate, or even hot water, was not included in the interpretation is difficult to surmise. For Mormons, this interpretation is accepted as something setting them apart as a “peculiar people”. Not drinking coffee and tea, is critical in Mormonism as doing so will keep a person from being baptized, serving in the church, and attending the temple. In Mormonism, drinking coffee and tea, even if the phrase used in the revelation is vague and in need of interpretation, will keep a person from salvation.
At this point it is clear that Mormonism prohibits alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea. The church focuses a great deal on these four items and usage of them will keep a person from full activity in the church and even salvation. When a person fails to abide by these prohibitions they are said to have, “a Word of Wisdom problem”.
“And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.”
Commentary: Herbs and fruits are good for people and God wants them to eat them.
“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; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.”
Commentary: While true that the Lord has given the earth to man to dominate (5), according to the Word of Wisdom, man shouldn’t eat meat unless it is winter, cold, or there is a famine. The Lord doesn’t want people eating meat unless there is little else to eat. This passage is extremely clear, requiring no translation whatsoever. However, unlike the vague passage above about “hot drinks”, there is no enforced prohibition on eating meat in times other than the winter, when it is warm, or when other foods are available.
This seems to be completely contradictory. Not only has today’s Mormonism taken a revelation given “not by commandment” and enforced it as such, it has chosen only to enforce certain parts, regardless of how ambiguous the wording, and ignore others. Such a practice is tantamount to choosing five of the Ten Commandments to follow and saying that you follow all of them. It is inconsistent with the Biblical portrayal of the history of God for some commandments to be less important than others. When the Lord speaks a command, the command must be followed. Failure to do so resulted in physical and spiritual death. Mormonism’s application of the Word of Wisdom is incompatible with how God has functioned in Biblical history.
Why should a person be refused baptism because they drink a cup of coffee at work each morning, but allowed the ordinance even if they have steak every night in the month of July? If it is the “will of God” that a person abstain from both practices, why is one damning while the other ignored? It seems illogical, especially considering that the the practice that damns had to be interpreted as such and the practice ignored is crystal clear in the written revelation, the words of the Lord.
“All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— 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.”
Commentary: Grains, vegetables, and fruits have been provided for the nourishment of mankind and all other animals. However, a significant point in this passage is the allowance of beer.
Beer is, “an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste” (6, emphasis added). If “strong drinks” can be interpreted as meaning hard liquor, then it is possible that “mild drinks” made with barely could refer to beer. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording and context of the written revelation. However, such an interpretation would seem inconceivable to Mormons today as they’ve been taught that all alcohol is prohibited by the Lord.
“And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.”
Commentary: This is the closing of the written revelation. The Lord is written as having said that those who follow the Word of Wisdom will be healthy and will be able to gain knowledge and wisdom. Although not expressly mentioned, Mormons believe that following the revelation allows them to be able to hear the whisperings and prompting of the Holy Spirit and be guided in their lives. This is the promise mentioned in the opening passage of the revelation.
Outlining the Word of Wisdom
Below is the “will of God” concerning a person’s “temporal salvation”
Points enforced are marked in green and unenforced are marked in red.
*No wine, unless for sacraments
*No strong drinks (alcoholic drinks)
*No tobacco
*No hot drinks (coffee and tea)
*Herbs should be used
*Fruits in season should be eaten
*Meat should only be eaten in winter, cold, or famine
*Grains should be central to a person’s diet
At best, Mormonism enforces 50% of the entire revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, with the assumption the interpretation of the revelation is correct.
Joseph Smith and the Word of Wisdom
One of the best examples of Joseph Smith’s attitude toward the Word of Wisdom, and his beliefs on it being given “not by commandment” was his establishment of a bar in Smith Mansion House, in Nauvoo, Illinois. A close associate to Smith, Orrin Porter Rockwell was contracted to run the bar/barber shop. Dr. Russell Burrows of Bowling Green University explains that Smith,
“…set up Rockwell in a combination barbershop and a bar—a venture to work in concert with Smith’s Mansion House, which was church headquarters, as well as Smith’s private residence. This hub of the rapidly expanding Nauvoo could well have used the nearby amenities of a barbershop and a bar—and besides, a job there would have given Rockwell an almost perfect chance to watch who had been coming and going from the holy city. Beneath the surface of this unlikely arrangement, it’s almost as though Smith were chuckling at the prospect of a latter-day Samson (one of Smith’s own creation), cutting hair—especially, if ever it were Gentiles’ hair. And Rockwell, for his part, was agreeable, if probably doubtful about the barbering.
