Feast upon the Word - User contributions [en]

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-27T23:22:39Z

Rpederse: /* Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3) */

==overweight==
Hi 65.216.70.186,
I removed part of your question related to being overweight and the Word of Wisdom. I did this to eliminate what some might interpret as a criticism against some members of the church. Hopefully this revision focuses the question more on the scriptures themselves. Note that my reason for removing the part of the question that seemed to critizice members of the church who misread the Word of Wisdom and use it to falsely judge others is not that I disagree with your claim, but rather, simply that I think we are best off by focusing on the scriptures themselves.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:13, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

::I disagree but I won't press the issue. I didn't realize until just now that these pages only cover 5 verses... when I clicked on D&C and on 'section 89', i thought I was heading to a page about the whole section... this should be changed somehow, preferably by having another list come up when I click on 'section 89'. I'm not even sure now how I'm going to get to the page one of my questions was moved to...

:::Just click on the link that says "Next" and the next portion of the section will come up. [[User:Eric|Eric]] 22:48, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:::I agree that the Next Previous links are confusing--especially for those who get to the scriptures by drilling down through the links (e.g. clicking "Doctrine and Covenants" then "Section 89.") There is an enhancement on the queue to add a page with verse links (e.g. 1-5, 6-10) for each chapter/section so that users don't have to click Next, Next, Next, Next to get verse 26. I haven't gotten around to implementing that. In the meantime the easiest way to get to a specific verse is to type its reference (e.g. D&C 89:14) in the search box. I hope this helps. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:05, 11 Aug 2005 (CEST)

On the question, "Is it a sin to be overweight?"
(Note for full disclosure: I am very significantly overweight myself, and it ain't glandular.) Being overweight is a condition: righteousness is about behavior (including behavior of thought). This condition results from some combination of many factors, not all of which are understood. In most of us, though, overweight results from patterns of behavior which are unrighteous, or at least suboptimal. One such cause is gluttony, to use an old word, which seems to me to be tied in with selfishness and ingratitude. In food, as with other things, the notion seems to be that the Lord gives us things which he expects us to use in the right way and in appropriate amounts and balance.
--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 12:38, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I think this is a fascinating topic. I do think there that sometimes—but not all the time—there are changeable behaviors associated with being overweight that are related to righteousness. But I think gluttony is the smaller issue compared to the larger issues that it is often used to symbolize. (For example, the gluttony depicted in [[Isa 28:1]]ff, though I'm sure there are much better scriptural examples....) Also, I think it interesting that gluttony is a sin that often has visible side effects (e.g. obesity), whereas the sins more frequently and vehemently condemned in the scriptures do not have as effects that are as obvious to others. These are definitely topics I'd like to explore more.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 09:34, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I've been thinking about this today, and feel (as I often do) that I'm seeing the shadow of an important principle out of the corner of my eye. It seems to be that there's a principle of "Take enough, but not more than enough" that lies behind many of the commandments. When the Lord blesses us with food, we're welcome to partake, and do so joyfully. Over-partaking, though, smacks of gluttony and greed. We're not asked to be entirely unconcerned about our appearance: it's desirable to be "neat and comely", but "costly apparel" often indicates avarice and pride. Within the bounds the Lord has set, sexuality is an appropriate expression of love, without the taint of sin some faiths ascribe to any sexual act. The righteous seeking of knowledge and wisdom can become the damning greed of a Faust or the spiritual blindness resulting from "looking beyond the mark" for "things they could not understand." (Jacob 4:14) Even our holiest desires can go out of bounds: Alma desires to preach the gospel with mighty power (Alma 29:1-2), but understands "but behold...I do sin in my wish." In many things, we're learning to take what we need, and be content with only what we need.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 02:00, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

On a related note. I think we should delete the overweight question. To me the answer is clear, no. D&C 89 isn't about being overweight, nor is it about gluttony. Any concerns with deleting this from here? Note that doesn't mean someone shoudln't add commentary about gluttony to scriptures about gluttony. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:20, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I'd be fine with deleting the question, and indeed this whole discussion. Even though I've participated vigorously, I've been aware that the relevence of my comments to the understanding of this section of scripture is pretty tenuous. Been fun, though! --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 03:22, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::well maybe we can find a scripture about gluttony to move some comments about gluttony to there. In the meantime, I'll delete the question but not for now the discussion here. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:51, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::I've copied my comments, which I may want to explore further, to my talk page.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 06:15, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I think one could argue that ''prudence'' in [[D&C 89:11|verse 11]] raises the issue of gluttony, though it seems to be primarily referring to just fruit and herbs, depending on how one reads "all these things." [http://www.gotquestions.org/gluttony-sin.html Here] is a list and discussion of Bible verses that pertain to gluttony. Notice several of the passages are in the OT wisdom writings, so I think one could also make a case that ''wisdom'' in verses 1, 2, 4 and 19 in the context of food refers indirectly to gluttony. Although this said, I think it's more interesting that gluttony does ''not'' seem to be mentioned in this section. It seems like a natural topic to include in a discussion of food and wisdom, so I think it's surprising that gluttony is not mentioned. I think this underscores the "weakest of the saints" phrase in verse 3 (i.e. perhaps it is not considered an important enough principle to be explicitly stated here where only instructions for the weakest of saints are mentioned? but on this view the later explanation about different grains for different animals etc. would seem a bit unjustified...). --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 08:13, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==easier to follow?==
I'm wondering about the last paragraph in the exegesis about the WoW being easier than some commandments b/c we can see the direct benefit ("if we eat right ... we're healthier"). Maybe I think the comment just needs a little rewording so it's more neutral in tone or less strong in its claim. After all, in many cultures tea is very common and considered very healthy--for new converts in these areas, the WoW is sometimes one of the hardest commandments to follow precisely b/c the health benefits are ''not'' obvious.... --[[User:Rcouch|Robert C.]] 19:13, 13 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:I don't think it's saying that it's easy to follow, just that it's easier to see the benefits. I suppose one could argue the point to some extent, though, since moderate use of coffee and tea are close to harmless, and extremely limited use of alcohol might even be beneficial. This is getting off-topic, but I think it's too bad that the alcohol/tobacco/coffee thing receives so much attention in the Church, while we don't talk very much about limiting meat and emphasizing grains, which definitely would be healthy. I wouldn't say it's against the WoW per se to be overweight, but we collectively would be healthy to take all of the WoW more seriously. Off my soapbox for now ... [[User:Eric|Eric]] 05:45, 14 Aug 2005 (CEST)

::Verse 3 suggests that it's easy in at least some senses. I think of what one might call the "temple recommend aspects" of the revelation are easy in a couple of senses. First, for most people, those things may be hard to achieve initially but not really be an issue afterwards. On some summer days, the sweetened teas people drink in this area look really good -- I'm a convert, and know the taste -- but it's sure not something I struggle with. Holding back irritation at the 98th interruption by my clerical person is MUCH harder.

::Also, there's a ''straightforwardness'' about these principles. Learning full and complete honesty involves moving through layers of understanding, and is taking me decades. So the question "Am I honest?" is a little hard to answer, but "Do I drink alchoholic beverages?" is easy -- it's possible to be perfect in that thing. --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 01:12, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==a direction?==
Okay, all of this sudden attention here at D&C 89 has got me excited to bury myself here for a bit (I can't seem to keep on any one project lately, but oh well). So I'll begin to post some thoughts here, even as I maintain (for a short while I'm sure) my work on the remnant and its implications for the Book of Mormon. Anyone game to join in? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:37, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

: I really have this same problem--"I can't seem to keep on any one project lately." Thoug in my case I don't think it just affects me lately. On the other hand, it is kind of nice to come back to a half-finished discussion several months later and take it up again. Anyway, in this case, I'm happy to join in, if I end up with anything to say. I like what you wrote up. One side question: I look at how many parts of the scriptures point to the temple and am surprised. In each instance it does seem to point to the temple. Taken as a whole I wonder if: a) really the temple is all over writings of the scriptures or b) we are biased toward interpretting the scriptures in relation to the temple because the temple is so important to us. I have thought about this mainly in related to [[Alma 13:1-5]]. I never would have guessed that was related to the temple but now the relationship seems so obvious (I think Rob Fergus was the one to suggest it). --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 14:27, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, you know that I have been rather excited about the Word of Wisdom after arguing with a few members regarding caffeinated drinks. I have been studying at night (I don't have that much free time) but I will include some of my findings to this thus far. I'm excited to contribute my thoughts towards one of the greatest gifts that the Lord has given us...an insight to his Wisdom. --[[User:Document|document]] 18:57, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::Matthew, I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship. Since most members don't talk about temple symbols or worship outside of the temple, its hard to know exactly how many members also see the importance of the temple in understanding the scriptures, or how much temple imagery they find there. Fascinating question. Would love to hear other perspectives on this.--[[User:Rob Fergus|Rob Fergus]] 18:05, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I totally agree with Rob on this point. Perhaps it's a consequence of reading Nibley's work, but I can't read anything in the scriptures without turning rather quickly to the temple. The temple is the center of everything, it is the ordinance that orders the gods, and it runs through every moment and thought I find in the scriptures. So I totally agree that "I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship." Anyway, I think we have to bury ourselves in that question of all questions. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 20:49, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I'm hoping to see lots of commentary tying scripture passages to the temple—not having read all that much Nibley (or Margaret Barker), I think I'm less inclined to read this way. So please use me as an excuse to comment on what might seem painfully obvious to you. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 00:43, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==Two questions concerning verse 3==
I'm trying to decide how to read the word "principle" here (I've spent the last twenty minutes writing and erasing my thoughts on it on the commentary page). See [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=principle Webster's] in 1828 on the word. The term seems to have been mostly a scholarly term at the time, used primarily by philosophers and scientists. That this revelation drags it in here is certainly interesting (especially in light of how seldomly it appears in scripture before this point--twice in the NT, once in the BoM, and only twice before this revelation in the D&C). I'm not sure where to begin. I like Webster's fourth, sixth, and seventh definitions. Of course, all eight definitions are not too far from each other. Perhaps the word should be read etymologically (making "principle" a question of something that gets things started, a "beginning"). Any thoughts?

Second, I deleted two paragraphs from the exegesis already posted, mostly because they were general comments that had nothing to do with verse 3. I'm wrestling with the remaining three paragraphs there. Especially, perhaps with the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as easier to follow than the Law of Moses. That doesn't seem to me to be true at all! The more rules, the easier to follow, it seems to me. Every increase of freedom amounts to a further relativization of the points where freedom is "lacking." If one grew up in a civilization where ''everyone'' was obeying an incredibly detailed health code, it would be the easiest thing in the world to maintain it. If the Word of Wisdom is ''harder'' than other health codes to live, then shouldn't the phrase "adapted, etc." be reinterpreted in the following way: the revelation would just have provided a principle with promise, but specific rules have been added so that it is somewhat easier to follow for the weak and the weakest of all saints? The spirit of the law always requires far more strength than the letter of the law. So it seems to me. Thoughts? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:10, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:30, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I haven't responded yet because what I have to say is more about what I don't know. But anyway, here goes.
:I have no clue what principle means in this context. I do think it is critical to the question of harder vs easier to follow. Does principle mean something that cannot be reduced to a set of strict rules? If so, that would indicate a certain direction.
:Thinking about living the word of wisdom as a pre-condition to enter the temple...Suppose I interpret the it as simply a set of prohibitions (don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, etc) then it does seem like that set of prohibitions is easier than the set introduced in the law of Moses. (I have a small kitchen and doubling the set of pots and pans I have would be a challenge.) If instead we think of the word of wisdom as meaning much more than that--as (and here the word comes again) living its principles vs simply obeying a few prohibitions--in that case it may be that this law is harder than the Law of Moses, if we think of the Law of Moses as a set of prohibitions--which we shouldn't.
:I'm getting off topic. This isn't about whether the Word of Wisdom is easier or harder than the Law of Moses, but rather what it means that it is easier than it would be had it not been adapted to the weakest saints. I like your answer that maybe the adaption is the introduction of specific rules. The thing I am getting stuck on is, if living the WofW means more than simply obeying a set of prohibitions, then how does providing a set help the weakest saint live it? Might the specific prohibitions become a distraction from the principles?
:--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 15:13, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Might they? Haven't they? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 15:36, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, I like what you posted in terms of "for the weakest of all saints" meaning "to protect the weakest of saints." For me the word I can't make sense of is ''adapted''. Perhaps this was originally given as a principle instead of a commandment b/c principles are more adaptable than commandments in the sense that each person can apply a principle to their capacity/ability instead of the more one-size-fits-all nature of a commandment. Regardless, I think the word ''principle'' connotes more adaptability than ''commandment'' which I think means it's more readily relevant both for the weakest and for the strongest of saints (although it's interesting that only the weakest are explicitly mentioned—is this because the strongest will more readily see the relevance and the weakest need the reminder?). Or perhaps it is better to consider the "with a promise" the adaptation—that is, the promise is what has been adapted for the weakest.
:Actually, I think the adaptation is the way that the principle is explained. That is, there is a general principle of temperance, wisdom etc. at work here. But, since the weakest have a particularly difficult time understand how this principle applies in matters of health, eating, drinking etc., the explication of this principle is such that it will help the weakest understand the application. I think this view complements what Joe was saying about protecting the weakest of saints.
:Well, those are my jumbled thoughts at this point anyway.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 00:31, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, I like how you addressed these issues in verse 3. I'm still curious to see how you tie in the temple themes throughout the section. I can see how you might take a "stewardship over the earth" approach, which is perhaps why there is so much in the temple about the creation of the earth. But somehow I think you've got (or the section has got) some unanticipated twists up your sleeve which I can't wait to see unveiled. (Don't bother groaning for that one, consider it heard.) --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 15:14, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3) ==

A couple of weeks ago, I made a series of changes to bring my eating into much greater harmony with the teachings of this chapter: a reduction in meat (my choice was to give it up entirely, at least for the time being) and much greater consumption of fruits and vegetables. And I've been surprised at how much better I feel: not only in the overall sense that I hoped for, but also in how I feel after meals.

One of our duties here in mortality is to learn to accept the good and reject the evil. Part of how we do this is through learning what genuinely makes us feel good, what makes us truly happy. We learn to look past the clamorous demands of the natural man for short-term gratification and learn what is genuinely "nourishing". We learn that keeping the commandments brings us joy, and that sin (which never was happiness) harms us: that's why it's sinful.

An example of what I'm trying to get at: A spiritually attuned person doesn't shy away from raucousness and rude speech from an intellectual knowledge of its inappropriateness but because it makes him or her uncomfortable, even pained. Others not so far down the road need the commandments to teach them not to indulge in such behavior themselves: this commandment is in a sense a crutch, a temporary measure to help us get to the point when we no longer need it because we reject such things of our own knowledge.

