If the Word of Wisdom prohibits alcohol consumption

[_maklelan]

This is the old Joseph Fielding Smith line. Unfortunately it's a myth.

By all means, provide a source for your assertion.

I can provide it for you in the most sanitised source available - The Ensign:

Have the Saints always given as much emphasis to the Word of Wisdom as they do today?
Leonard J. Arrington, Church Historian Many present-day members of the Church, in reading the diaries, letters, and histories of their grandparents and great-grandparents, have discovered that even those who were staunch members of the Church occasionally mention use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and intoxicating drinks. Even after the publication of the revelation called the Word of Wisdom in 1835, a number of loyal members continued to indulge in some of these habits despite the Lord’s counsel against it.

We should not be surprised at their doing so, because at that time some of them apparently felt that the revelation meant simply a word of advice and counsel—“not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2)—somewhat on the order of “get plenty of sleep” and “don’t eat too much.” 1

From time to time Church leaders laid special stress on the importance of the revelation, and in the October general conference in 1851 the Saints agreed by uplifted hand that they would observe it. 2 Obedience to the Word of Wisdom was listed as a requirement to belong to the School of the Prophets, to the United Order, and to fully participate in many of the important activities of the Church. 3

President Brigham Young strongly urged obedience to the principle in the mid-1860s, President John Taylor and others in the 1880s, and President Joseph F. Smith and others in the early years of this century. President Joseph F. Smith, in a sermon, said, “The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment’ or ‘restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man [and woman] addicted to the use of these noxious things under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.” 4 President Smith stated in 1908, “I believe that we are coming nearer to the point where we shall be able to observe that great and glorious law of temperance which the Lord Almighty has given unto us.” 5

It was in the 1920s, under the inspiration of President Heber J. Grant, that the Church as a whole began to consistently regard the revelation not only as “the order and will of God” but also as a binding principle. From that time forward Church leaders have uniformly and consistently insisted on obedience to the revelation—refraining from the use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and intoxicating beverages—as a condition of holding local leadership positions. And from that time forward, compliance with the ban on coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco has been considered essential to ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood, obtaining recommends to the temple, and participating in other ordinances and responsibilities. 6

We should not be impatient with the Word of Wisdom lapses of early Church members. Certainly there is no reason for us to be ashamed of them. They lived before the revelation was considered binding, and they acted upon the light and understanding which they had. Some of them observed the Word of Wisdom very carefully; others were less scrupulous in this one area but demonstrated their loyalty and goodness in countless other ways. And the Saints as a whole were much more temperate than nineteenth-century persons generally. Travelers to Latter-day Saint communities in the last century praised the temperance and moderation of the Saints. Extreme abuses, particularly drunkenness, were never at any time tolerated among the Saints.

The Lord adds to the Saints’ understanding constantly through the prophet and other leaders he calls. The early Saints struggled through terrible adversities and laid the great foundation of faith that is our heritage. They should be honored and appreciated for their faithfulness to the laws that God revealed to them. At the same time we should be grateful for any additional understanding that adds to our happiness and spiritual growth.

Gospel topic: Word of Wisdom

So they recommitted themselves in the early part of this century. That doesn't mean what happened in the 18509's just vanishes away, does it? The nature of the commandment didn't change at all, just the manner in which it was emphasized and enforced. I'm afraid that's just a red herring.

[_Ray A]

So they recommitted themselves in the early part of this century. That doesn't mean what happened in the 18509's just vanishes away, does it? The nature of the commandment didn't change at all, just the manner in which it was emphasized and enforced. I'm afraid that's just a red herring.

Please show me in the LDS scriptures where the Word of Wisdom is a commandment.

[_Ray A]

Let me reiterate from Section 89:

1 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—
2 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—

[_maklelan]

And in that conference they made it a binding principle, or a commandment. You really want to split hairs about whether or not a binding principle is a commandment or not?

[_harmony]

And in that conference they made it a binding principle, or a commandment. You really want to split hairs about whether or not a binding principle is a commandment or not?

So are you saying that members can change God's intent, by a show of hands?

[_truth dancer]

The scripture, given through revelation clearly states the WoW is NOT a commandment.