The bar tending he would rise to, ably assisted by his church elders, for Smith magnanimously ordered in a polished bar along with a stock of liquors with which to school Rockwell in the more heady spirits and their mixes. And Smith set up this tutelage in a wing of the Mansion House, while—as was convenient—his first and official wife, Emma, was away down river to St. Louis on a trip to buy furniture. Historically, Joseph Smith threw this party some ten years after he had brought out The Word of Wisdom, in which the Persona of the Almighty enjoins: “strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.” But a washed and a combed Rockwell was there behind his bar, setting up his brethren with a warm and a high time of it, when Emma Smith pulled back into town. She got her first look at what was going on and vanquished the prophet—pretty much “horse and foot,” in that splendid old war phrase—by throwing his woozy fraternity from the home where she had been raising children. (8)”
Certainly Joseph Smith, as a prophet of God, would not have established a bar in his own home, or even allowed liquor, if he believed that the consumption of alcohol was damning to the immoral soul.
Conclusion
It has been clearly established that the original intention of the Word of Wisdom was that it not be compulsory. It has also been established that the Mormon church today enforces only a part of the total revelation while effectively ignoring the total. This is an incompatible and inappropriate use of revelation. While it is understandable that Mormonism desires to decrease the negative effects of addiction, the Word of Wisdom shouldn’t be butchered and used piecemeal to limit these effects. If the Mormon church desires to prohibit its members from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco, it should do so without invoking the revelation. Appropriately used, the Word of Wisdom is guidance on healthy living. While it may be wise to follow what is written as “the will of God”, failure to do so should not be eternally damning.
****MY THOUGHTS****
I have been puzzling over this problem for years, both in and out of the church. I am so glad I visited Joel's site today and came across this essay. Joel is a frequent poster to the PostMormon.org website for former Mormons who have left the church. This essay outlines the problems of 'receiving revelations' and claiming to speak for God. Every man who has been 'set apart' as a leader in the church, whether it is as prophet, stake president or bishop, has to interpret the standards and rules according to his own values and judgement, because he has supposedly been given the 'keys of discernment' to do so.
This is why throughout all of Mormondom, you will find strict Nazi-Mormons and more flexible easy-going Liberal Mormons. We all are supposedly given the 'holy spirit' to guide us, yet the Mormon hierarchy piles on the rules, the codes, and the standards to live by in almost every aspect of your life. (including whether it is proper to remove garments for 'marital relations'). Ick. I am so glad my life isn't dictated to me every second of every day, and I have to process every thought, word and deed through the Mormon Sieve. What's the point of telling each member that the "holy spirit" will reveal the truth to you? If you come up with an answer that doesn't conform, then you are mistaken and have received incorrect spiritual guidance. The devil supposedly reveals misinformation on a different frequency, and it's important to stay tuned to the correct spirit....lest we be led astray.
What a cop out. It just gives them permission to discount your feelings of right and wrong, and insert their own interpretations. Over time, you quit thinking for yourself completely and run to the bishop every time a decision has to be made. You stop following your own instincts and turn to those who taught you that the carnal mind is of the devil. Eventually, everything you say and do is a canned rehearsed response with no emotion and no heart. I've seen it happen time and time again. A classic example of this can be found at mormonapologetics.com. This site is FULL of 'defenders of the faith' who are so colorless and unoriginal it actually hurts to wrap your mind around the arguments they spin trying to defend the indefensible and making the church look like its run by David Koresh wannabes. That site and the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research are major catalysts for Mormons to leave their church in droves. Once you see how hard they have to twist the facts and discount major sources of historical data, (just because it wasn't written by a Mormon in good standing of the church) it becomes quite clear that they aren't 'defending' the church, but whitewashing the history and claiming abuse and attack by anyone who dares to point it out.
Like many religions, Mormonism has a dietary code which all adherents are directed to follow. This code is known as the Word of Wisdom, and the faithful believe that these dietary directions came straight from the Lord by revelation in 1833 to Joseph Smith Jr. Smith is considered by Latter-day Saints to have been the first of many prophets in these final days. For Mormons, it is vitally important that they obey the Word of Wisdom, as failure to do so can result in the loss of their salvation. There is a problem though with the application of this revelation in today’s Mormonism.