To bring it back to the temporal (sort of) and the Word of Wisdom, perhaps it's like this: perhaps if we had both full awareness of our bodies, the affects of what we ate, and a knowledge of how what we might eat would affect us, we would no more eat a 24-oz porterhouse than we would drink sour milk -- there would be no need to teach us that it would be bad. (In times of famine, we'd eat it to stay alive, just as the Scandinavian ancestors of meny of the people from my original home in central Iowa ate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk lutefisk] *shudder*.) But, because we've got that ol' natural man to deal with, and because "conspiring men" are trying to lead us into poor choices, we need to be taught about which foods are good for us (i.e., will make us feel genuinely good) and which aren't. So we're given wisdom, guidance as to the ways of eating that will bless us temporally and spiritually.

It's a thought...
--[[User:Rpederse]]

:I think this amounts, in the end, to the same interpretation I've offered on the commentary page, and I invite you to see if you can't work it into the commentary so that this comes out somewhat more clearly. But I think this is precisely what is meant there: anyone who grasps the principle will know how to handle oneself temporally so as to reap the incredible blessings in verses 18-21, but one who does not grasp the principle gets the adapted rules listed here. So, I whole-heartedly agree. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:59, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. however, I don't feel like I can pull the picture together completely. As I tried to explain (not very clearly) above here is my hang-up. How can we say that the introduction of specific rules makes it easier to live the word of wisdom if just living those specific rules doesn't constitute living the WoW and (as seems to be the case) by having the specific rules many of us confuse obeying the specific rules with living the WoW? Wouldn't it be easier to follow the word of wisdom then if we didn't have the specific rules to get distracted by?

::Maybe I am making too big a deal out of what can be resolved easily by say "yes Matthew in that sense it is harder but in other ways it is easier and it was to achieve the sense in which it is easier that the revelation was adapted by giving specific rules. Here is an example of how the specific rules makes it easier for the weak--at least the weak don't become addicted to alcohol since even if no prohibition were given in the WoW, you couldn't both be addicted to alcohol and live the WoW and so since it is easier for someone not addicted to alcohol to live the WoW than it is for someone who is addicted to stop drinking alcohol and starting living the WoW, the specific principles help the weak." So that is how I think the problem should be resolved but I would appreciate others explicitly agreeing if they think that is right.

::One more thing. I think I have heard two interpretations of ''principle.'' One is ''not a commandment;'' the other is ''not governed by specific rules.'' In my mind ''principle'' here means one thing or the other but not both. Which one is it? Or does it really mean both and I'm not getting the connection.

::--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 03:57, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::Check out the "Dictionary.com Unabridged" definitions at [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle dictionary.com.] #1 is probably what's meant here: I'm glad you raised this point, Matthew, because I've been reading #2, and now think that's incorrect. Reading it as #2 would produce the reading you describe as "not governed by specific rules", and that's a little bothersome, because the Lord's about to provide some specific rules/guidance. Reading #1 renders "principle with a promise" into "dietary guidance with associated blessings".

:::After doing some research, I've prepared two paragraphs on how/when the Church accepted this section as a commandment, with the special emphasis on tea/coffee/tobacco/alcohol. Would including this material be in keeping with the project? I ask, because I don't remember coming across such commentary elsewhere.

::::I went ahead and added this. While my sense is that "Feast Upon the Word" is focused on learning what the text itself tells us, historical information is necessary to show why the revelation's role in the Church is so different from what the text seems to suggest.

:::Joe, I will look at how I can work the above thoughts into the commentary.

:::----[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 05:42, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::Matthew, I think I agree with how you've discussed the rules being easier in one sense but harder in another. But the text doesn't seem to raise the question of what's easier or harder, so I don't put much stock in either view. However, I do think you give a good account of how the rules given are an adaptation of the Word of Wisdom principle that protects the weak (or something like that...).
::Regarding ''principle'' being a rule vs. not a commandment, I lean (contra Rpederse) toward the "not a <del>commandment</del> ''rule''" meaning. In my comments above (several sections above...) I think I used "commandment" when I meant "rule." I think the ''adaptation'' of the principle is precisely the rules specifying how the larger principle can be applied to health in a way that protects the weakest of saints. And I think the word ''adaptation'' is significant in that scripture can't simply say "this is an application of the principle" without actually changing the principle in some fundamental way. For one thing, the principle is changed/adapted for the reasons that we've been discussing: it becomes easier in some ways to follow the specific rules, but in other ways it becomes harder to focus on the larger principle and the spirit of what the rules do not reveal. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 12:06, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::Are you sure RobertC and Rpederse disagree? It seems you both are saying you lean toward reading ''principle'' as in contrast to ''commandment.''
:::Rpderse, feel free to write whatever exegesis you think makes sense and if someone else feels differently they can move it. Or, if you don't think what you would write belongs in the exegesis section then you can put it on a user sub-page. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 14:15, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Robert, you've forced me (yet again) to read the text closer. We have too easily drawn the discussion into questions of easier/harder, when the text states things in terms of adaptation/weakness. I can see what "we" were thinking in reading the easy/hard distinction into the question of weakness, but I think you're right to question this connection. I want to make sure I'm following what you are trying to say, and I want to see how it comes up against Matthew's repeated concern, so here goes...

:The key is this "principle... adapted" business. As a principle, the Word of Wisdom is "not a commandment." As adapted, the Word of Wisdom is a "set of rules." Hence, as a principle adapted, the Word of Wisdom is "not a commandment, but rendered as a set of rules." There is, in short, a sort of transposition at work in the revelation: the principle is, as a set of rules, reduced, perhaps caricatured, or even (is this too much?) inverted (made into its own negative). It is as if the Word of Wisdom parallels the historian's view of the translation of the Book of Abraham (a view I don't hold, by the way): one Egyptian sign from the Book of Breathings becomes a whole paragraph in the Book of Abraham; one principle becomes, in translation, a whole set of rules. Are we then treating "principle" like "concept" in the Hegelian sense? In other words, is the "principle" some overall "grasp" on things that actualizes itself by pouring its spiritual plenitude into the temporal realm so as to go through all of its temporal (historical) moments (so many rules) on its way back to its absolution as a principle? Whoops, that got too technical. I hope it was understandable, though. The point is this: is this difficulty Matthew senses here the impossibility of so many temporal "examples" of the principle ever gathering themselves back up into the absolution of the principle, which lies discreetly beyond a veil? But then we are all agreed that that is alright, because the point of this adaptation that cannot undo itself is to allow those who would otherwise be taken in by conspiring men in these last days to maintain something of a happy and healthy life? I think this is what all of this leads me to. I confess I like it, but I'm not convinced we've quite got it yet.

:In short, then, our understanding seems to me to be, so far, this: the principle is something any well attuned saint should grasp (through the body's attention to the Spirit), but because we have these well-meaning weak saints among us, who are too easily fooled by conspiring men to subject their bodies to enslavement, the principle will be translated as a "word of wisdom" that gives those weak/weakest saints a few rules of thumb, some "training wheels" in the meanwhile, so that eventually they can attain to attunement. (This reading would, I think, make good sense of the title "Word of Wisdom," since the phrase is elsewhere a gift of the Spirit that seems to be one's ability to translate principles into the practical language of the weak/weakest.) Is this where we are, then? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:31, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::Matthew, sorry for the confusion, I meant "rules" when I said "commandments" above (I put a strikethrough correcting this mistake). I'll make my 15-month-old son the scapegoat here—in fact, please assume any of my bad edits here are his fault (after all isn't he a "free" scapegoat until he's under 8 yrs old?).
::Joe, please give me credit—and not my son—for any insights you reached because of my mistyping. I agree with your view of principle. I have a very minor quibble about the meaning of "word of wisdom." I think "wisdom" refers to the principle itself more than the adaptation of the principle as a set of rules (though I'm still confused by the wording "given for a principle" in v. 3). Perhaps this is not different than what you mean, I just think it is important in reading the rest of the rules subsequently given, to not read them as ''just'' adapted rules, but as specific rules which are the manifestations (adaptations) of an underlying principle. That is, the word of wisdom is a principle, but it is presented to the saints as an adapted set of rules for the weakest of saints—however, it is the principle of the word of wisdom that is most closely related to the "order" and "will" of verse 2, not the adapted set of rules. Therefore, in order to obtain the promise, we must seek to understand the principle ("a ''principle'' with promise"!), not just follow the set of rules given. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 21:12, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== revisions ==

I revised the very beginning of verse 1 commentary and deleted the following:
:As originally recorded in the ''Kirtland Revelations Book'', this revelation began with the phrase "A Revelation for the benefit of the saints." The 1835 edition, which begins with "A Word of Wisdom", may have partially obscured the nature of this section as a revelation. However, the current section heading explicitly states this section is a revelation, making it clear that the voice here is the Lord's and not Joseph's.
I found it an interesting historical aside but not directly relevant to the exegesis since, as the text itself says, the point that the voice here is the Lord's is made clear in the heading. However, because I did find it an interesting historical point I wasn't sure if maybe it does belong somewhere. Not having a good idea of where, I'm noting it here. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:13, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-27T23:09:33Z

Rpederse: /* Verse 2 */

[[Doctrine & Covenants]] > [[Doctrine & Covenants 89|Section 89]]
{|
| [[D&C 88:136-141|Previous (D&C 88:136-141)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:6-10|Next (D&C 89:6-10)]]
|}
== Questions ==
===Verse 3===
* ''For a principle.'' How should the word ''for'' be understood in the phrase "for a principle"? [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=for Here are] the 31 definitions given in Webster's 1828 dictionary.

===Verse 4===
* Who are the "conspiring men" mentioned in verse 4, and why do we need to be warned about them?
* How does the Word of Wisdom serve as a warning (verse 4)?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 1===
This revelation begins by labelling itself a "Word of Wisdom." The phrase "word of wisdom" is used elsewhere in the scriptures only three times, in each case as a gift of the Spirit. See [[1 Cor 12:8]], [[Moro 10:9]] and [[D&C 46:17]].

The plural phrase "words of wisdom" appears in the D&C a number of times, most significantly in passages closely associated with the building of the Kirtland House of the Lord: [[D&C 88:118]] and [[D&C 109:7]], [[D&C 109:14|14]]. The other three occurrences of the phrase (in the plural) might well imply connection with the temple as well: [[D&C 50:1]] is about testing manifestations (which came to its fullest expression, of course, in the endowment of Nauvoo), [[D&C 78:2]] is connected with the first establishment of a temporal means of accomplishing the law of consecration, and [[D&C 98:20]] concerns specifically the "words of wisdom and eternal life." At any rate, it seems quite clear that references in general to the "word of wisdom" and the "words of wisdom" exhibit some connection with temple ordinances--perhaps most particularly with those temple ordinances that are considered gifts (an endowment is a gift) of the Spirit.

The word "wisdom" itself relates closely to temple worship. While the "wisdom writings" of the Old Testament were traditionally interpreted as collections of rather common advice shared by Israel and its neighbors, there is a growing collection of evidence that while the wisdom texts certainly do seem to transcend the religio-political concerns of the legal and prophetic texts, the wisdom literature may be connected with the Abrahamic covenant as Christ's universalization of the Israelite promises. According to this view, the wisdom writings are associated with temple rites that extend the blessingsg of Abraham to all the nations--the Gentiles--of the earth. In short, "wisdom texts," might well express the core of the Abrahamic experience of God.

As a "word of wisdom," section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants must be seen as clearly tied to temple worship. It is certainly significant that section 89 immediately follows the commandment to build the Kirtland House of the Lord (section 88). As this first verse makes quite clear, the revelation was given for the benefit of the "council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland," who had just received Joseph's first version of the endowment and were preparing to receive the second in the Kirtland House of the Lord (the more complete third endowment wouldn't be revealed until Nauvoo). At any rate, these details suggest that section 89 should not be read more than just a revelation on physical health, but as a revelation closely tied to the ordinances of the temple and that physical health, whatever that means for the Lord, should be taken up with careful attention to the context of the temple ordinances.

===Verse 2===
The revelation is "to be sent greeting." While somewhat awkward, the phrase does echo two verses in the New Testament: [[Acts 15:23]] and [[Acts 23:26|23:26]], both of which are openings of letters. The point of the phrase, then, seems to be that the Word of Wisdom is to be sent as a circular letter, not unlike the epistles of the early apostles. This is a most fascinating aspect of the revelation, since most early revelations were simply published in Church periodicals (or subsequently in the ''Book of Commandments'' or the Doctrine and Covenants). This revelation was apparently understood to be so broadly applicable that it was meant to be sent among the growing membership of the Church.

This subtle connection to apostolic circulars also suggests that not unlike the advice, answers, and information circulated by the Biblical apostles, this Word of Wisdom was not to be enforced "by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom." The very phrase, "to be sent greeting," perhaps indicates that this is a revelation from ''a'' prophet rather than from ''the'' prophet. It may be one prophet's "showing forth the order and will of God" rather than the word of a hierarchical president of the Church.

While this phrasing may fall short of enforcing anything like a policy on temporal health, it is also clear that this section reveals the "order and will of God." There is something remarkable about an authoritative word like this that does not programmatically impose itself, but is simply sent "by revelation and the word of wisdom." The saints are told the Lord's desires in this regard, but allowed to govern themselves. However, if this section is to be taken "not by commandment or constraint," how many of the others are?

The careful language in this section may suggest that this revelation is something peculiar, something different from all the others: as a word of wisdom, only those who seek wisdom need follow it. If the commandments and constraints of Joseph's "usual" revelations draw a dividing line between the righteous and the wicked, this revelation and other revelations about the temple (most of which are not published in the D&C) may draw a second dividing line, one that separates the righteous from the exalted. Perhaps revelations like the Word of Wisdom demarcate a boundary between terrestrially mandated obedience and celestially chosen adoption of holy principles? At the very least, the Word of Wisdom provides the opportunity to follow the Lord's counsel beyond simple "commandments" and "constraints."

As used in this verse, the word "order" deserves careful consideration. To this point in the D&C, it appears twenty-one times, only one of which ([[D&C 87:3]]) does not clearly refer to the priesthood (two are somewhat questionable, in [[D&C 77:3]], though these references to angelic orders could easily refer to heavenly priesthoods). When this revelation was given, the current references to "order" in the revelations were all references to the order of the Kirtland House of the Lord, and to the ordering of the priesthood that would take place in it. The Word of Wisdom assists in this temple ordering of the priesthood by "showing forth" the "order" of the Lord.