Are you saying a "binding principle" IS a commandment?

Where is the revelation changing Christ's revelation through Joseph Smith stating the WoW is NOT a commandment.

I understand it was voted on but are you saying that if a congregation votes, they can override the words of Jesus Christ?

~dancer~

[_maklelan]

And in that conference they made it a binding principle, or a commandment. You really want to split hairs about whether or not a binding principle is a commandment or not?

So are you saying that members can change God's intent, by a show of hands?

Are you saying that the decision of the First Presidency to propose it wasn't inspired of God?

[_Ray A]

And in that conference they made it a binding principle, or a commandment. You really want to split hairs about whether or not a binding principle is a commandment or not?

I figured I'd better use an LDS source:

The introduction to the 1835 printing of the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants indicated that it was given as counsel or advice rather than as a binding commandment, though the revelation states that it was "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints" (D&C 89:3). Compliance with its teachings was sporadic from the late 1830s until the early years of the twentieth century. The Church encouraged leaders to be an example to the people in abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee; but no binding Church policy was articulated during this time.

The prohibition movement, spearheaded by the Protestant Evangelical churches in America, focused on alcohol consumption as a political rather than a moral issue. The movement intensified the Church's interest in the Word of Wisdom. There is evidence that Church Presidents John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber J. Grant wanted to promote adherence to the Word of Wisdom as a precondition for entering LDS temples or holding office in any Church organization; and indeed, by 1930 abstinence from the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea had become an official requirement for those seeking temple recommends. While abstinence from these substances is now required for temple attendance and for holding priesthood offices or other Church callings, no other ecclesiastical sanctions are imposed on those who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom.

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/dail ... isdom.html

[_harmony]

And in that conference they made it a binding principle, or a commandment. You really want to split hairs about whether or not a binding principle is a commandment or not?

So are you saying that members can change God's intent, by a show of hands?

Are you saying that the decision of the First Presidency to propose it wasn't inspired of God?

You didn't answer my question, Mak. Are you saying that members can change God's intent, by a show of hands? With no accompanying revelation, no accompanying canonized of that revelation?

That's not how God does things. We know when we've been presented something from God: it's presented to the members as a revelation. And when there's no revelation, we also know where that's coming from. (which is why the priesthood ban and the lack of revelation regarding the Melch priesthood is so important)

God gave Joseph his intent: "not by commandment." Sec 89 was meant in an advisory capacity only. Then men came along (the aforementioned prophets Young, Taylor, Grant, JF Smith, etc) and proposed changing it, eventually to a commandment. The members voted and changed it to commandment. Where's the revelation changing it? Where's the canonization of the revelation?

Please don't tell me this church is not under apostacy. Pres Benson was right. He may have had the reason wrong (he thought it was because the members weren't reading the Book of Mormon), but he was on the right track.

[_maklelan]

And in that conference they made it a binding principle, or a commandment. You really want to split hairs about whether or not a binding principle is a commandment or not?

So are you saying that members can change God's intent, by a show of hands?

Are you saying that the decision of the First Presidency to propose it wasn't inspired of God?

You didn't answer my question, Mak. Are you saying that members can change God's intent, by a show of hands? With no accompanying revelation, no accompanying canonized of that revelation?

That's not how God does things. We know when we've been presented something from God: it's presented to the members as a revelation. And when there's no revelation, we also know where that's coming from. (which is why the priesthood ban and the lack of revelation regarding the Melch priesthood is so important)

God gave Joseph his intent: "not by commandment." Sec 89 was meant in an advisory capacity only. Then men came along (the aforementioned prophets Young, Taylor, Grant, JF Smith, etc) and proposed changing it, eventually to a commandment. The members voted and changed it to commandment. Where's the revelation changing it? Where's the canonization of the revelation?

Please don't tell me this church is not under apostacy. Pres Benson was right. He may have had the reason wrong (he thought it was because the members weren't reading the Book of Mormon), but he was on the right track.

And y'all are assuming that there was no revelation just because there's no official declaration, but most of the revelations received by the prophets are not recorded. Sometimes it's just a policy change, too. I don't see why this is an issue at all.