The problem is that the religion doesn’t enforce the complete dietary code, even though they claim that the words of the written revelation are the words of the Lord. Mormonism chooses only to enforce certain parts of the code, making those parts more important than the others, while the written revelation does not refer to any part as being more important, or more damning, than another.
Lastly, in reading the written revelation, one must question whether or not the Lord, or Joseph Smith, ever intended the Word of Wisdom to be enforced in a manner that would, by technicality, restrict those who live contrary to it from gaining Eternal Life.
Piecing Together The Word of Wisdom
Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants and Commentary
What follows is the written revelation of the Word of Wisdom from Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants, a book considered scripture by Mormons. Commentary is also included to point out significant details and aid the reader in understanding the passage.
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327–329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet. 1–9, Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed; 10–17, Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals; 18–21, Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings.”
Commentary: This is the introduction of the revelation in section 89, but not part of the revelation itself. Supposedly Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph, was angry with Joseph over the mess left by the brethren of the church after meetings, and it was Emma’s displeasure which lead him to, as Mormon’s claim, inquire and receive the revelation from the Lord (1). The introduction also breaks down sections of the passage where important items can be found.
“A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion— To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days— Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints. Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you:
Commentary:
Smith opens by saying that the revelation following his “inspired introduction” is given by “greeting; not by commandment or constraint”. This opens the way for argument regarding whether the Word of Wisdom should be treated as a commandment at all. Mormonism does treat The Word of Wisdom as a commandment. Mormon missionaries teach potential converts, as part of a lesson titled “Commandments” that, “The Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith a law of health called the Word of Wisdom…To be baptized and confirmed [you] must…obey the Word of Wisdom” (Preach My Gospel, 78). Baptism, according to Mormonism is essential for salvation. Failure to obey the Word of Wisdom can keep a person from being baptized, thus keeping a person from being saved. This seems to place a great deal of weight on obeying something that the Lord is written to have said was given “not by commandment”. Failure to obey the Word of Wisdom can also limit the progress that a Mormon makes within the church as failure to obey makes one unworthy to serve in various capacities in the church and unworthy to go to the temple, which is necessary to gain the highest level of salvation in Mormon doctrine.
Admittedly, he does go on to say that the Word of Wisdom is the “will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days”. To many, following the will of God is important. However, by combining what is written about the Word of Wisdom being given “not by…constraint” and also being “the will of God”, it seems that anyone who follows the principles of the Word of Wisdom will be blessed by God, but not damned because they choose not to follow the revelation. It is also mentioned that the revelation is given to aid in the “temporal salvation” of a person, not spiritual salvation. Yet in today’s Mormonism, the choice not to follow the revelation effects one’s spiritual salvation arguably more than their temporal salvation.
In fairness, Smith did say that, “No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the word of wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 117). However, Smith’s enforcement of the resolution seems inconsistent with his actions, as will be illustrated later.
“In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.”
Commentary: In the chapter, “The Lord’s Law of Health” in Gospel Principles, it can be read that, “The Lord commands us not to use wine and strong drinks, meaning drinks containing alcohol” (3, p. 193, emphasis added). Again the church teaches that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, when the Lord clearly opened by saying the revelation was given “not by commandment”.
The Lord reveals that the will of God is that no man (and probably woman) should drink “wine or strong drink”. At this point, the meaning of wine is clear; however, what does “strong drink” mean? The church interprets the phrase to mean any alcoholic drink. It’s possible, however, that “strong drink” could have meant liquor. This would mean that beer is permissible. Keep this in mind, as the subject of beer will be discussed again shortly.
There is an exception given here to the drinking of wine. The Lord states that wine can be used for “sacraments”. The catch is that it needs to be “pure wine, of your own make”. The interpretation is “pure wine” is that the wine used for sacraments is to not be fermented, this non-alcoholic. From this Mormons conclude that Jesus must have only drunk non-alcoholic wine. This is a misguided attempt at merging the Jesus of the Bible with the modern revelation of Joseph Smith. It is historically inaccurate that Jesus would not have drunk alcoholic wine. In fact, Jesus is accused of being a drunkard in the Biblical account of his life (4). Mormons practice baptism by immersion to follow the example of the obedient Christ. If drinking wine was acceptable to Christ, why restrict those who drink wine from following his example by being baptized?