As used in this verse, the word "temporal" or the whole phrase "temporal salvation" is also of great significance. The word "temporal" appears only once in the Bible (in [[2 Cor 4:18]]), where it is opposed to "eternal," though it shows up a number of times in the Book of Mormon as opposed rather to "spiritual." Interestingly, in the [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=temporal 1828 Webster's Dictionary], the first definition explicitly states that "temporal" is "opposed to spiritual," while the second explicitly states that it is "opposed to eternal." There seems, then, to have been a sort of shift of emphasis between 1611 and 1828 from "temporal" as opposed to "eternal" to "temporal" as opposed to "spiritual." Thus, "temporal" seems in Joseph's revelations to be best understood as meaning that which is "pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular." However, [[D&C 29:34|D&C 29:34-35]] may well overturn that understanding in a characteristic redefinition of terms. That revelation seems to redefine the relationship between the temporal and the spiritual: rather than being understood as separate or opposite realms, they are understood as closely connected, the temporal being quite simply an outward or even a "fallen" manifestation of the spiritual. The temporal, in other words, cannot be separated from the spiritual, because it is simply a ''consequence'' of the spiritual.

The phrasing of this second verse clearly suggests that God is here meddling in temporal affairs. However, there may be a structural reason to read the verse otherwise:
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
If "revelation" is read as an antithetical parallel to "the word of wisdom," the one might be justified in reading "the order and will of God" as a similar antithetical parallel to "the temporal salvation of all saints." This would highlight the word of wisdom as a revelation, and link the "order and will of God" (inevitably temple business, priesthood business) to our "temporal salvation."

This understanding of the word of wisdom finds a parallel in the "wisdom writings" of the Old Testament, where the revelations are written as temporal words of a father to his son, rather than direct words of revelation or prophecy. As in the temple, revelation and prophecy are more clearly viewed as linked to keys of heavenly communication, rather than as the reception of an absolute word. The "temporal salvation" outlined in the Word of Wisdom is the prophetic--almost patriarchal--linking of the spiritual and temporal realms suggested by D&C 29. If so, the Word of Wisdom is more than a mere "temporal" commandment, as perhaps best confirmed in the closing verses of the revelation.

Finally, this verse indicates that this revelation is for "all" saints. One might read this to mean that the revelation shows God's order and will for each and every saint. Alternatively, one might read it as showing forth God's order and will for the saints collectively. According to the first reading, the Word of Wisdom can be seen as something for each individual saint to struggle with, something one must work out before God with fear and trembling. The second reading may connect this revelation still more profoundly with the temple, as the revelation becomes a guideline for drawing together, uniting, or sealing all the saints together to effect their temporal, and eternal, salvation.

Although the Lord does not designate this section as a commandment at the time it was given, it became accepted as such by the Church. In 1834, the High Council of the Church declared "No official member of this Church is worthy to hold office after having the Word of Wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with or obey it." In 1851, Brigham Young proposed in General Conference that all Saints end the use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and whiskey: this motion was carried unanimously. (See Ludlow, Daniel H., "Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants" in the chapter on Section 89.) Thus we have this section becoming a commandment, with special emphasis on the prohibitions we most commonly think about in connection with this setting.

Why did the Lord not establish this as a commandment when He first gave it? Joseph F. Smith suggested in the Oct. 1913 General Conference that "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, 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. (cited in Cowan, Richard O., "Answers to Your Questions About the Doctrine and Covenants." Chapter 9: "Spiritual and Temporal Matters.")

===Verse 3===
The singular "principle," with which the revelation again recharacterizes itself, emphasizes the singular "Word of Wisdom." These two singulars carry an interpretive weight: the Word of Wisdom is a ''single'' principle, not a set of rules. Or again, the rules as they are proliferated in section 89 might best be read as a series of applications or of adaptations of the single principle. But this just seems to imply that the singular "principle" interprets in advance the meaning of the word "adapted," which follows it: the singular principle is adapted precisely in its proliferation. That is to say, the singular Word of Wisdom is, in section 89, "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest" precisely in that it becomes so many word''s'' of wisdom. This interpretation accords well with the most common [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=principle 1828] meaning of the word "principle": "that from which a thing proceeds," or the "primordial substance" of the matter. The Word of Wisdom, as a singular principle, is the source of so many rules, is the ground of so many adaptations, is the meaning of so many particularities.

The consequence, already hinted at in the above paragraph, of all of this is that the adaptation at work in the Word of Wisdom is the laying out of particular rules. But it is not quite clear at first how the listing of so many rules should be understood as an adaptation "to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." In fact, if one ignores the first phrase of this verse and attempts only to interpret the phrase "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints," one might inevitably conclude that the phrase has reference to how much easier the Word of Wisdom as recorded in this section is than other health codes, such as that of the Law of Moses. One might, that is, assume that were it not for the needs of the weak saints, a different (higher, more difficult) law might have been given. But, in the end, such an interpretation does not appear justified: such an interpretation would be grounded in the presupposition that a code with more rules is more difficult to live, whereas just the opposite seems to be true. The health code of the Law of Moses, with its innumberable rules, would have been far easier to obey than the Word of Wisdom: the Law simply listed the forbidden, and Israel simply kept away from the forbidden things. In fact, once one presses the analogy between the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Moses, it becomes quite clear that the two are incomparable: the Law of Moses provided only restrictions, while the Word of Wisdom is far more than that. In the end, the distance between the two suggests, perhaps, that the Word of Wisdom be thought as something other than a health code: the Word of Wisdom is a principle with promise, but, as is clear in the last few verses of the revelation, the promise is not the promise of health, but rather the promise of wisdom.

Given all the above, the principle seems best understood as adapted to the weak and the weakest precisely in that rules are at all laid out: the Word of Wisdom becomes a far easier thing to keep if there are simple commandments one can follow. Perhaps one final objection ought to be dealt with: doesn't this reading of "adapted" compromise the "principle"? If the adaptation is, in other words, the setting forth of so many rules instead of the principle itself, can anyone truly adhere to the principle, or does everyone end up focused on a series of rules? On the one hand, this objection is insuperable: not only might the saints end up focused on a series of rules, the saints ''have'' ended up so focused. On the other hand, the temple context suggested in the comments above (for verses 1 and 2) perhaps makes some sense of the problem: [[D&C 89:18|verse 18]] summarizes the necessary attitude as regards the Word of Wisdom as "obedience," which might be all that is necessary in order to get one to the temple. There in the temple, one might attend to the principle without so much attention to the rules.

===Verse 4===

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[D&C 88:136-141|Previous (D&C 88:136-141)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:6-10|Next (D&C 89:6-10)]]
|}

D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-27T23:08:08Z

Rpederse: /* Verse 3 */

[[Doctrine & Covenants]] > [[Doctrine & Covenants 89|Section 89]]
{|
| [[D&C 88:136-141|Previous (D&C 88:136-141)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:6-10|Next (D&C 89:6-10)]]
|}
== Questions ==
===Verse 3===
* ''For a principle.'' How should the word ''for'' be understood in the phrase "for a principle"? [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=for Here are] the 31 definitions given in Webster's 1828 dictionary.

===Verse 4===
* Who are the "conspiring men" mentioned in verse 4, and why do we need to be warned about them?
* How does the Word of Wisdom serve as a warning (verse 4)?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 1===
This revelation begins by labelling itself a "Word of Wisdom." The phrase "word of wisdom" is used elsewhere in the scriptures only three times, in each case as a gift of the Spirit. See [[1 Cor 12:8]], [[Moro 10:9]] and [[D&C 46:17]].

The plural phrase "words of wisdom" appears in the D&C a number of times, most significantly in passages closely associated with the building of the Kirtland House of the Lord: [[D&C 88:118]] and [[D&C 109:7]], [[D&C 109:14|14]]. The other three occurrences of the phrase (in the plural) might well imply connection with the temple as well: [[D&C 50:1]] is about testing manifestations (which came to its fullest expression, of course, in the endowment of Nauvoo), [[D&C 78:2]] is connected with the first establishment of a temporal means of accomplishing the law of consecration, and [[D&C 98:20]] concerns specifically the "words of wisdom and eternal life." At any rate, it seems quite clear that references in general to the "word of wisdom" and the "words of wisdom" exhibit some connection with temple ordinances--perhaps most particularly with those temple ordinances that are considered gifts (an endowment is a gift) of the Spirit.

The word "wisdom" itself relates closely to temple worship. While the "wisdom writings" of the Old Testament were traditionally interpreted as collections of rather common advice shared by Israel and its neighbors, there is a growing collection of evidence that while the wisdom texts certainly do seem to transcend the religio-political concerns of the legal and prophetic texts, the wisdom literature may be connected with the Abrahamic covenant as Christ's universalization of the Israelite promises. According to this view, the wisdom writings are associated with temple rites that extend the blessingsg of Abraham to all the nations--the Gentiles--of the earth. In short, "wisdom texts," might well express the core of the Abrahamic experience of God.

As a "word of wisdom," section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants must be seen as clearly tied to temple worship. It is certainly significant that section 89 immediately follows the commandment to build the Kirtland House of the Lord (section 88). As this first verse makes quite clear, the revelation was given for the benefit of the "council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland," who had just received Joseph's first version of the endowment and were preparing to receive the second in the Kirtland House of the Lord (the more complete third endowment wouldn't be revealed until Nauvoo). At any rate, these details suggest that section 89 should not be read more than just a revelation on physical health, but as a revelation closely tied to the ordinances of the temple and that physical health, whatever that means for the Lord, should be taken up with careful attention to the context of the temple ordinances.

===Verse 2===
The revelation is "to be sent greeting." While somewhat awkward, the phrase does echo two verses in the New Testament: [[Acts 15:23]] and [[Acts 23:26|23:26]], both of which are openings of letters. The point of the phrase, then, seems to be that the Word of Wisdom is to be sent as a circular letter, not unlike the epistles of the early apostles. This is a most fascinating aspect of the revelation, since most early revelations were simply published in Church periodicals (or subsequently in the ''Book of Commandments'' or the Doctrine and Covenants). This revelation was apparently understood to be so broadly applicable that it was meant to be sent among the growing membership of the Church.

This subtle connection to apostolic circulars also suggests that not unlike the advice, answers, and information circulated by the Biblical apostles, this Word of Wisdom was not to be enforced "by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom." The very phrase, "to be sent greeting," perhaps indicates that this is a revelation from ''a'' prophet rather than from ''the'' prophet. It may be one prophet's "showing forth the order and will of God" rather than the word of a hierarchical president of the Church.

While this phrasing may fall short of enforcing anything like a policy on temporal health, it is also clear that this section reveals the "order and will of God." There is something remarkable about an authoritative word like this that does not programmatically impose itself, but is simply sent "by revelation and the word of wisdom." The saints are told the Lord's desires in this regard, but allowed to govern themselves. However, if this section is to be taken "not by commandment or constraint," how many of the others are?

The careful language in this section may suggest that this revelation is something peculiar, something different from all the others: as a word of wisdom, only those who seek wisdom need follow it. If the commandments and constraints of Joseph's "usual" revelations draw a dividing line between the righteous and the wicked, this revelation and other revelations about the temple (most of which are not published in the D&C) may draw a second dividing line, one that separates the righteous from the exalted. Perhaps revelations like the Word of Wisdom demarcate a boundary between terrestrially mandated obedience and celestially chosen adoption of holy principles? At the very least, the Word of Wisdom provides the opportunity to follow the Lord's counsel beyond simple "commandments" and "constraints."

As used in this verse, the word "order" deserves careful consideration. To this point in the D&C, it appears twenty-one times, only one of which ([[D&C 87:3]]) does not clearly refer to the priesthood (two are somewhat questionable, in [[D&C 77:3]], though these references to angelic orders could easily refer to heavenly priesthoods). When this revelation was given, the current references to "order" in the revelations were all references to the order of the Kirtland House of the Lord, and to the ordering of the priesthood that would take place in it. The Word of Wisdom assists in this temple ordering of the priesthood by "showing forth" the "order" of the Lord.

As used in this verse, the word "temporal" or the whole phrase "temporal salvation" is also of great significance. The word "temporal" appears only once in the Bible (in [[2 Cor 4:18]]), where it is opposed to "eternal," though it shows up a number of times in the Book of Mormon as opposed rather to "spiritual." Interestingly, in the [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=temporal 1828 Webster's Dictionary], the first definition explicitly states that "temporal" is "opposed to spiritual," while the second explicitly states that it is "opposed to eternal." There seems, then, to have been a sort of shift of emphasis between 1611 and 1828 from "temporal" as opposed to "eternal" to "temporal" as opposed to "spiritual." Thus, "temporal" seems in Joseph's revelations to be best understood as meaning that which is "pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular." However, [[D&C 29:34|D&C 29:34-35]] may well overturn that understanding in a characteristic redefinition of terms. That revelation seems to redefine the relationship between the temporal and the spiritual: rather than being understood as separate or opposite realms, they are understood as closely connected, the temporal being quite simply an outward or even a "fallen" manifestation of the spiritual. The temporal, in other words, cannot be separated from the spiritual, because it is simply a ''consequence'' of the spiritual.

The phrasing of this second verse clearly suggests that God is here meddling in temporal affairs. However, there may be a structural reason to read the verse otherwise:
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
If "revelation" is read as an antithetical parallel to "the word of wisdom," the one might be justified in reading "the order and will of God" as a similar antithetical parallel to "the temporal salvation of all saints." This would highlight the word of wisdom as a revelation, and link the "order and will of God" (inevitably temple business, priesthood business) to our "temporal salvation."

This understanding of the word of wisdom finds a parallel in the "wisdom writings" of the Old Testament, where the revelations are written as temporal words of a father to his son, rather than direct words of revelation or prophecy. As in the temple, revelation and prophecy are more clearly viewed as linked to keys of heavenly communication, rather than as the reception of an absolute word. The "temporal salvation" outlined in the Word of Wisdom is the prophetic--almost patriarchal--linking of the spiritual and temporal realms suggested by D&C 29. If so, the Word of Wisdom is more than a mere "temporal" commandment, as perhaps best confirmed in the closing verses of the revelation.

Finally, this verse indicates that this revelation is for "all" saints. One might read this to mean that the revelation shows God's order and will for each and every saint. Alternatively, one might read it as showing forth God's order and will for the saints collectively. According to the first reading, the Word of Wisdom can be seen as something for each individual saint to struggle with, something one must work out before God with fear and trembling. The second reading may connect this revelation still more profoundly with the temple, as the revelation becomes a guideline for drawing together, uniting, or sealing all the saints together to effect their temporal, and eternal, salvation.

