Inconsistency of message in Sunday lessons...

[_Drifting]

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?

[_PrickKicker]

Again the church refuses to clarify... Just in case they get it wrong.

Also encourages people to come to their own conclusions and teach it to others, living the letter or living the spirit?
On this one it is the spirit.

The God of confusion reigns supreme in the crowd of gods.

[_subgenius]

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

por que? our ward was on chapter 18...
"Adult Church members will resume studying the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series in 2012, beginning with George Albert Smith."

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.

not surprising, and completely appropriate.

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'.

you attend Priesthood why?

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.

i agree....made up on the spot to an extent....which should have been clarified.

FIRST QUESTION: Has the principle regarding meat in the WoW been officially changed, in similar fashion to the clarification of hot drinks etc?

as a convert, i was taught that while the fundamentals/specifics of the WoW were rather clear, the doctrine was about "addictive substances" in our every day lives. So, while the list of prohibited substances may be timeless (tobacco) or apparently subject to contemporary interpretation (soda) it was in no way a complete list. I believe the principle of Meat has not changed with regards to using it "sparingly" but perhaps the context of its availability and the modern schedule is being regarded.

Also when comparing notes, it became clear to me that the general outcomes to the two lessons had been materially different.

or just the outcomes for the method of note-taking?

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.

women are the "fairer sex" - its a cliché for a reason.

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?

OR does each participant "hear" what they need to hear from a lesson?
I have had similar situations when listening to the same talk, in the same room, with other people - regardless of male or female.

THIRD QUESTION: Is differing outcomes from lessons okay from an official Church point of view?

Yes, when the lesson is conveyed appropriately


But more important - you attend Priesthood why?

[_just me]

LOL

I always loved bringing up the meat thing because it would raise so many hackles.

Meat is the one thing available year round...unlike vegetation which is seasonal.

I've always noticed that the men take the lesson a little different direction than the women. Then you get that guy who wants to pontificate about mystery shiz. Made me glad to be in Relief Society. Muhuhahahaha!

[_Themis]

FIRST QUESTION: Has the principle regarding meat in the WoW been officially changed, in similar fashion to the clarification of hot drinks etc?

No. The meat one just gets ignored, unlike hot drinks which were meant to be temperature until it became obvious that temperature did not matter. What is funny is the meat advice is probably the best piece of advice other then tobacco, yet it gets ignored so thoroughly.

[_subgenius]

Again the church refuses to clarify.

CFR

Also encourages people to come to their own conclusions and teach it to others, living the letter or living the spirit?
On this one it is the spirit.

you are wrong about what they encourage, seemingly you are being misleading on purpose or you just have not ever paid attention

The God of confusion reigns supreme in the crowd of gods.

i am sure this made sense when you "thought" it...but it is actually just nonsensical.

[_subgenius]

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'.

you attend Priesthood why?

BUMP for Drifting

[_subgenius]

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

por que? our ward was on chapter 18...
"Adult Church members will resume studying the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series in 2012, beginning with George Albert Smith."

BUMP for Drifting

[_Drifting]

LOL

I always loved bringing up the meat thing because it would raise so many hackles.

Meat is the one thing available year round...unlike vegetation which is seasonal.

I've always noticed that the men take the lesson a little different direction than the women. Then you get that guy who wants to pontificate about mystery shiz. Made me glad to be in Relief Society. Muhuhahahaha!

You should've heard the silence when I put forward the idea that the principle of the WoW, lived properly, would mean that fat people weren't eligible for Temple attendance. 'Pin Drop' time...

[_Drifting]

you attend Priesthood why?

BUMP for Drifting[/quote]

Off topic, ask me on the appropriate thread.