Inconsistency of message in Sunday lessons...
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:58 am
Yesterdays lesson in both Relief Society and Priesthood was on the subject of the Word of Wisdom, as contained within D&C section 89.
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 9?lang=eng
When discussing the lesson afterwards, it became clear that Mrs Drifting and I had come away with two differing key messages in terms of what the lesson was trying to get across.
In Priesthood we had some discussion around the Do's and the Don'ts of the WoW. We discussed that 'hot drinks' had come to mean 'Tea & Coffee'; that 'strong drink' now meant 'all alcohol'; that wine can no longer be used for the Sacrament etc etc. And that the official position on the revelation had migrated from the initial 'gentle guidance' to today's 'commandment and worthiness measure'.
We didn't cover meat, so I raised my hand and asked the question; "Doesn't the WoW encourage us to have a largely vegetarian diet and to only eat meat sparingly during periods of cold or famine?"
The teacher gave the answer that this was only applicable in the early days of the Church because meat was only available seasonally. Now that meat was available all year round, regardless of season, this no longer really applies.
This sounded to me like an answer made up on the spot.
FIRST QUESTION: Has the principle regarding meat in the WoW been officially changed, in similar fashion to the clarification of hot drinks etc?
Also when comparing notes, it became clear to me that the general outcomes to the two lessons had been materially different. In Relief Society they had focussed on the general principles of 'moderation' in dietary matters and 'healthy eating/healthy lifestyle' type discussion points. They had also discussed that the WoW was a 'principle' that people should be trying their best to live up to but we should recognise that sometimes things for different people are harder than for others. If an individual is/was a smoker, then as long as that individual was striving to live the WoW as best as they could, even if they were having the odd cigarette, then they could sit in front of the Bishop and say 'Yes' to the question "Are you living the WoW?". Because they were living the principle of trying to live the WoW the best they can. Same applied to those people who had the odd glass of wine etc.
In Priesthood it was black and white; if you smoke you fail.
Which is a significantly different principle to that which the ladies agreed was the purpose of the WoW.
SECOND QUESTION: Given that the lesson topic was the same; are the lessons tailored by the Church to fit what they feel is the needs of the different sexes? Or do the lessons generate different outcomes because of the contribution of the sex of the people in the lesson?
THIRD QUESTION: Is differing outcomes from lessons okay from an official Church point of view?
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 9?lang=eng
When discussing the lesson afterwards, it became clear that Mrs Drifting and I had come away with two differing key messages in terms of what the lesson was trying to get across.
In Priesthood we had some discussion around the Do's and the Don'ts of the WoW. We discussed that 'hot drinks' had come to mean 'Tea & Coffee'; that 'strong drink' now meant 'all alcohol'; that wine can no longer be used for the Sacrament etc etc. And that the official position on the revelation had migrated from the initial 'gentle guidance' to today's 'commandment and worthiness measure'.
We didn't cover meat, so I raised my hand and asked the question; "Doesn't the WoW encourage us to have a largely vegetarian diet and to only eat meat sparingly during periods of cold or famine?"
The teacher gave the answer that this was only applicable in the early days of the Church because meat was only available seasonally. Now that meat was available all year round, regardless of season, this no longer really applies.
This sounded to me like an answer made up on the spot.
FIRST QUESTION: Has the principle regarding meat in the WoW been officially changed, in similar fashion to the clarification of hot drinks etc?
Also when comparing notes, it became clear to me that the general outcomes to the two lessons had been materially different. In Relief Society they had focussed on the general principles of 'moderation' in dietary matters and 'healthy eating/healthy lifestyle' type discussion points. They had also discussed that the WoW was a 'principle' that people should be trying their best to live up to but we should recognise that sometimes things for different people are harder than for others. If an individual is/was a smoker, then as long as that individual was striving to live the WoW as best as they could, even if they were having the odd cigarette, then they could sit in front of the Bishop and say 'Yes' to the question "Are you living the WoW?". Because they were living the principle of trying to live the WoW the best they can. Same applied to those people who had the odd glass of wine etc.
In Priesthood it was black and white; if you smoke you fail.
Which is a significantly different principle to that which the ladies agreed was the purpose of the WoW.
SECOND QUESTION: Given that the lesson topic was the same; are the lessons tailored by the Church to fit what they feel is the needs of the different sexes? Or do the lessons generate different outcomes because of the contribution of the sex of the people in the lesson?
THIRD QUESTION: Is differing outcomes from lessons okay from an official Church point of view?