===Verse 3===
The singular "principle," with which the revelation again recharacterizes itself, emphasizes the singular "Word of Wisdom." These two singulars carry an interpretive weight: the Word of Wisdom is a ''single'' principle, not a set of rules. Or again, the rules as they are proliferated in section 89 might best be read as a series of applications or of adaptations of the single principle. But this just seems to imply that the singular "principle" interprets in advance the meaning of the word "adapted," which follows it: the singular principle is adapted precisely in its proliferation. That is to say, the singular Word of Wisdom is, in section 89, "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest" precisely in that it becomes so many word''s'' of wisdom. This interpretation accords well with the most common [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=principle 1828] meaning of the word "principle": "that from which a thing proceeds," or the "primordial substance" of the matter. The Word of Wisdom, as a singular principle, is the source of so many rules, is the ground of so many adaptations, is the meaning of so many particularities.

The consequence, already hinted at in the above paragraph, of all of this is that the adaptation at work in the Word of Wisdom is the laying out of particular rules. But it is not quite clear at first how the listing of so many rules should be understood as an adaptation "to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." In fact, if one ignores the first phrase of this verse and attempts only to interpret the phrase "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints," one might inevitably conclude that the phrase has reference to how much easier the Word of Wisdom as recorded in this section is than other health codes, such as that of the Law of Moses. One might, that is, assume that were it not for the needs of the weak saints, a different (higher, more difficult) law might have been given. But, in the end, such an interpretation does not appear justified: such an interpretation would be grounded in the presupposition that a code with more rules is more difficult to live, whereas just the opposite seems to be true. The health code of the Law of Moses, with its innumberable rules, would have been far easier to obey than the Word of Wisdom: the Law simply listed the forbidden, and Israel simply kept away from the forbidden things. In fact, once one presses the analogy between the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Moses, it becomes quite clear that the two are incomparable: the Law of Moses provided only restrictions, while the Word of Wisdom is far more than that. In the end, the distance between the two suggests, perhaps, that the Word of Wisdom be thought as something other than a health code: the Word of Wisdom is a principle with promise, but, as is clear in the last few verses of the revelation, the promise is not the promise of health, but rather the promise of wisdom.

Given all the above, the principle seems best understood as adapted to the weak and the weakest precisely in that rules are at all laid out: the Word of Wisdom becomes a far easier thing to keep if there are simple commandments one can follow. Perhaps one final objection ought to be dealt with: doesn't this reading of "adapted" compromise the "principle"? If the adaptation is, in other words, the setting forth of so many rules instead of the principle itself, can anyone truly adhere to the principle, or does everyone end up focused on a series of rules? On the one hand, this objection is insuperable: not only might the saints end up focused on a series of rules, the saints ''have'' ended up so focused. On the other hand, the temple context suggested in the comments above (for verses 1 and 2) perhaps makes some sense of the problem: [[D&C 89:18|verse 18]] summarizes the necessary attitude as regards the Word of Wisdom as "obedience," which might be all that is necessary in order to get one to the temple. There in the temple, one might attend to the principle without so much attention to the rules.

===Verse 4===

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[D&C 88:136-141|Previous (D&C 88:136-141)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:6-10|Next (D&C 89:6-10)]]
|}

D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-27T23:06:56Z

Rpederse: /* Verse 3 */

[[Doctrine & Covenants]] > [[Doctrine & Covenants 89|Section 89]]
{|
| [[D&C 88:136-141|Previous (D&C 88:136-141)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:6-10|Next (D&C 89:6-10)]]
|}
== Questions ==
===Verse 3===
* ''For a principle.'' How should the word ''for'' be understood in the phrase "for a principle"? [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=for Here are] the 31 definitions given in Webster's 1828 dictionary.

===Verse 4===
* Who are the "conspiring men" mentioned in verse 4, and why do we need to be warned about them?
* How does the Word of Wisdom serve as a warning (verse 4)?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 1===
This revelation begins by labelling itself a "Word of Wisdom." The phrase "word of wisdom" is used elsewhere in the scriptures only three times, in each case as a gift of the Spirit. See [[1 Cor 12:8]], [[Moro 10:9]] and [[D&C 46:17]].

The plural phrase "words of wisdom" appears in the D&C a number of times, most significantly in passages closely associated with the building of the Kirtland House of the Lord: [[D&C 88:118]] and [[D&C 109:7]], [[D&C 109:14|14]]. The other three occurrences of the phrase (in the plural) might well imply connection with the temple as well: [[D&C 50:1]] is about testing manifestations (which came to its fullest expression, of course, in the endowment of Nauvoo), [[D&C 78:2]] is connected with the first establishment of a temporal means of accomplishing the law of consecration, and [[D&C 98:20]] concerns specifically the "words of wisdom and eternal life." At any rate, it seems quite clear that references in general to the "word of wisdom" and the "words of wisdom" exhibit some connection with temple ordinances--perhaps most particularly with those temple ordinances that are considered gifts (an endowment is a gift) of the Spirit.

The word "wisdom" itself relates closely to temple worship. While the "wisdom writings" of the Old Testament were traditionally interpreted as collections of rather common advice shared by Israel and its neighbors, there is a growing collection of evidence that while the wisdom texts certainly do seem to transcend the religio-political concerns of the legal and prophetic texts, the wisdom literature may be connected with the Abrahamic covenant as Christ's universalization of the Israelite promises. According to this view, the wisdom writings are associated with temple rites that extend the blessingsg of Abraham to all the nations--the Gentiles--of the earth. In short, "wisdom texts," might well express the core of the Abrahamic experience of God.

As a "word of wisdom," section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants must be seen as clearly tied to temple worship. It is certainly significant that section 89 immediately follows the commandment to build the Kirtland House of the Lord (section 88). As this first verse makes quite clear, the revelation was given for the benefit of the "council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland," who had just received Joseph's first version of the endowment and were preparing to receive the second in the Kirtland House of the Lord (the more complete third endowment wouldn't be revealed until Nauvoo). At any rate, these details suggest that section 89 should not be read more than just a revelation on physical health, but as a revelation closely tied to the ordinances of the temple and that physical health, whatever that means for the Lord, should be taken up with careful attention to the context of the temple ordinances.

===Verse 2===
The revelation is "to be sent greeting." While somewhat awkward, the phrase does echo two verses in the New Testament: [[Acts 15:23]] and [[Acts 23:26|23:26]], both of which are openings of letters. The point of the phrase, then, seems to be that the Word of Wisdom is to be sent as a circular letter, not unlike the epistles of the early apostles. This is a most fascinating aspect of the revelation, since most early revelations were simply published in Church periodicals (or subsequently in the ''Book of Commandments'' or the Doctrine and Covenants). This revelation was apparently understood to be so broadly applicable that it was meant to be sent among the growing membership of the Church.

This subtle connection to apostolic circulars also suggests that not unlike the advice, answers, and information circulated by the Biblical apostles, this Word of Wisdom was not to be enforced "by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom." The very phrase, "to be sent greeting," perhaps indicates that this is a revelation from ''a'' prophet rather than from ''the'' prophet. It may be one prophet's "showing forth the order and will of God" rather than the word of a hierarchical president of the Church.

While this phrasing may fall short of enforcing anything like a policy on temporal health, it is also clear that this section reveals the "order and will of God." There is something remarkable about an authoritative word like this that does not programmatically impose itself, but is simply sent "by revelation and the word of wisdom." The saints are told the Lord's desires in this regard, but allowed to govern themselves. However, if this section is to be taken "not by commandment or constraint," how many of the others are?

The careful language in this section may suggest that this revelation is something peculiar, something different from all the others: as a word of wisdom, only those who seek wisdom need follow it. If the commandments and constraints of Joseph's "usual" revelations draw a dividing line between the righteous and the wicked, this revelation and other revelations about the temple (most of which are not published in the D&C) may draw a second dividing line, one that separates the righteous from the exalted. Perhaps revelations like the Word of Wisdom demarcate a boundary between terrestrially mandated obedience and celestially chosen adoption of holy principles? At the very least, the Word of Wisdom provides the opportunity to follow the Lord's counsel beyond simple "commandments" and "constraints."

As used in this verse, the word "order" deserves careful consideration. To this point in the D&C, it appears twenty-one times, only one of which ([[D&C 87:3]]) does not clearly refer to the priesthood (two are somewhat questionable, in [[D&C 77:3]], though these references to angelic orders could easily refer to heavenly priesthoods). When this revelation was given, the current references to "order" in the revelations were all references to the order of the Kirtland House of the Lord, and to the ordering of the priesthood that would take place in it. The Word of Wisdom assists in this temple ordering of the priesthood by "showing forth" the "order" of the Lord.

As used in this verse, the word "temporal" or the whole phrase "temporal salvation" is also of great significance. The word "temporal" appears only once in the Bible (in [[2 Cor 4:18]]), where it is opposed to "eternal," though it shows up a number of times in the Book of Mormon as opposed rather to "spiritual." Interestingly, in the [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=temporal 1828 Webster's Dictionary], the first definition explicitly states that "temporal" is "opposed to spiritual," while the second explicitly states that it is "opposed to eternal." There seems, then, to have been a sort of shift of emphasis between 1611 and 1828 from "temporal" as opposed to "eternal" to "temporal" as opposed to "spiritual." Thus, "temporal" seems in Joseph's revelations to be best understood as meaning that which is "pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular." However, [[D&C 29:34|D&C 29:34-35]] may well overturn that understanding in a characteristic redefinition of terms. That revelation seems to redefine the relationship between the temporal and the spiritual: rather than being understood as separate or opposite realms, they are understood as closely connected, the temporal being quite simply an outward or even a "fallen" manifestation of the spiritual. The temporal, in other words, cannot be separated from the spiritual, because it is simply a ''consequence'' of the spiritual.

The phrasing of this second verse clearly suggests that God is here meddling in temporal affairs. However, there may be a structural reason to read the verse otherwise:
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
If "revelation" is read as an antithetical parallel to "the word of wisdom," the one might be justified in reading "the order and will of God" as a similar antithetical parallel to "the temporal salvation of all saints." This would highlight the word of wisdom as a revelation, and link the "order and will of God" (inevitably temple business, priesthood business) to our "temporal salvation."

This understanding of the word of wisdom finds a parallel in the "wisdom writings" of the Old Testament, where the revelations are written as temporal words of a father to his son, rather than direct words of revelation or prophecy. As in the temple, revelation and prophecy are more clearly viewed as linked to keys of heavenly communication, rather than as the reception of an absolute word. The "temporal salvation" outlined in the Word of Wisdom is the prophetic--almost patriarchal--linking of the spiritual and temporal realms suggested by D&C 29. If so, the Word of Wisdom is more than a mere "temporal" commandment, as perhaps best confirmed in the closing verses of the revelation.

Finally, this verse indicates that this revelation is for "all" saints. One might read this to mean that the revelation shows God's order and will for each and every saint. Alternatively, one might read it as showing forth God's order and will for the saints collectively. According to the first reading, the Word of Wisdom can be seen as something for each individual saint to struggle with, something one must work out before God with fear and trembling. The second reading may connect this revelation still more profoundly with the temple, as the revelation becomes a guideline for drawing together, uniting, or sealing all the saints together to effect their temporal, and eternal, salvation.

===Verse 3===
The singular "principle," with which the revelation again recharacterizes itself, emphasizes the singular "Word of Wisdom." These two singulars carry an interpretive weight: the Word of Wisdom is a ''single'' principle, not a set of rules. Or again, the rules as they are proliferated in section 89 might best be read as a series of applications or of adaptations of the single principle. But this just seems to imply that the singular "principle" interprets in advance the meaning of the word "adapted," which follows it: the singular principle is adapted precisely in its proliferation. That is to say, the singular Word of Wisdom is, in section 89, "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest" precisely in that it becomes so many word''s'' of wisdom. This interpretation accords well with the most common [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=principle 1828] meaning of the word "principle": "that from which a thing proceeds," or the "primordial substance" of the matter. The Word of Wisdom, as a singular principle, is the source of so many rules, is the ground of so many adaptations, is the meaning of so many particularities.

The consequence, already hinted at in the above paragraph, of all of this is that the adaptation at work in the Word of Wisdom is the laying out of particular rules. But it is not quite clear at first how the listing of so many rules should be understood as an adaptation "to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." In fact, if one ignores the first phrase of this verse and attempts only to interpret the phrase "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints," one might inevitably conclude that the phrase has reference to how much easier the Word of Wisdom as recorded in this section is than other health codes, such as that of the Law of Moses. One might, that is, assume that were it not for the needs of the weak saints, a different (higher, more difficult) law might have been given. But, in the end, such an interpretation does not appear justified: such an interpretation would be grounded in the presupposition that a code with more rules is more difficult to live, whereas just the opposite seems to be true. The health code of the Law of Moses, with its innumberable rules, would have been far easier to obey than the Word of Wisdom: the Law simply listed the forbidden, and Israel simply kept away from the forbidden things. In fact, once one presses the analogy between the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Moses, it becomes quite clear that the two are incomparable: the Law of Moses provided only restrictions, while the Word of Wisdom is far more than that. In the end, the distance between the two suggests, perhaps, that the Word of Wisdom be thought as something other than a health code: the Word of Wisdom is a principle with promise, but, as is clear in the last few verses of the revelation, the promise is not the promise of health, but rather the promise of wisdom.

Given all the above, the principle seems best understood as adapted to the weak and the weakest precisely in that rules are at all laid out: the Word of Wisdom becomes a far easier thing to keep if there are simple commandments one can follow. Perhaps one final objection ought to be dealt with: doesn't this reading of "adapted" compromise the "principle"? If the adaptation is, in other words, the setting forth of so many rules instead of the principle itself, can anyone truly adhere to the principle, or does everyone end up focused on a series of rules? On the one hand, this objection is insuperable: not only might the saints end up focused on a series of rules, the saints ''have'' ended up so focused. On the other hand, the temple context suggested in the comments above (for verses 1 and 2) perhaps makes some sense of the problem: [[D&C 89:18|verse 18]] summarizes the necessary attitude as regards the Word of Wisdom as "obedience," which might be all that is necessary in order to get one to the temple. There in the temple, one might attend to the principle without so much attention to the rules.

Although the Lord does not designate this section as a commandment at the time it was given, it became accepted as such by the Church. In 1834, the High Council of the Church declared "No official member of this Church is worthy to hold office after having the Word of Wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with or obey it." In 1851, Brigham Young proposed in General Conference that all Saints end the use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and whiskey: this motion was carried unanimously. (See Ludlow, Daniel H., "Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants" in the chapter on Section 89.) Thus we have this section becoming a commandment, with special emphasis on the prohibitions we most commonly think about in connection with this setting.

Why did the Lord not establish this as a commandment when He first gave it? Joseph F. Smith suggested in the Oct. 1913 General Conference that "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, 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. (cited in Cowan, Richard O., "Answers to Your Questions About the Doctrine and Covenants." Chapter 9: "Spiritual and Temporal Matters.")