“And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.”
Commentary: The Lord is very clear here about tobacco not being used in or on people’s body.
“And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.”
Commentary: What is the meaning of “hot drinks”? Mormons interpret the ambiguous phrase to mean coffee and tea. Why hot chocolate, or even hot water, was not included in the interpretation is difficult to surmise. For Mormons, this interpretation is accepted as something setting them apart as a “peculiar people”. Not drinking coffee and tea, is critical in Mormonism as doing so will keep a person from being baptized, serving in the church, and attending the temple. In Mormonism, drinking coffee and tea, even if the phrase used in the revelation is vague and in need of interpretation, will keep a person from salvation.
At this point it is clear that Mormonism prohibits alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea. The church focuses a great deal on these four items and usage of them will keep a person from full activity in the church and even salvation. When a person fails to abide by these prohibitions they are said to have, “a Word of Wisdom problem”.
“And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.”
Commentary: Herbs and fruits are good for people and God wants them to eat them.
“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; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.”
Commentary: While true that the Lord has given the earth to man to dominate (5), according to the Word of Wisdom, man shouldn’t eat meat unless it is winter, cold, or there is a famine. The Lord doesn’t want people eating meat unless there is little else to eat. This passage is extremely clear, requiring no translation whatsoever. However, unlike the vague passage above about “hot drinks”, there is no enforced prohibition on eating meat in times other than the winter, when it is warm, or when other foods are available.
This seems to be completely contradictory. Not only has today’s Mormonism taken a revelation given “not by commandment” and enforced it as such, it has chosen only to enforce certain parts, regardless of how ambiguous the wording, and ignore others. Such a practice is tantamount to choosing five of the Ten Commandments to follow and saying that you follow all of them. It is inconsistent with the Biblical portrayal of the history of God for some commandments to be less important than others. When the Lord speaks a command, the command must be followed. Failure to do so resulted in physical and spiritual death. Mormonism’s application of the Word of Wisdom is incompatible with how God has functioned in Biblical history.
Why should a person be refused baptism because they drink a cup of coffee at work each morning, but allowed the ordinance even if they have steak every night in the month of July? If it is the “will of God” that a person abstain from both practices, why is one damning while the other ignored? It seems illogical, especially considering that the the practice that damns had to be interpreted as such and the practice ignored is crystal clear in the written revelation, the words of the Lord.
“All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— 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.”
Commentary: Grains, vegetables, and fruits have been provided for the nourishment of mankind and all other animals. However, a significant point in this passage is the allowance of beer.
Beer is, “an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste” (6, emphasis added). If “strong drinks” can be interpreted as meaning hard liquor, then it is possible that “mild drinks” made with barely could refer to beer. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording and context of the written revelation. However, such an interpretation would seem inconceivable to Mormons today as they’ve been taught that all alcohol is prohibited by the Lord.
“And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.”
Commentary: This is the closing of the written revelation. The Lord is written as having said that those who follow the Word of Wisdom will be healthy and will be able to gain knowledge and wisdom. Although not expressly mentioned, Mormons believe that following the revelation allows them to be able to hear the whisperings and prompting of the Holy Spirit and be guided in their lives. This is the promise mentioned in the opening passage of the revelation.
Outlining the Word of Wisdom
Below is the “will of God” concerning a person’s “temporal salvation”
Points enforced are marked in green and unenforced are marked in red.
*No wine, unless for sacraments
*No strong drinks (alcoholic drinks)
*No tobacco
*No hot drinks (coffee and tea)
*Herbs should be used
*Fruits in season should be eaten
*Meat should only be eaten in winter, cold, or famine
*Grains should be central to a person’s diet
At best, Mormonism enforces 50% of the entire revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, with the assumption the interpretation of the revelation is correct.
