If the Word of Wisdom prohibits alcohol consumption

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

maklelan,

Could you articulate for the uninitiated (that would be me) the chief differences between a "binding principle" and a "commandment" in LDS thought and belief?

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

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.

That's why we have revelation, Mak. To be binding on the members. Without revelation, we're just a bunch of people who agree to follow a certain course. Big deal. All churches are that. The keys to being prophet, seer, and revelator are given to the prophet, so through him, God can lead us by revelation. So without revelation, there is no reason to believe the prophet is acting as a prophet. We all know the prophet is only a prophet when he's acting as such, so without revelation, there is no reason to believe he's acting as the prophet.

There's a big problem with this, Mak. Policy is not doctrine. Policy requires no revelation. Doctrine does. Doctrine requires canonization. Sec 89 was canonzied as an advisory only. They didn't just change a policy when they changed the WoW; they changed doctrine, and they did it without a revelation. (you know as well as I do the other doctrines that were changed or put in place without revelations, so I won't derail Jersey Girl's thread by bringing them up)

Once again men have proven that they cannot be trusted with God's church; they go off, half-cocked on their own. Our modern prophets are like Abraham, in his impatience with God. We have so much man-doctrine mixed in with our revelations, it's nigh onto impossible to untangle the mess!

[_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?

maklelan,

Could you articulate for the uninitiated (that would be me) the chief differences between a "binding principle" and a "commandment" in LDS thought and belief?

Jersey Girl

I see them as synonymous. Both words define the same thing: a principle that we are bound to adhere to.

[_maklelan]

Policy is not doctrine. Policy requires no revelation. Doctrine does. Doctrine requires canonization.

Then please describe proccess of canonization in the church and how this particular instance fails to meet that requirement.

[_Mister Scratch]

The simple answer to your OP, Jersey Girl: the reason is that the Church is hypocritical on this matter. The WoW today functions mostly symbolically as a means for people to demonstrate their obedience and loyalty to the Church and its leaders. Following the Wow says, in effect, "I will do what you command. I am your humble servant."

[_maklelan]

The simple answer to your OP, Jersey Girl: the reason is that the Church is hypocritical on this matter. The WoW today functions mostly symbolically as a means for people to demonstrate their obedience and loyalty to the Church and its leaders. Following the Wow says, in effect, "I will do what you command. I am your humble servant."

Obviously this is one interpretation, and an etic one that is transparently biased, and thus fails to convince anyone who doesn't already dogmatically feel this way.

[_Mister Scratch]

The simple answer to your OP, Jersey Girl: the reason is that the Church is hypocritical on this matter. The WoW today functions mostly symbolically as a means for people to demonstrate their obedience and loyalty to the Church and its leaders. Following the Wow says, in effect, "I will do what you command. I am your humble servant."

Obviously this is one interpretation, and an etic one that is transparently biased, and thus fails to convince anyone who doesn't already dogmatically feel this way.

What's wrong with that interpretation, Mak? Is there anything fundamentally incorrect about what I said? Given everything that has already been said in this thread, I think my claim is quite emic, rather than etic.

[_maklelan]

The simple answer to your OP, Jersey Girl: the reason is that the Church is hypocritical on this matter. The WoW today functions mostly symbolically as a means for people to demonstrate their obedience and loyalty to the Church and its leaders. Following the Wow says, in effect, "I will do what you command. I am your humble servant."

Obviously this is one interpretation, and an etic one that is transparently biased, and thus fails to convince anyone who doesn't already dogmatically feel this way.

What's wrong with that interpretation, Mak? Is there anything fundamentally incorrect about what I said? Given everything that has already been said in this thread, I think my claim is quite emic, rather than etic.

Emic means you operate within the system you are analyzing. You can have all the information that anyone inside the system has, but the fact that you are outside means you're analyzing it for a reason, and you need your reason to function a certain way. Your reason is clear, and that your conclusions agree with you agenda and function without any real progressions of logic to back it up shows that it is also biased. The same can be said about me, but you'll notice I haven't presumed to tell you why anyone besides myself has ever done anything, only what has happened. I recognize that I cannot find out exactly why someone does something without them explicitly telling me. Without that I'm only speculating. You are only doing the same, so please don't act as if you could not possibly be wrong.

[_Mister Scratch]

The simple answer to your OP, Jersey Girl: the reason is that the Church is hypocritical on this matter. The WoW today functions mostly symbolically as a means for people to demonstrate their obedience and loyalty to the Church and its leaders. Following the Wow says, in effect, "I will do what you command. I am your humble servant."

Obviously this is one interpretation, and an etic one that is transparently biased, and thus fails to convince anyone who doesn't already dogmatically feel this way.

What's wrong with that interpretation, Mak? Is there anything fundamentally incorrect about what I said? Given everything that has already been said in this thread, I think my claim is quite emic, rather than etic.

Emic means you operate within the system you are analyzing. You can have all the information that anyone inside the system has, but the fact that you are outside means you're analyzing it for a reason, and you need your reason to function a certain way.

Who is outside of what system, Mak? It sounds like you are trying to use the terms "emic" and "etic" in order to fashion an ad hominem argument.

Your reason is clear, and that your conclusions agree with you agenda and function without any real progressions of logic to back it up shows that it is also biased. The same can be said about me, but you'll notice I haven't presumed to tell you why anyone besides myself has ever done anything, only what has happened.

Why are you talking in such a vague way, Mak? I offered up a response to Jersey Girl's original post. You apparently took issue with my response, but seem unable to say why. Also, I cannot help but notice an inconsistency when you say, "...you'll notice I haven't presumed to tell you why anyone besides myself has ever done anything" despite the fact that you just said, in the previous post, "...this is one interpretation, and an etic one that is transparently biased, and thus fails to convince anyone who doesn't already dogmatically feel this way." Seems to me that you *are* "telling why [someone] has ever done anything."

I recognize that I cannot find out exactly why someone does something without them explicitly telling me. Without that I'm only speculating. You are only doing the same, so please don't act as if you could not possibly be wrong.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that the WoW functions in some way other than the way I described?

[_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?

maklelan,

Could you articulate for the uninitiated (that would be me) the chief differences between a "binding principle" and a "commandment" in LDS thought and belief?

Jersey Girl

I see them as synonymous. Both words define the same thing: a principle that we are bound to adhere to.

No, they do not. A commandment is delivered from God through revelation to the prophet, who then presents it to the people for their vote. If the vote passes, the revelation is accepted as doctrine. I have no idea what a "binding principle" is, since it is not a commonly used term.

And there is no revelation that changed Sec 89 from an advisory to a commandment. Even when they voted in 1851, there was no change to the canon. We vote on changes all the time, but unless the canon changes (either with additions or changes), they are not doctrine.