===Verse 4===

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[D&C 88:136-141|Previous (D&C 88:136-141)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:6-10|Next (D&C 89:6-10)]]
|}

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-27T06:20:32Z

Rpederse: /* Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3) */

==overweight==
Hi 65.216.70.186,
I removed part of your question related to being overweight and the Word of Wisdom. I did this to eliminate what some might interpret as a criticism against some members of the church. Hopefully this revision focuses the question more on the scriptures themselves. Note that my reason for removing the part of the question that seemed to critizice members of the church who misread the Word of Wisdom and use it to falsely judge others is not that I disagree with your claim, but rather, simply that I think we are best off by focusing on the scriptures themselves.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:13, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

::I disagree but I won't press the issue. I didn't realize until just now that these pages only cover 5 verses... when I clicked on D&C and on 'section 89', i thought I was heading to a page about the whole section... this should be changed somehow, preferably by having another list come up when I click on 'section 89'. I'm not even sure now how I'm going to get to the page one of my questions was moved to...

:::Just click on the link that says "Next" and the next portion of the section will come up. [[User:Eric|Eric]] 22:48, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:::I agree that the Next Previous links are confusing--especially for those who get to the scriptures by drilling down through the links (e.g. clicking "Doctrine and Covenants" then "Section 89.") There is an enhancement on the queue to add a page with verse links (e.g. 1-5, 6-10) for each chapter/section so that users don't have to click Next, Next, Next, Next to get verse 26. I haven't gotten around to implementing that. In the meantime the easiest way to get to a specific verse is to type its reference (e.g. D&C 89:14) in the search box. I hope this helps. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:05, 11 Aug 2005 (CEST)

On the question, "Is it a sin to be overweight?"
(Note for full disclosure: I am very significantly overweight myself, and it ain't glandular.) Being overweight is a condition: righteousness is about behavior (including behavior of thought). This condition results from some combination of many factors, not all of which are understood. In most of us, though, overweight results from patterns of behavior which are unrighteous, or at least suboptimal. One such cause is gluttony, to use an old word, which seems to me to be tied in with selfishness and ingratitude. In food, as with other things, the notion seems to be that the Lord gives us things which he expects us to use in the right way and in appropriate amounts and balance.
--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 12:38, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I think this is a fascinating topic. I do think there that sometimes—but not all the time—there are changeable behaviors associated with being overweight that are related to righteousness. But I think gluttony is the smaller issue compared to the larger issues that it is often used to symbolize. (For example, the gluttony depicted in [[Isa 28:1]]ff, though I'm sure there are much better scriptural examples....) Also, I think it interesting that gluttony is a sin that often has visible side effects (e.g. obesity), whereas the sins more frequently and vehemently condemned in the scriptures do not have as effects that are as obvious to others. These are definitely topics I'd like to explore more.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 09:34, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I've been thinking about this today, and feel (as I often do) that I'm seeing the shadow of an important principle out of the corner of my eye. It seems to be that there's a principle of "Take enough, but not more than enough" that lies behind many of the commandments. When the Lord blesses us with food, we're welcome to partake, and do so joyfully. Over-partaking, though, smacks of gluttony and greed. We're not asked to be entirely unconcerned about our appearance: it's desirable to be "neat and comely", but "costly apparel" often indicates avarice and pride. Within the bounds the Lord has set, sexuality is an appropriate expression of love, without the taint of sin some faiths ascribe to any sexual act. The righteous seeking of knowledge and wisdom can become the damning greed of a Faust or the spiritual blindness resulting from "looking beyond the mark" for "things they could not understand." (Jacob 4:14) Even our holiest desires can go out of bounds: Alma desires to preach the gospel with mighty power (Alma 29:1-2), but understands "but behold...I do sin in my wish." In many things, we're learning to take what we need, and be content with only what we need.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 02:00, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

On a related note. I think we should delete the overweight question. To me the answer is clear, no. D&C 89 isn't about being overweight, nor is it about gluttony. Any concerns with deleting this from here? Note that doesn't mean someone shoudln't add commentary about gluttony to scriptures about gluttony. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:20, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I'd be fine with deleting the question, and indeed this whole discussion. Even though I've participated vigorously, I've been aware that the relevence of my comments to the understanding of this section of scripture is pretty tenuous. Been fun, though! --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 03:22, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::well maybe we can find a scripture about gluttony to move some comments about gluttony to there. In the meantime, I'll delete the question but not for now the discussion here. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:51, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::I've copied my comments, which I may want to explore further, to my talk page.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 06:15, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I think one could argue that ''prudence'' in [[D&C 89:11|verse 11]] raises the issue of gluttony, though it seems to be primarily referring to just fruit and herbs, depending on how one reads "all these things." [http://www.gotquestions.org/gluttony-sin.html Here] is a list and discussion of Bible verses that pertain to gluttony. Notice several of the passages are in the OT wisdom writings, so I think one could also make a case that ''wisdom'' in verses 1, 2, 4 and 19 in the context of food refers indirectly to gluttony. Although this said, I think it's more interesting that gluttony does ''not'' seem to be mentioned in this section. It seems like a natural topic to include in a discussion of food and wisdom, so I think it's surprising that gluttony is not mentioned. I think this underscores the "weakest of the saints" phrase in verse 3 (i.e. perhaps it is not considered an important enough principle to be explicitly stated here where only instructions for the weakest of saints are mentioned? but on this view the later explanation about different grains for different animals etc. would seem a bit unjustified...). --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 08:13, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==easier to follow?==
I'm wondering about the last paragraph in the exegesis about the WoW being easier than some commandments b/c we can see the direct benefit ("if we eat right ... we're healthier"). Maybe I think the comment just needs a little rewording so it's more neutral in tone or less strong in its claim. After all, in many cultures tea is very common and considered very healthy--for new converts in these areas, the WoW is sometimes one of the hardest commandments to follow precisely b/c the health benefits are ''not'' obvious.... --[[User:Rcouch|Robert C.]] 19:13, 13 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:I don't think it's saying that it's easy to follow, just that it's easier to see the benefits. I suppose one could argue the point to some extent, though, since moderate use of coffee and tea are close to harmless, and extremely limited use of alcohol might even be beneficial. This is getting off-topic, but I think it's too bad that the alcohol/tobacco/coffee thing receives so much attention in the Church, while we don't talk very much about limiting meat and emphasizing grains, which definitely would be healthy. I wouldn't say it's against the WoW per se to be overweight, but we collectively would be healthy to take all of the WoW more seriously. Off my soapbox for now ... [[User:Eric|Eric]] 05:45, 14 Aug 2005 (CEST)

::Verse 3 suggests that it's easy in at least some senses. I think of what one might call the "temple recommend aspects" of the revelation are easy in a couple of senses. First, for most people, those things may be hard to achieve initially but not really be an issue afterwards. On some summer days, the sweetened teas people drink in this area look really good -- I'm a convert, and know the taste -- but it's sure not something I struggle with. Holding back irritation at the 98th interruption by my clerical person is MUCH harder.

::Also, there's a ''straightforwardness'' about these principles. Learning full and complete honesty involves moving through layers of understanding, and is taking me decades. So the question "Am I honest?" is a little hard to answer, but "Do I drink alchoholic beverages?" is easy -- it's possible to be perfect in that thing. --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 01:12, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==a direction?==
Okay, all of this sudden attention here at D&C 89 has got me excited to bury myself here for a bit (I can't seem to keep on any one project lately, but oh well). So I'll begin to post some thoughts here, even as I maintain (for a short while I'm sure) my work on the remnant and its implications for the Book of Mormon. Anyone game to join in? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:37, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

: I really have this same problem--"I can't seem to keep on any one project lately." Thoug in my case I don't think it just affects me lately. On the other hand, it is kind of nice to come back to a half-finished discussion several months later and take it up again. Anyway, in this case, I'm happy to join in, if I end up with anything to say. I like what you wrote up. One side question: I look at how many parts of the scriptures point to the temple and am surprised. In each instance it does seem to point to the temple. Taken as a whole I wonder if: a) really the temple is all over writings of the scriptures or b) we are biased toward interpretting the scriptures in relation to the temple because the temple is so important to us. I have thought about this mainly in related to [[Alma 13:1-5]]. I never would have guessed that was related to the temple but now the relationship seems so obvious (I think Rob Fergus was the one to suggest it). --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 14:27, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, you know that I have been rather excited about the Word of Wisdom after arguing with a few members regarding caffeinated drinks. I have been studying at night (I don't have that much free time) but I will include some of my findings to this thus far. I'm excited to contribute my thoughts towards one of the greatest gifts that the Lord has given us...an insight to his Wisdom. --[[User:Document|document]] 18:57, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::Matthew, I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship. Since most members don't talk about temple symbols or worship outside of the temple, its hard to know exactly how many members also see the importance of the temple in understanding the scriptures, or how much temple imagery they find there. Fascinating question. Would love to hear other perspectives on this.--[[User:Rob Fergus|Rob Fergus]] 18:05, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I totally agree with Rob on this point. Perhaps it's a consequence of reading Nibley's work, but I can't read anything in the scriptures without turning rather quickly to the temple. The temple is the center of everything, it is the ordinance that orders the gods, and it runs through every moment and thought I find in the scriptures. So I totally agree that "I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship." Anyway, I think we have to bury ourselves in that question of all questions. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 20:49, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I'm hoping to see lots of commentary tying scripture passages to the temple—not having read all that much Nibley (or Margaret Barker), I think I'm less inclined to read this way. So please use me as an excuse to comment on what might seem painfully obvious to you. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 00:43, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==Two questions concerning verse 3==
I'm trying to decide how to read the word "principle" here (I've spent the last twenty minutes writing and erasing my thoughts on it on the commentary page). See [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=principle Webster's] in 1828 on the word. The term seems to have been mostly a scholarly term at the time, used primarily by philosophers and scientists. That this revelation drags it in here is certainly interesting (especially in light of how seldomly it appears in scripture before this point--twice in the NT, once in the BoM, and only twice before this revelation in the D&C). I'm not sure where to begin. I like Webster's fourth, sixth, and seventh definitions. Of course, all eight definitions are not too far from each other. Perhaps the word should be read etymologically (making "principle" a question of something that gets things started, a "beginning"). Any thoughts?

Second, I deleted two paragraphs from the exegesis already posted, mostly because they were general comments that had nothing to do with verse 3. I'm wrestling with the remaining three paragraphs there. Especially, perhaps with the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as easier to follow than the Law of Moses. That doesn't seem to me to be true at all! The more rules, the easier to follow, it seems to me. Every increase of freedom amounts to a further relativization of the points where freedom is "lacking." If one grew up in a civilization where ''everyone'' was obeying an incredibly detailed health code, it would be the easiest thing in the world to maintain it. If the Word of Wisdom is ''harder'' than other health codes to live, then shouldn't the phrase "adapted, etc." be reinterpreted in the following way: the revelation would just have provided a principle with promise, but specific rules have been added so that it is somewhat easier to follow for the weak and the weakest of all saints? The spirit of the law always requires far more strength than the letter of the law. So it seems to me. Thoughts? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:10, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:30, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I haven't responded yet because what I have to say is more about what I don't know. But anyway, here goes.
:I have no clue what principle means in this context. I do think it is critical to the question of harder vs easier to follow. Does principle mean something that cannot be reduced to a set of strict rules? If so, that would indicate a certain direction.
:Thinking about living the word of wisdom as a pre-condition to enter the temple...Suppose I interpret the it as simply a set of prohibitions (don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, etc) then it does seem like that set of prohibitions is easier than the set introduced in the law of Moses. (I have a small kitchen and doubling the set of pots and pans I have would be a challenge.) If instead we think of the word of wisdom as meaning much more than that--as (and here the word comes again) living its principles vs simply obeying a few prohibitions--in that case it may be that this law is harder than the Law of Moses, if we think of the Law of Moses as a set of prohibitions--which we shouldn't.
:I'm getting off topic. This isn't about whether the Word of Wisdom is easier or harder than the Law of Moses, but rather what it means that it is easier than it would be had it not been adapted to the weakest saints. I like your answer that maybe the adaption is the introduction of specific rules. The thing I am getting stuck on is, if living the WofW means more than simply obeying a set of prohibitions, then how does providing a set help the weakest saint live it? Might the specific prohibitions become a distraction from the principles?
:--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 15:13, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Might they? Haven't they? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 15:36, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, I like what you posted in terms of "for the weakest of all saints" meaning "to protect the weakest of saints." For me the word I can't make sense of is ''adapted''. Perhaps this was originally given as a principle instead of a commandment b/c principles are more adaptable than commandments in the sense that each person can apply a principle to their capacity/ability instead of the more one-size-fits-all nature of a commandment. Regardless, I think the word ''principle'' connotes more adaptability than ''commandment'' which I think means it's more readily relevant both for the weakest and for the strongest of saints (although it's interesting that only the weakest are explicitly mentioned—is this because the strongest will more readily see the relevance and the weakest need the reminder?). Or perhaps it is better to consider the "with a promise" the adaptation—that is, the promise is what has been adapted for the weakest.
:Actually, I think the adaptation is the way that the principle is explained. That is, there is a general principle of temperance, wisdom etc. at work here. But, since the weakest have a particularly difficult time understand how this principle applies in matters of health, eating, drinking etc., the explication of this principle is such that it will help the weakest understand the application. I think this view complements what Joe was saying about protecting the weakest of saints.
:Well, those are my jumbled thoughts at this point anyway.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 00:31, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, I like how you addressed these issues in verse 3. I'm still curious to see how you tie in the temple themes throughout the section. I can see how you might take a "stewardship over the earth" approach, which is perhaps why there is so much in the temple about the creation of the earth. But somehow I think you've got (or the section has got) some unanticipated twists up your sleeve which I can't wait to see unveiled. (Don't bother groaning for that one, consider it heard.) --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 15:14, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3) ==

A couple of weeks ago, I made a series of changes to bring my eating into much greater harmony with the teachings of this chapter: a reduction in meat (my choice was to give it up entirely, at least for the time being) and much greater consumption of fruits and vegetables. And I've been surprised at how much better I feel: not only in the overall sense that I hoped for, but also in how I feel after meals.

One of our duties here in mortality is to learn to accept the good and reject the evil. Part of how we do this is through learning what genuinely makes us feel good, what makes us truly happy. We learn to look past the clamorous demands of the natural man for short-term gratification and learn what is genuinely "nourishing". We learn that keeping the commandments brings us joy, and that sin (which never was happiness) harms us: that's why it's sinful.