Joseph Smith and the Word of Wisdom
One of the best examples of Joseph Smith’s attitude toward the Word of Wisdom, and his beliefs on it being given “not by commandment” was his establishment of a bar in Smith Mansion House, in Nauvoo, Illinois. A close associate to Smith, Orrin Porter Rockwell was contracted to run the bar/barber shop. Dr. Russell Burrows of Bowling Green University explains that Smith,
“…set up Rockwell in a combination barbershop and a bar—a venture to work in concert with Smith’s Mansion House, which was church headquarters, as well as Smith’s private residence. This hub of the rapidly expanding Nauvoo could well have used the nearby amenities of a barbershop and a bar—and besides, a job there would have given Rockwell an almost perfect chance to watch who had been coming and going from the holy city. Beneath the surface of this unlikely arrangement, it’s almost as though Smith were chuckling at the prospect of a latter-day Samson (one of Smith’s own creation), cutting hair—especially, if ever it were Gentiles’ hair. And Rockwell, for his part, was agreeable, if probably doubtful about the barbering.
The bar tending he would rise to, ably assisted by his church elders, for Smith magnanimously ordered in a polished bar along with a stock of liquors with which to school Rockwell in the more heady spirits and their mixes. And Smith set up this tutelage in a wing of the Mansion House, while—as was convenient—his first and official wife, Emma, was away down river to St. Louis on a trip to buy furniture. Historically, Joseph Smith threw this party some ten years after he had brought out The Word of Wisdom, in which the Persona of the Almighty enjoins: “strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.” But a washed and a combed Rockwell was there behind his bar, setting up his brethren with a warm and a high time of it, when Emma Smith pulled back into town. She got her first look at what was going on and vanquished the prophet—pretty much “horse and foot,” in that splendid old war phrase—by throwing his woozy fraternity from the home where she had been raising children. (8)”
Certainly Joseph Smith, as a prophet of God, would not have established a bar in his own home, or even allowed liquor, if he believed that the consumption of alcohol was damning to the immoral soul.
Conclusion
It has been clearly established that the original intention of the Word of Wisdom was that it not be compulsory. It has also been established that the Mormon church today enforces only a part of the total revelation while effectively ignoring the total. This is an incompatible and inappropriate use of revelation. While it is understandable that Mormonism desires to decrease the negative effects of addiction, the Word of Wisdom shouldn’t be butchered and used piecemeal to limit these effects. If the Mormon church desires to prohibit its members from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco, it should do so without invoking the revelation. Appropriately used, the Word of Wisdom is guidance on healthy living. While it may be wise to follow what is written as “the will of God”, failure to do so should not be eternally damning.
****MY THOUGHTS****
I have been puzzling over this problem for years, both in and out of the church. I am so glad I visited Joel's site today and came across this essay. Joel is a frequent poster to the PostMormon.org website for former Mormons who have left the church. This essay outlines the problems of 'receiving revelations' and claiming to speak for God. Every man who has been 'set apart' as a leader in the church, whether it is as prophet, stake president or bishop, has to interpret the standards and rules according to his own values and judgement, because he has supposedly been given the 'keys of discernment' to do so.
This is why throughout all of Mormondom, you will find strict Nazi-Mormons and more flexible easy-going Liberal Mormons. We all are supposedly given the 'holy spirit' to guide us, yet the Mormon hierarchy piles on the rules, the codes, and the standards to live by in almost every aspect of your life. (including whether it is proper to remove garments for 'marital relations'). Ick. I am so glad my life isn't dictated to me every second of every day, and I have to process every thought, word and deed through the Mormon Sieve. What's the point of telling each member that the "holy spirit" will reveal the truth to you? If you come up with an answer that doesn't conform, then you are mistaken and have received incorrect spiritual guidance. The devil supposedly reveals misinformation on a different frequency, and it's important to stay tuned to the correct spirit....lest we be led astray.
What a cop out. It just gives them permission to discount your feelings of right and wrong, and insert their own interpretations. Over time, you quit thinking for yourself completely and run to the bishop every time a decision has to be made. You stop following your own instincts and turn to those who taught you that the carnal mind is of the devil. Eventually, everything you say and do is a canned rehearsed response with no emotion and no heart. I've seen it happen time and time again. A classic example of this can be found at mormonapologetics.com. This site is FULL of 'defenders of the faith' who are so colorless and unoriginal it actually hurts to wrap your mind around the arguments they spin trying to defend the indefensible and making the church look like its run by David Koresh wannabes. That site and the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research are major catalysts for Mormons to leave their church in droves. Once you see how hard they have to twist the facts and discount major sources of historical data, (just because it wasn't written by a Mormon in good standing of the church) it becomes quite clear that they aren't 'defending' the church, but whitewashing the history and claiming abuse and attack by anyone who dares to point it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
