If the Word of Wisdom prohibits alcohol consumption

Post by **_keene** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:21 am

Bryan Inks wrote:I can smoke pot, do acid, take ecstacy, drink wine or rum or vodka. . . and as long as I don't have a problem, I'm ok for the temple?

But only if you take them all at once. That way, they cancel each other out.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:23 am

Bryan Inks wrote:because what you just said is b***s*** as far as the Church is concerned.

Come to think of it, fertilizer may be yet another reason (along with milk) that the church would have an interest in the cattle industry. All the more reason we should raise cattle even if meat is later prohibited.

Post by **_Bryan Inks** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:34 am

asbestosman wrote:
Bryan Inks wrote:because what you just said is b***s*** as far as the Church is concerned.

Come to think of it, fertilizer may be yet another reason (along with milk) that the church would have an interest in the cattle industry. All the more reason we should raise cattle even if meat is later prohibited.

So you refuse to answer my question?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:02 am

Damn, you people will split hairs forever wont you !

It wasn't a commandment then, it is now. Its about overcomeing the flesh, and being spiritual. Its about honoring your body and treating it as a temple.

Is this really a real issue with you?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:05 am

Gazelam wrote:Damn, you people will split hairs forever wont you !

It wasn't a commandment then, it is now. Its about overcomeing the flesh, and being spiritual. Its about honoring your body and treating it as a temple.

Is this really a real issue with you?

You people? What's up with that? Do you wish to engage in any sort of topical discussion or debate here, Gaz or do you not? It's okay with me if you don't but please don't criticize those who are asking probing questions as if it's something extraordinary.

Jersey Girl

Post by **_Bryan Inks** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:06 am

Gazelam wrote:Damn, you people will split hairs forever wont you !

It wasn't a commandment then, it is now. Its about overcomeing the flesh, and being spiritual. Its about honoring your body and treating it as a temple.

Is this really a real issue with you?

Isn't God supposed to be unchanging? Eternal? Aren't his doctrines supposed to be the same?

If D&C 89 says it isn't a commandment, why is it a commandment?

Yeah, it is an issue. Not as big as Joseph's paedophilia or other such issues. . . but still an issue.

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:07 am

Gazelam wrote:Damn, you people will split hairs forever wont you !

It wasn't a commandment then, it is now. Its about overcomeing the flesh, and being spiritual. Its about honoring your body and treating it as a temple.

Is this really a real issue with you?

It seems to be a very real issue considering the WoW is a key questioning tool used for getting a Temple Recommend, and thus getting the things needed to go to the Celestial Kingdom.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:12 am

Bryan Inks wrote:So you refuse to answer my question?

You mean this question:

I can smoke pot, do acid, take ecstacy, drink wine or rum or vodka. . . and as long as I don't have a problem, I'm ok for the temple?

No.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:25 am

That was more directed at Bryan than anyone else.

The principles of the gospel are unchangeing, how we get people to adhere to them can change according to the needs of the people. Hence a "living" church led by revelation. Not a dead one clinging to creeds.

Post by **_maklelan** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:31 am

Bryan Inks wrote:
maklelan wrote:I'm surprised that people knowledgeable enough in church history and doctrine to tell active and happy members where their interpretations and understandings are in error are so unaware of a very basic and well known piece of church history. The revelation is given to the weak and the weakest of the saints. It is council to help those with procilivities towards excess in these areas stay clear; a fence, if you will. It was given as a help to those who suffered from addiction. It was not a commandment until September 9, 1851, when, in Conference, it was made a commandment. Joseph Smith also drank tea, by the way, but since he never had a problem with it (he always abhorred drunkenness) he obviously did not feel he was controlled enough by it to need to follow the council. Today people council others to avoid cola drinks. It's not a commandment, but many feel such a fence will help them to avoid or overcome addiction, and BYU has obviously decided it will make it easier for people to live according to that fence. I've had cola drinks all my life and am not at all effected by some caffeine, so I don't feel it's a fence that I need to put up, but if it is one day added to the commandments I will live it. Piece of cake.

So as long as someone doesn't have drunkeness issues, they can drink alcohol and still pass a temple recommend interview? Am I translating you into simple English correctly?

I can smoke pot, do acid, take ecstacy, drink wine or rum or vodka. . . and as long as I don't have a problem, I'm ok for the temple?

I'd ask where you are from, but it is evident that it isn't the same planet that Mormonism is from. . . because what you just said is b***s*** as far as the Church is concerned.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use foul language in this forum, and I'd also appreciate it if you'd read what I have to say. The commandment was established in the 1850's. It is a commandment today, not council, but it was only council before the 1850's.

You haven't the first clue what I do and do not know about the church, but it is blatantly obvious that no collection of evidence or facts will ever penetrate an ego and conviction as dogmatically reinforced as yours, if the above is any indication. If you have anything new to bring to the table then do so, but if you're just going to ejaculate idiotic insults then I'd prefer you just kept them to yourself.