An example of what I'm trying to get at: A spiritually attuned person doesn't shy away from raucousness and rude speech from an intellectual knowledge of its inappropriateness but because it makes him or her uncomfortable, even pained. Others not so far down the road need the commandments to teach them not to indulge in such behavior themselves: this commandment is in a sense a crutch, a temporary measure to help us get to the point when we no longer need it because we reject such things of our own knowledge.

To bring it back to the temporal (sort of) and the Word of Wisdom, perhaps it's like this: perhaps if we had both full awareness of our bodies, the affects of what we ate, and a knowledge of how what we might eat would affect us, we would no more eat a 24-oz porterhouse than we would drink sour milk -- there would be no need to teach us that it would be bad. (In times of famine, we'd eat it to stay alive, just as the Scandinavian ancestors of meny of the people from my original home in central Iowa ate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk lutefisk] *shudder*.) But, because we've got that ol' natural man to deal with, and because "conspiring men" are trying to lead us into poor choices, we need to be taught about which foods are good for us (i.e., will make us feel genuinely good) and which aren't. So we're given wisdom, guidance as to the ways of eating that will bless us temporally and spiritually.

It's a thought...
--[[User:Rpederse]]

:I think this amounts, in the end, to the same interpretation I've offered on the commentary page, and I invite you to see if you can't work it into the commentary so that this comes out somewhat more clearly. But I think this is precisely what is meant there: anyone who grasps the principle will know how to handle oneself temporally so as to reap the incredible blessings in verses 18-21, but one who does not grasp the principle gets the adapted rules listed here. So, I whole-heartedly agree. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:59, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. however, I don't feel like I can pull the picture together completely. As I tried to explain (not very clearly) above here is my hang-up. How can we say that the introduction of specific rules makes it easier to live the word of wisdom if just living those specific rules doesn't constitute living the WoW and (as seems to be the case) by having the specific rules many of us confuse obeying the specific rules with living the WoW? Wouldn't it be easier to follow the word of wisdom then if we didn't have the specific rules to get distracted by?

::Maybe I am making too big a deal out of what can be resolved easily by say "yes Matthew in that sense it is harder but in other ways it is easier and it was to achieve the sense in which it is easier that the revelation was adapted by giving specific rules. Here is an example of how the specific rules makes it easier for the weak--at least the weak don't become addicted to alcohol since even if no prohibition were given in the WoW, you couldn't both be addicted to alcohol and live the WoW and so since it is easier for someone not addicted to alcohol to live the WoW than it is for someone who is addicted to stop drinking alcohol and starting living the WoW, the specific principles help the weak." So that is how I think the problem should be resolved but I would appreciate others explicitly agreeing if they think that is right.

::One more thing. I think I have heard two interpretations of ''principle.'' One is ''not a commandment;'' the other is ''not governed by specific rules.'' In my mind ''principle'' here means one thing or the other but not both. Which one is it? Or does it really mean both and I'm not getting the connection.

::--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 03:57, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::Check out the "Dictionary.com Unabridged" definitions at [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle dictionary.com.] #1 is probably what's meant here: I'm glad you raised this point, Matthew, because I've been reading #2, and now think that's incorrect. Reading it as #2 would produce the reading you describe as "not governed by specific rules", and that's a little bothersome, because the Lord's about to provide some specific rules/guidance. Reading #1 renders "principle with a promise" into "dietary guidance with associated blessings".

:::After doing some research, I've prepared two paragraphs on how/when the Church accepted this section as a commandment, with the special emphasis on tea/coffee/tobacco/alcohol. Would including this material be in keeping with the project? I ask, because I don't remember coming across such commentary elsewhere.

:::Joe, I will look at how I can work the above thoughts into the commentary.

:::----[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 05:42, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== revisions ==

I revised the very beginning of verse 1 commentary and deleted the following:
:As originally recorded in the ''Kirtland Revelations Book'', this revelation began with the phrase "A Revelation for the benefit of the saints." The 1835 edition, which begins with "A Word of Wisdom", may have partially obscured the nature of this section as a revelation. However, the current section heading explicitly states this section is a revelation, making it clear that the voice here is the Lord's and not Joseph's.
I found it an interesting historical aside but not directly relevant to the exegesis since, as the text itself says, the point that the voice here is the Lord's is made clear in the heading. However, because I did find it an interesting historical point I wasn't sure if maybe it does belong somewhere. Not having a good idea of where, I'm noting it here. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:13, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-27T05:42:13Z

Rpederse: /* Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3) */

==overweight==
Hi 65.216.70.186,
I removed part of your question related to being overweight and the Word of Wisdom. I did this to eliminate what some might interpret as a criticism against some members of the church. Hopefully this revision focuses the question more on the scriptures themselves. Note that my reason for removing the part of the question that seemed to critizice members of the church who misread the Word of Wisdom and use it to falsely judge others is not that I disagree with your claim, but rather, simply that I think we are best off by focusing on the scriptures themselves.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:13, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

::I disagree but I won't press the issue. I didn't realize until just now that these pages only cover 5 verses... when I clicked on D&C and on 'section 89', i thought I was heading to a page about the whole section... this should be changed somehow, preferably by having another list come up when I click on 'section 89'. I'm not even sure now how I'm going to get to the page one of my questions was moved to...

:::Just click on the link that says "Next" and the next portion of the section will come up. [[User:Eric|Eric]] 22:48, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:::I agree that the Next Previous links are confusing--especially for those who get to the scriptures by drilling down through the links (e.g. clicking "Doctrine and Covenants" then "Section 89.") There is an enhancement on the queue to add a page with verse links (e.g. 1-5, 6-10) for each chapter/section so that users don't have to click Next, Next, Next, Next to get verse 26. I haven't gotten around to implementing that. In the meantime the easiest way to get to a specific verse is to type its reference (e.g. D&C 89:14) in the search box. I hope this helps. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:05, 11 Aug 2005 (CEST)

On the question, "Is it a sin to be overweight?"
(Note for full disclosure: I am very significantly overweight myself, and it ain't glandular.) Being overweight is a condition: righteousness is about behavior (including behavior of thought). This condition results from some combination of many factors, not all of which are understood. In most of us, though, overweight results from patterns of behavior which are unrighteous, or at least suboptimal. One such cause is gluttony, to use an old word, which seems to me to be tied in with selfishness and ingratitude. In food, as with other things, the notion seems to be that the Lord gives us things which he expects us to use in the right way and in appropriate amounts and balance.
--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 12:38, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I think this is a fascinating topic. I do think there that sometimes—but not all the time—there are changeable behaviors associated with being overweight that are related to righteousness. But I think gluttony is the smaller issue compared to the larger issues that it is often used to symbolize. (For example, the gluttony depicted in [[Isa 28:1]]ff, though I'm sure there are much better scriptural examples....) Also, I think it interesting that gluttony is a sin that often has visible side effects (e.g. obesity), whereas the sins more frequently and vehemently condemned in the scriptures do not have as effects that are as obvious to others. These are definitely topics I'd like to explore more.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 09:34, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I've been thinking about this today, and feel (as I often do) that I'm seeing the shadow of an important principle out of the corner of my eye. It seems to be that there's a principle of "Take enough, but not more than enough" that lies behind many of the commandments. When the Lord blesses us with food, we're welcome to partake, and do so joyfully. Over-partaking, though, smacks of gluttony and greed. We're not asked to be entirely unconcerned about our appearance: it's desirable to be "neat and comely", but "costly apparel" often indicates avarice and pride. Within the bounds the Lord has set, sexuality is an appropriate expression of love, without the taint of sin some faiths ascribe to any sexual act. The righteous seeking of knowledge and wisdom can become the damning greed of a Faust or the spiritual blindness resulting from "looking beyond the mark" for "things they could not understand." (Jacob 4:14) Even our holiest desires can go out of bounds: Alma desires to preach the gospel with mighty power (Alma 29:1-2), but understands "but behold...I do sin in my wish." In many things, we're learning to take what we need, and be content with only what we need.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 02:00, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

On a related note. I think we should delete the overweight question. To me the answer is clear, no. D&C 89 isn't about being overweight, nor is it about gluttony. Any concerns with deleting this from here? Note that doesn't mean someone shoudln't add commentary about gluttony to scriptures about gluttony. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:20, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I'd be fine with deleting the question, and indeed this whole discussion. Even though I've participated vigorously, I've been aware that the relevence of my comments to the understanding of this section of scripture is pretty tenuous. Been fun, though! --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 03:22, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::well maybe we can find a scripture about gluttony to move some comments about gluttony to there. In the meantime, I'll delete the question but not for now the discussion here. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:51, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::I've copied my comments, which I may want to explore further, to my talk page.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 06:15, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I think one could argue that ''prudence'' in [[D&C 89:11|verse 11]] raises the issue of gluttony, though it seems to be primarily referring to just fruit and herbs, depending on how one reads "all these things." [http://www.gotquestions.org/gluttony-sin.html Here] is a list and discussion of Bible verses that pertain to gluttony. Notice several of the passages are in the OT wisdom writings, so I think one could also make a case that ''wisdom'' in verses 1, 2, 4 and 19 in the context of food refers indirectly to gluttony. Although this said, I think it's more interesting that gluttony does ''not'' seem to be mentioned in this section. It seems like a natural topic to include in a discussion of food and wisdom, so I think it's surprising that gluttony is not mentioned. I think this underscores the "weakest of the saints" phrase in verse 3 (i.e. perhaps it is not considered an important enough principle to be explicitly stated here where only instructions for the weakest of saints are mentioned? but on this view the later explanation about different grains for different animals etc. would seem a bit unjustified...). --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 08:13, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==easier to follow?==
I'm wondering about the last paragraph in the exegesis about the WoW being easier than some commandments b/c we can see the direct benefit ("if we eat right ... we're healthier"). Maybe I think the comment just needs a little rewording so it's more neutral in tone or less strong in its claim. After all, in many cultures tea is very common and considered very healthy--for new converts in these areas, the WoW is sometimes one of the hardest commandments to follow precisely b/c the health benefits are ''not'' obvious.... --[[User:Rcouch|Robert C.]] 19:13, 13 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:I don't think it's saying that it's easy to follow, just that it's easier to see the benefits. I suppose one could argue the point to some extent, though, since moderate use of coffee and tea are close to harmless, and extremely limited use of alcohol might even be beneficial. This is getting off-topic, but I think it's too bad that the alcohol/tobacco/coffee thing receives so much attention in the Church, while we don't talk very much about limiting meat and emphasizing grains, which definitely would be healthy. I wouldn't say it's against the WoW per se to be overweight, but we collectively would be healthy to take all of the WoW more seriously. Off my soapbox for now ... [[User:Eric|Eric]] 05:45, 14 Aug 2005 (CEST)

::Verse 3 suggests that it's easy in at least some senses. I think of what one might call the "temple recommend aspects" of the revelation are easy in a couple of senses. First, for most people, those things may be hard to achieve initially but not really be an issue afterwards. On some summer days, the sweetened teas people drink in this area look really good -- I'm a convert, and know the taste -- but it's sure not something I struggle with. Holding back irritation at the 98th interruption by my clerical person is MUCH harder.

::Also, there's a ''straightforwardness'' about these principles. Learning full and complete honesty involves moving through layers of understanding, and is taking me decades. So the question "Am I honest?" is a little hard to answer, but "Do I drink alchoholic beverages?" is easy -- it's possible to be perfect in that thing. --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 01:12, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==a direction?==
Okay, all of this sudden attention here at D&C 89 has got me excited to bury myself here for a bit (I can't seem to keep on any one project lately, but oh well). So I'll begin to post some thoughts here, even as I maintain (for a short while I'm sure) my work on the remnant and its implications for the Book of Mormon. Anyone game to join in? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:37, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

: I really have this same problem--"I can't seem to keep on any one project lately." Thoug in my case I don't think it just affects me lately. On the other hand, it is kind of nice to come back to a half-finished discussion several months later and take it up again. Anyway, in this case, I'm happy to join in, if I end up with anything to say. I like what you wrote up. One side question: I look at how many parts of the scriptures point to the temple and am surprised. In each instance it does seem to point to the temple. Taken as a whole I wonder if: a) really the temple is all over writings of the scriptures or b) we are biased toward interpretting the scriptures in relation to the temple because the temple is so important to us. I have thought about this mainly in related to [[Alma 13:1-5]]. I never would have guessed that was related to the temple but now the relationship seems so obvious (I think Rob Fergus was the one to suggest it). --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 14:27, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, you know that I have been rather excited about the Word of Wisdom after arguing with a few members regarding caffeinated drinks. I have been studying at night (I don't have that much free time) but I will include some of my findings to this thus far. I'm excited to contribute my thoughts towards one of the greatest gifts that the Lord has given us...an insight to his Wisdom. --[[User:Document|document]] 18:57, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::Matthew, I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship. Since most members don't talk about temple symbols or worship outside of the temple, its hard to know exactly how many members also see the importance of the temple in understanding the scriptures, or how much temple imagery they find there. Fascinating question. Would love to hear other perspectives on this.--[[User:Rob Fergus|Rob Fergus]] 18:05, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I totally agree with Rob on this point. Perhaps it's a consequence of reading Nibley's work, but I can't read anything in the scriptures without turning rather quickly to the temple. The temple is the center of everything, it is the ordinance that orders the gods, and it runs through every moment and thought I find in the scriptures. So I totally agree that "I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship." Anyway, I think we have to bury ourselves in that question of all questions. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 20:49, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I'm hoping to see lots of commentary tying scripture passages to the temple—not having read all that much Nibley (or Margaret Barker), I think I'm less inclined to read this way. So please use me as an excuse to comment on what might seem painfully obvious to you. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 00:43, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

==Two questions concerning verse 3==
I'm trying to decide how to read the word "principle" here (I've spent the last twenty minutes writing and erasing my thoughts on it on the commentary page). See [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=principle Webster's] in 1828 on the word. The term seems to have been mostly a scholarly term at the time, used primarily by philosophers and scientists. That this revelation drags it in here is certainly interesting (especially in light of how seldomly it appears in scripture before this point--twice in the NT, once in the BoM, and only twice before this revelation in the D&C). I'm not sure where to begin. I like Webster's fourth, sixth, and seventh definitions. Of course, all eight definitions are not too far from each other. Perhaps the word should be read etymologically (making "principle" a question of something that gets things started, a "beginning"). Any thoughts?

Second, I deleted two paragraphs from the exegesis already posted, mostly because they were general comments that had nothing to do with verse 3. I'm wrestling with the remaining three paragraphs there. Especially, perhaps with the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as easier to follow than the Law of Moses. That doesn't seem to me to be true at all! The more rules, the easier to follow, it seems to me. Every increase of freedom amounts to a further relativization of the points where freedom is "lacking." If one grew up in a civilization where ''everyone'' was obeying an incredibly detailed health code, it would be the easiest thing in the world to maintain it. If the Word of Wisdom is ''harder'' than other health codes to live, then shouldn't the phrase "adapted, etc." be reinterpreted in the following way: the revelation would just have provided a principle with promise, but specific rules have been added so that it is somewhat easier to follow for the weak and the weakest of all saints? The spirit of the law always requires far more strength than the letter of the law. So it seems to me. Thoughts? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:10, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:30, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:I haven't responded yet because what I have to say is more about what I don't know. But anyway, here goes.
:I have no clue what principle means in this context. I do think it is critical to the question of harder vs easier to follow. Does principle mean something that cannot be reduced to a set of strict rules? If so, that would indicate a certain direction.
:Thinking about living the word of wisdom as a pre-condition to enter the temple...Suppose I interpret the it as simply a set of prohibitions (don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, etc) then it does seem like that set of prohibitions is easier than the set introduced in the law of Moses. (I have a small kitchen and doubling the set of pots and pans I have would be a challenge.) If instead we think of the word of wisdom as meaning much more than that--as (and here the word comes again) living its principles vs simply obeying a few prohibitions--in that case it may be that this law is harder than the Law of Moses, if we think of the Law of Moses as a set of prohibitions--which we shouldn't.
:I'm getting off topic. This isn't about whether the Word of Wisdom is easier or harder than the Law of Moses, but rather what it means that it is easier than it would be had it not been adapted to the weakest saints. I like your answer that maybe the adaption is the introduction of specific rules. The thing I am getting stuck on is, if living the WofW means more than simply obeying a set of prohibitions, then how does providing a set help the weakest saint live it? Might the specific prohibitions become a distraction from the principles?
:--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 15:13, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Might they? Haven't they? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 15:36, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, I like what you posted in terms of "for the weakest of all saints" meaning "to protect the weakest of saints." For me the word I can't make sense of is ''adapted''. Perhaps this was originally given as a principle instead of a commandment b/c principles are more adaptable than commandments in the sense that each person can apply a principle to their capacity/ability instead of the more one-size-fits-all nature of a commandment. Regardless, I think the word ''principle'' connotes more adaptability than ''commandment'' which I think means it's more readily relevant both for the weakest and for the strongest of saints (although it's interesting that only the weakest are explicitly mentioned—is this because the strongest will more readily see the relevance and the weakest need the reminder?). Or perhaps it is better to consider the "with a promise" the adaptation—that is, the promise is what has been adapted for the weakest.
:Actually, I think the adaptation is the way that the principle is explained. That is, there is a general principle of temperance, wisdom etc. at work here. But, since the weakest have a particularly difficult time understand how this principle applies in matters of health, eating, drinking etc., the explication of this principle is such that it will help the weakest understand the application. I think this view complements what Joe was saying about protecting the weakest of saints.
:Well, those are my jumbled thoughts at this point anyway.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 00:31, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, I like how you addressed these issues in verse 3. I'm still curious to see how you tie in the temple themes throughout the section. I can see how you might take a "stewardship over the earth" approach, which is perhaps why there is so much in the temple about the creation of the earth. But somehow I think you've got (or the section has got) some unanticipated twists up your sleeve which I can't wait to see unveiled. (Don't bother groaning for that one, consider it heard.) --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 15:14, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3) ==

A couple of weeks ago, I made a series of changes to bring my eating into much greater harmony with the teachings of this chapter: a reduction in meat (my choice was to give it up entirely, at least for the time being) and much greater consumption of fruits and vegetables. And I've been surprised at how much better I feel: not only in the overall sense that I hoped for, but also in how I feel after meals.

One of our duties here in mortality is to learn to accept the good and reject the evil. Part of how we do this is through learning what genuinely makes us feel good, what makes us truly happy. We learn to look past the clamorous demands of the natural man for short-term gratification and learn what is genuinely "nourishing". We learn that keeping the commandments brings us joy, and that sin (which never was happiness) harms us: that's why it's sinful.

An example of what I'm trying to get at: A spiritually attuned person doesn't shy away from raucousness and rude speech from an intellectual knowledge of its inappropriateness but because it makes him or her uncomfortable, even pained. Others not so far down the road need the commandments to teach them not to indulge in such behavior themselves: this commandment is in a sense a crutch, a temporary measure to help us get to the point when we no longer need it because we reject such things of our own knowledge.

To bring it back to the temporal (sort of) and the Word of Wisdom, perhaps it's like this: perhaps if we had both full awareness of our bodies, the affects of what we ate, and a knowledge of how what we might eat would affect us, we would no more eat a 24-oz porterhouse than we would drink sour milk -- there would be no need to teach us that it would be bad. (In times of famine, we'd eat it to stay alive, just as the Scandinavian ancestors of meny of the people from my original home in central Iowa ate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk lutefisk] *shudder*.) But, because we've got that ol' natural man to deal with, and because "conspiring men" are trying to lead us into poor choices, we need to be taught about which foods are good for us (i.e., will make us feel genuinely good) and which aren't. So we're given wisdom, guidance as to the ways of eating that will bless us temporally and spiritually.

It's a thought...
--[[User:Rpederse]]

:I think this amounts, in the end, to the same interpretation I've offered on the commentary page, and I invite you to see if you can't work it into the commentary so that this comes out somewhat more clearly. But I think this is precisely what is meant there: anyone who grasps the principle will know how to handle oneself temporally so as to reap the incredible blessings in verses 18-21, but one who does not grasp the principle gets the adapted rules listed here. So, I whole-heartedly agree. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:59, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. however, I don't feel like I can pull the picture together completely. As I tried to explain (not very clearly) above here is my hang-up. How can we say that the introduction of specific rules makes it easier to live the word of wisdom if just living those specific rules doesn't constitute living the WoW and (as seems to be the case) by having the specific rules many of us confuse obeying the specific rules with living the WoW? Wouldn't it be easier to follow the word of wisdom then if we didn't have the specific rules to get distracted by?

::Maybe I am making too big a deal out of what can be resolved easily by say "yes Matthew in that sense it is harder but in other ways it is easier and it was to achieve the sense in which it is easier that the revelation was adapted by giving specific rules. Here is an example of how the specific rules makes it easier for the weak--at least the weak don't become addicted to alcohol since even if no prohibition were given in the WoW, you couldn't both be addicted to alcohol and live the WoW and so since it is easier for someone not addicted to alcohol to live the WoW than it is for someone who is addicted to stop drinking alcohol and starting living the WoW, the specific principles help the weak." So that is how I think the problem should be resolved but I would appreciate others explicitly agreeing if they think that is right.

::One more thing. I think I have heard two interpretations of ''principle.'' One is ''not a commandment;'' the other is ''not governed by specific rules.'' In my mind ''principle'' here means one thing or the other but not both. Which one is it? Or does it really mean both and I'm not getting the connection.

::--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 03:57, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:::Check out the "Dictionary.com Unabridged" definitions at [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle dictionary.com.] #1 is probably what's meant here: I'm glad you raised this point, Matthew, because I've been reading #2, and now think that's incorrect. Reading it as #2 would produce the reading you describe as "not governed by specific rules", and that's a little bothersome, because the Lord's about to provide some specific rules/guidance. Reading #1 renders "principle with a promise" into "dietary guidance with associated blessings".

:::I'm going to look at gospelink.com and see if I can find detailed information on when/why the Church took this section upon itself as a commandment. Without meaning this as challenge, it's interesting that the prohibitions on alcohol/tobacco/coffee/tea went from "not by commandment or constraint" to being in the temple recommend interview, which may be almost the closest thing we have to constraint in the Church.

:::Joe, I will look at how I can work the above thoughts into the commentary.

:::----[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 05:42, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== revisions ==

I revised the very beginning of verse 1 commentary and deleted the following:
:As originally recorded in the ''Kirtland Revelations Book'', this revelation began with the phrase "A Revelation for the benefit of the saints." The 1835 edition, which begins with "A Word of Wisdom", may have partially obscured the nature of this section as a revelation. However, the current section heading explicitly states this section is a revelation, making it clear that the voice here is the Lord's and not Joseph's.
I found it an interesting historical aside but not directly relevant to the exegesis since, as the text itself says, the point that the voice here is the Lord's is made clear in the heading. However, because I did find it an interesting historical point I wasn't sure if maybe it does belong somewhere. Not having a good idea of where, I'm noting it here. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:13, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-26T06:15:18Z

Rpederse: Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3)

Talk:D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-24T02:05:05Z

Rpederse: herb

The question suggests that the "vegetarian comma" (a phrase I could find no other reference to) was not in the original and wasn't intended to. I'd like to see some evidence this is the case. Thanks. [[User:Eric|Eric]] 15:18, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:Here are two resources that I found, both come from the RLDS church. The first is a link specifically about the [http://www.centerplace.org/library/study/dc/ldc-wow.htm comma] the second is from the [http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n15.htm Times and Seasons] piece referenced in the first (scroll down to page 801 the second complete paragraph). It should be noted that though the punctuation of the Times and Seasons piece excludes the comma (as does the Reorganized Church's version of the Doctrine and Covenants), Hyrum Smith, the orator, gives an interpretation in the following paragraph that is in keeping with the current reading. He said:

::"Let men attend to these instructions, let them use the things ordained of God; let them be sparing of the life of animals; 'it is pleasing saith the Lord that flesh be used only in times of winter, or of famine'-and why to be used in famine? because all domesticated animals would naturally die, and may as well be made use of by man, as not,"

:This quote I took from a discussion board (I have not verified its accuracy, but there is a reference). "When this revelation was first printed in the Doctrine and Covenants (1835), there was no comma after this phrase ["should not be used"]. The addition of the comma clarifies the meaning of the text, thus dramatizing the importance of proper punctuation. The addition of the comma is in harmony with the context of the revelation, which is that meat should be used sparingly" (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, 655-56).

:Finally, [http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c23history.html#N_24_ a footnote from an annotated version of Joseph Smith History]. The third paragraph in this footnote (Beginning with "This revelation...) has information on the comma in the last two or three sentences. In sum, it seems that the comma appeared in the 1921 edition. I don't know who inserted the comma. [[User:MJ|MJ]] 19:38, 11 Aug 2005 (CEST)

:PS I found all of these by doing a google search using the terms [http://www.google.com/search?q=vegetarian+comma+D%26C&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official vegetarian comma D&C]

::Thanks. When I searched on Google, I had "vegetarian comma" in quotes, and the term didn't show up at all. But I see your sources now. Thanks. [[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:23, 11 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Interesting comments. I think they would be better as exegesis than a question. I may try to synthesize some of the information here into the commentary section at some point. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it now. Maybe someone else will beat me too it :) --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:49, 12 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Thanks MJ! --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 08:12, 14 Aug 2005 (CEST)

== "In the season thereof" ==

An attempt to answer my own question about "in the season thereof" (v 11). Many years ago, I had an institute teacher whose personal belief (and yes, he labelled it as personal) was that one should only eat fruit or vegetables at the times of year when they were locally available. This has never felt right to me (why then do we do all that canning?), but never had another idea until tonight. Suppose 'season' here means something like it means in Eccl. 3:1 or Prov 15:23, and come out something like "when needed" or "at the appropriate time." I'm not really happy with this either, though. Any thoughts? --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 01:30, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

:Very interesting thought. I've been thining in regard to [[Isa 28:1]]ff that there is a time, a place, and manner in which celebrations are appropriate. So we are to mourn with those that mourn, and yet rejoice at other times. Similarly, there are times to fast, and times to feast. Yes, I think this is a fruitful idea! --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 02:06, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

First, let me groan at Robert's (intentional? unintentional?) pun. Now, another interpretation of this was suggested to me by the Spanish translation of the D&C. I had always assumed something along the lines of what you (Rpederse) mention above. But the Spanish, rather than translating the word as "sazon." The word is a culinary term, and it can mean either "ripeness" or "seasoning/flavor." The suggestion then seems to be that one should eat fruits and vegetables in their ripeness, in their full flavor. One is to enjoy the fruits of the earth as God seasons and prepares them. I just looked in the 1828 dictionary, and the primary meaning of season was, interestingly, the "new" reading you (again, Rpederse) offer just above. I wonder if these several strands can be read together? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 13:29, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== staff of life ==

:>the phrase "staff of life" came to mean bread or similar staple food.
Just so I understand. what we mean is that the the phrase "staff of life" though not used other places in the scriptures it came to take on this meaning in the language prior to this revelation. Is that right? --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 04:55, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::You know, I hadn't thought of the date angle when I looked it up, so I'm going to have to double-check. However, I think the citations were 17th century. (I also want to look up 'herb' to see if I can track when it took on its present meaning.}--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 06:04, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

::Matthew, does my edit fully address your question?--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 02:02, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== herb ==

Folks, do my lexical notes on "herb" seem trivial? Not understanding the broader sense created a small "stumble" for me for quite a while. --[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 02:05, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Talk:D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-24T02:02:36Z

Rpederse: /* staff of life */

D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-24T01:59:46Z

Rpederse: /* Lexical notes */

[[Doctrine & Covenants]] > [[Doctrine & Covenants 89|Section 89]]
{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* How might one use herbs with "prudence" and "thanksgiving" (vs. 11)?
* What does "in the season thereof" mean? (v. 11)
* How do you determine if you are using meat "sparingly"?
* What does it mean that grain is "ordained" for our use in vs. 14?
* Why are fish not included as proper food in the Word of Wisdom?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''herb'' (v 10, 11) In today's language, "herb" most frequently refers to a plant used as a seasoning or a medicine rather than to vegetables. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' (2nd ed.) lists as the first two definitions for this word, "A plant of which the stem does not become woody or persistent (as in a shrub or a tree), but remains more or less soft and succulent, and dies down to the ground (or entirely) after flowering", and "Applied to plants of which the leaves, or stem and leaves, are used for food or medicine or in some way for their scent or flavor". Both senses have citations going to 1290. The first sense would appear to apply to vegetables, and is presumably the intent here.
* ''staff of life'' (v 14) This is the only appearence of this phrase in our scriptures. In the ''Oxford Enlish Dictionary'', (2nd ed.), there's a discussion of the Biblical phrase "to break the staff of bread" under senses I4b and c for ''staff''. The phrase means "to diminish or cut off the supply of food." From this, the phrase "staff of life" came to mean bread or similar staple food, with citations as early as 1638. "Staff of bread" appears in Ps. 105:16, Ezek. 4:16 and 5:16, and 2 Ne. 13:1. Several older senses of "staff" imply support, as in a walking stick (still in occ. use) or a rung of a ladder.

== Exegesis ==
The first comma in verse thirteen was added to this section in 1921. Some refer to this comma as the 'vegetarian comma.' This a misnomer since neither the interpretation that stresses a pause (with the comma) or the interpretation without the pause would lead one to interpret this verse as an argument for never eating meat. It appears that the inserted comma simply clarified the generally accepted interpretation of this verse so that the general interpretation of this verse today is the same as that prior to the comma's insertion. This interpretation is in harmony with other verses that suggest that meat should be used sparingly.

== Related links ==
* For a sermon on the Word of Wisdom by Hyrum Smith in 1842 see [http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n15.htm Times and Seasons Volume 3 Number 15].

----
{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}

D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-24T01:42:03Z

Rpederse: /* Lexical notes */

[[Doctrine & Covenants]] > [[Doctrine & Covenants 89|Section 89]]
{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* How might one use herbs with "prudence" and "thanksgiving" (vs. 11)?
* What does "in the season thereof" mean? (v. 11)
* How do you determine if you are using meat "sparingly"?
* What does it mean that grain is "ordained" for our use in vs. 14?
* Why are fish not included as proper food in the Word of Wisdom?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''staff of life'' (v 14) This is the only appearence of this phrase in our scriptures. In the ''Oxford Enlish Dictionary'', (2nd ed.), there's a discussion of the Biblical phrase "to break the staff of bread" under senses I4b and c for ''staff''. The phrase means "to diminish or cut off the supply of food." From this, the phrase "staff of life" came to mean bread or similar staple food, with citations as early as 1638. "Staff of bread" appears in Ps. 105:16, Ezek. 4:16 and 5:16, and 2 Ne. 13:1. Several older senses of "staff" imply support, as in a walking stick (still in occ. use) or a rung of a ladder.

== Exegesis ==
The first comma in verse thirteen was added to this section in 1921. Some refer to this comma as the 'vegetarian comma.' This a misnomer since neither the interpretation that stresses a pause (with the comma) or the interpretation without the pause would lead one to interpret this verse as an argument for never eating meat. It appears that the inserted comma simply clarified the generally accepted interpretation of this verse so that the general interpretation of this verse today is the same as that prior to the comma's insertion. This interpretation is in harmony with other verses that suggest that meat should be used sparingly.

== Related links ==
* For a sermon on the Word of Wisdom by Hyrum Smith in 1842 see [http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n15.htm Times and Seasons Volume 3 Number 15].

----
{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-20T06:15:34Z

Rpederse: /* overweight */

User:Rpederse

2006-10-20T06:13:26Z

Rpederse:

Some data:
* I live in Kansas City, Missouri.
* I am a convert of almost 30 years.
* I struggle to study scripture regularly. But I've been at it irregularly for a long time.
* Despite not having a scholarly temperament, a little piece of me wants to be Hugh Nibley when I grow up. (My attention span would be measured in seconds. That of a scholar is measured in years, even decades.)
* I have a master's degree (Library Science), but just now looked up the word "exegisis".
* I am here because I love the moment when scholarship or discussion contributes to my understanding of a scripture's meaning, and would like to contribute to producing such moments for others.

== Some thoughts on the Word of Wisdom, overweight, and wanting too much ==
(This material was written in response to a question on the D&C 89 page about whether its a sin to be overweight.)
On the question, "Is it a sin to be overweight?" (Note for full disclosure: I am very significantly overweight myself, and it ain't glandular.) Being overweight is a condition: righteousness is about behavior (including behavior of thought). This condition results from some combination of many factors, not all of which are understood. In most of us, though, overweight results from patterns of behavior which are unrighteous, or at least suboptimal. One such cause is gluttony, to use an old word, which seems to me to be tied in with selfishness and ingratitude. In food, as with other things, the notion seems to be that the Lord gives us things which he expects us to use in the right way and in appropriate amounts and balance. --Rpederse 12:38, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this today, and feel (as I often do) that I'm seeing the shadow of an important principle out of the corner of my eye. It seems to be that there's a principle of "Take enough, but not more than enough" that lies behind many of the commandments. When the Lord blesses us with food, we're welcome to partake, and do so joyfully. Over-partaking, though, smacks of gluttony and greed. We're not asked to be entirely unconcerned about our appearance: it's desirable to be "neat and comely", but "costly apparel" often indicates avarice and pride. Within the bounds the Lord has set, sexuality is an appropriate expression of love, without the taint of sin some faiths ascribe to any sexual act. The righteous seeking of knowledge and wisdom can become the damning greed of a Faust or the spiritual blindness resulting from "looking beyond the mark" for "things they could not understand." (Jacob 4:14) Even our holiest desires can go out of bounds: Alma desires to preach the gospel with mighty power (Alma 29:1-2), but understands "but behold...I do sin in my wish." In many things, we're learning to take what we need, and be content with only what we need.--Rpederse 02:00, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Talk:D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-20T06:04:11Z

Rpederse: /* staff of life */

Jacob 7:21-27

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Rpederse:

[[The Book of Mormon]] > [[Jacob]] > [[Jacob 7|Chapter 7]]
{|
| [[Jacob 7:16-20|Previous (Jacob 7:16-20)]] ||             || [[Enos 1:1-5|Next (Enos 1:1-5)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

Verse 26: A comparison with [[2 Ne. 5:27]] may suggest a significant difference in outlook between Jacob and Nephi. Jacob doesn't seem to be describing "the manner of happiness."

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[Jacob 7:16-20|Previous (Jacob 7:16-20)]] ||             || [[Enos 1:1-5|Next (Enos 1:1-5)]]
|}

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-20T03:22:39Z

Rpederse: /* overweight */

D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-19T22:56:45Z

Rpederse: /* Lexical notes */

{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* How might one use herbs with "prudence" and "thanksgiving" (vs. 11)?
* What does "in the season thereof" mean? (v. 11)
* How do you determine if you are using meat "sparingly"?
* What does it mean that grain is "ordained" for our use in vs. 14?
* Why are fish not included as proper food in the Word of Wisdom?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''staff of life'' (v 14) This is the only appearence of this phrase in our scriptures. In the ''Oxford Enlish Dictionary'', (2nd ed.), there's a discussion of the Biblical phrase "to break the staff of bread" under senses I4b and c for ''staff''. The phrase means "to diminish or cut off the supply of food." From this, the phrase "staff of life" came to mean bread or similar staple food. "Staff of bread" appears in Ps. 105:16, Ezek. 4:16 and 5:16, and 2 Ne. 13:1. Several older senses of "staff" imply support, as in a walking stick (still in occ. use) or a rung of a ladder.--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 22:56, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

== Exegesis ==
The first comma in verse thirteen was added to this section in 1921. Some refer to this comma as the 'vegetarian comma.' This a misnomer since neither the interpretation that stresses a pause (with the comma) or the interpretation without the pause would lead one to interpret this verse as an argument for never eating meat. It appears that the inserted comma simply clarified the generally accepted interpretation of this verse so that the general interpretation of this verse today is the same as that prior to the comma's insertion. This interpretation is in harmony with other verses that suggest that meat should be used sparingly.

== Related links ==
* For a sermon on the Word of Wisdom by Hyrum Smith in 1842 see [http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n15.htm Times and Seasons Volume 3 Number 15].

----
{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-19T02:00:21Z

Rpederse: /* overweight */

Talk:D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-19T01:30:33Z

Rpederse: "In the season thereof"

D&C 89:11-15

2006-10-19T01:21:44Z

Rpederse: /* Questions */

{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* How might one use herbs with "prudence" and "thanksgiving" (vs. 11)?
* What does "in the season thereof" mean? (v. 11)
* How do you determine if you are using meat "sparingly"?
* What does it mean that grain is "ordained" for our use in vs. 14?
* Why are fish not included as proper food in the Word of Wisdom?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
The first comma in verse thirteen was added to this section in 1921. Some refer to this comma as the 'vegetarian comma.' This a misnomer since neither the interpretation that stresses a pause (with the comma) or the interpretation without the pause would lead one to interpret this verse as an argument for never eating meat. It appears that the inserted comma simply clarified the generally accepted interpretation of this verse so that the general interpretation of this verse today is the same as that prior to the comma's insertion. This interpretation is in harmony with other verses that suggest that meat should be used sparingly.

== Related links ==
* For a sermon on the Word of Wisdom by Hyrum Smith in 1842 see [http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n15.htm Times and Seasons Volume 3 Number 15].

----
{|
| [[D&C 89:6-10|Previous (D&C 89:6-10)]] ||             || [[D&C 89:16-21|Next (D&C 89:16-21)]]
|}

Talk:D&C 89:1-3

2006-10-19T01:12:16Z

Rpederse: /* easier to follow? */

Talk:Doctrine & Covenants 89 All

2006-10-17T12:38:15Z

Rpederse:

On the question, "Is it a sin to be overweight?"
(Note for full disclosure: I am very significantly overweight myself, and it ain't glandular.) Being overweight is a condition: righteousness is about behavior (including behavior of thought). This condition results from some combination of many factors, not all of which are understood. In most of us, though, overweight results from patterns of behavior which are unrighteous, or at least suboptimal. One such cause is gluttony, to use an old word, which seems to me to be tied in with selfishness and ingratitude. In food, as with other things, the notion seems to be that the Lord gives us things which he expects us to use in the right way and in appropriate amounts and balance.
--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 12:38, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Rpederse

2006-09-15T03:27:25Z

Rpederse:

Talk:Enos 1:1-5

2006-09-15T03:11:17Z

Rpederse: /* Personal Comments */

==Personal Comments==
Enos litterally hungered for the gospel, for truth. He wanted to know if his sins would be forgiven, this strong desire is essencial. We all must have it in order to progress eternally, and when we do as Enos did, we will recieve great blessings, and the kingdom of God. --[[User:Travis Justin Kamper|Travis Justin Kamper]]

Enos tells us explicitly that he has learned of the Lord from his father. For some reason, at this particular time those teachings become pressing, and I believe Enos feels the need to have a personal experience with the Lord regarding the things he has heard from his father. The key to Enos’ experience is this “hunger in his soul”. I don’t believe that Enos doe has this deeply spiritual experience because he thought it might be nice to have one. The effort he made to the Lord would have had to been a real struggle before the Lord. Enos speaks of a real desire from the heart of his soul. He accurately mentions it as a struggle. He didn’t have the experience of Alma the Younger or Joseph Smith- but I get the idea he was required to fight through his “natural man” to his spiritual self. His hunger for the spirit was greater than his hunger for food, for he indicates that he prays throughout a day and a night (I would have been famished). We do not really know with what topics Enos occupied his prayer for that length of time, but we may assume from his subsequent statements that it became a time of self-revelation and realization of his standing before God. It certainly became a time of sincere repentance of acting upon the self-revelations he uncovered. This is another personal story from a character we barely get to know in the Book of Mormon; but the lesson he teaches us is invaluable. If a man like this needs to find the Lord on a personal level, how much need do all of us have to find the Lord on this level? These are a powerful couple of pages that we can easily apply into our daily lives.

[[Username: Bunk April 25, 2006]]

If I had an opportunity to chat with Joseph Smith, and the question seemed appropriate, I'd like to ask him what Enos was like before the experience described in this book. For years, I assumed that this was his first religious experience, and that this is his conversion story. But it could also be that we're watching a person of some spiritual maturity -- while it ain't necessarily so, most people who have the privelege of speaking with the Lord have been working on their testimonies for quite a while. I've certainly had experiences where some principle "sinks deep into my soul" and I need to pray and ponder my way to a new level of understanding and/or faithfulness. (Not a *high* level, just new for me. At such times, I sometimes find myself wondering if I understand anything at all.)

Any thoughts on this? Or, even better, evidence?

--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 03:11, 15 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Talk:1 Ne 11:1-11

2006-09-06T06:02:58Z

Rpederse: On the question re: verses 2, 4

[[User:Mdn32]] wrote:
:Verse 1 gives us a pretty good equation for revelation. Nephi says that he 1.Desired to know, 2.Believed it could be made known, and 3.Pondered in his heart. After these steps he received a visitation. Thus the equation could be simply written Desire+Faith+Action=Revelation
Note that the exegesis already has in it:
:If the central reason for Nephi to tell us about his vision is to show us that the Lord fulfills his promise, then part of the point of the next part of verse one is to explain what we must do to have the mysteries of God unfolded to us. Like Nephi, we must 1) have a desire to know and 2) have faith.
I looked at the difference between these two "equations" in order to try to combine them but as I started to do that I wasn't sure that we would think of "pondering" as action. To me the fact that he was pondering was simply a natural outcome of his desire to understand. So I wonder what others think on this. Should "pondering" or "action" be added as a 3rd step?

The more I think about this I wonder if the wording in both is problematic. In both cases there is a suggestion (as I read them anyway) that if you take the right steps in the right order--wham--you'll get a revelation. In both cases it is as if this is a mathematical equation. I don't think that is how the Lord works--at least that isn't my experience. Sometimes Heavenly Father blesses us with gifts when we don't seem to have taken the proper prior steps (e.g. the Lord visits the brother of Jared when he hadn't recently prayed [[Ether 2:14]]). Other times we pray, we have faith, but there is no immediate answer. If others agree with this maybe the right next step is to delete them both--unless others have a suggested revision.

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:08, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

----
Dad, I deleted the two questions related lexical notes since I knew that when you wrote the questions you didn't at that time also make the lexical notes available. However, if you think they add additional value, beyond what the lexical notes feel free to add them back in.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthewfaulconer]] 07:21, 13 Mar 2005 (CET)

== On the question re: verses 2, 4 ==

There's a parallel to the 'believest thou?' question in [[John 11:26]], and I suspected there are a lot more. ("Whom do ye say that I am?" "Simon Bar Jonas, lovest thou me?") I think that bearing our testimony, the act of verbally declaring our belief, changes us and strengthens the very testimony that we bear. See [[Rom. 10:9]].
--[[User:Rpederse|Rpederse]] 06:02, 6 Sep 2006 (UTC)

1 Ne 2:6-15

2006-09-02T04:26:47Z

Rpederse: /* Exegesis */

{| width="20%"
| [[1 Ne 2:1-5|Previous]] || [[1 Ne 2:11-15|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

Verse 7: "All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 180-81." Cited in Robert Millet, “The Holy Order of God”, in “Alma, the Testimony of the Word", ed. by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[1 Ne 2:1-5|Previous]] || [[1 Ne 2:11-15|Next]]
|}

1 Ne 2:6-15

2006-09-02T04:25:23Z

Rpederse:

{| width="20%"
| [[1 Ne 2:1-5|Previous]] || [[1 Ne 2:11-15|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''
Verse 7: "All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 180-81." Cited in Robert Millet, “The Holy Order of God”, in “Alma, the Testimony of the Word", ed. by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[1 Ne 2:1-5|Previous]] || [[1 Ne 2:11-15|Next]]
|}