posted
So*, I was out to dinner last night with some friends.
For some reason the conversation turned to Mormonism (long, involved story, concerning a law school ball and ticket prices) and one of my friends told me he had "several Mormon friends who drank (alcohol)" (on a regular basis).
He equated the position to orthodox and non-orthodox Jews, saying only the "orthodox" LDS didn't drink.
Now, to me this seemed both a really inappropriate analogy and a falsehood.
I had thought that the provision against drinking was pretty much a key tenet of the LDS faith. Could one still identify as a mainstream Mormon and drink?
When I told my friend this, he said "Well the Mormons here are different from those in Utah..".
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't all religions have spinoffs and adaptations and excuses, though? These people may consider themselves "not orthodox", whereas to the rest of the Mormon population they are "not Mormon."
What an outsider should call them is another thing altogether.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To go to the temple you have to believe that you follow the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom is interpreted at least as no tobacco, alcohol, coffee, illegally taken drugs. There is not any kind of organized non-orthodox Mormon movement, though whether people want to follow the commandments is up to them. The church has specifically disavowed "fundamentalist" Mormon groups, such as those that practice polygamy.
The Mormon church has an unusual degree of centralized control. There are of course splinter groups, but none are very organized with the exception of the Community of Christ (formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) but even that group shrank substantially from 1.5 million in the late 80's to about half a million last year.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought by 'non-orthodox' you might mean, 'Mormons who didn't vote for Bush in the last election.' To which question I was ready with, "Ooooh! Oooh! Me! I'm unorthodox!"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if a Mormon drinks, they can't attend the temple or take the sacrament. Well, they can, but it's a lie and considered a solemn mockery of God. There are many who do so, but it is in no way an acceptable thing to do.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once heard a joke applied to Mormons: Why do you always have to invite two Mormons to go fishing with you? Because if you invite just one he'll drink all the beer.
I do know several church members who consider themselves Mormons but don't live the standards of the church (whether with regular church attendance, or alcohol, or whatever). They still self-identify as Mormons and generally they accept that what they're doing is wrong. They just don't believe they have the strength not to do it.
Generally speaking, however, I think that a drinking Mormon is a fairly uncommon thing (at least since the 1930's).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm going to have to say that the Jewish analogy is not a good one. There are organized groups of non-practicing and less-observant Jews. Not quite so with Mormons.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LDS Church definitely has its share of split-offs. I've heard about things like "reform" Mormonism, too. Maybe this guy belonged to a splinter group that doesn't really follow the leadership in Salt Lake, or maybe he just thinks he can break the rules and still be okay. Or maybe they're just inactive members. I don't know enough to say.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for Spin-offs of Mormonism...Yeah. More than can be counted, I think. But none are recognized by the church and many are far more strange than even us.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Community of Christ started out as church members who didn't go west with Brigham Young. Having leaders descended from the first prophet were their claim to superiority for a while, but then they ran out of male descendents and gave the priesthood to the women. After most of the people left over that, they voted it out again. They operate by consensus rather than revelation. At least, that's how I understood it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There used to be a gay ward in Salt Lake- unofficial at the time but just kind of self-selected. Since the church issued the proclamation on the Family, such a group would probably have to distance itself further from the church. I haven't heard much about it lately. I think there is probably still a gay missionary reunion, but it's probably held at a bar.
The vast majority of breakaways from the church are people who think the church is too lax, rather than too strict.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I actually looked again, to see the date of the post and thread and make sure it wasn't an old, bumped thread. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, the guy (and this is through a friend, so who knows what's being distorted) didn't view himself as a spin-off, or even as a non-practising Mormon.
Just that it was ok if he drank, (regularly, and with no intent of stopping) and he could still be LDS.
Edit: And Yeah, I got Pat to post. I am teh coolest.
posted
Well, yeah, he can still be LDS. But unless he's willing to flat out lie to ecclesiastical leadership, he couldn't fully participate in the church (i.e. attend the temple). Living this particular law is necessary to receive that blessing/responsibility.
So, I can see this happening, but I think the guy's completely wrong. It's not okay to drink if you're LDS. And I think 9 out of 10 Mormons would agree.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, yeah, he can still be LDS. But unless he's willing to flat out lie to ecclesiastical leadership, he couldn't fully participate in the church (i.e. attend the temple). Living this particular law is necessary to receive that blessing/responsibility.
So, I can see this happening, but I think the guy's completely wrong. It's not okay to drink if you're LDS. And I think 9 out of 10 Mormons would agree.
It's not just temple worship that he'd be excluded from; he couldn't do basic things like take the sacrament or hold a calling. And I'd hope that a lot more than 9 out of 10 Mormons would agree.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I was going to say that, accept I don't know that it's true. You don't have to pass a temple recommend interview to have a calling. We have a Sunday School teacher who struggles with smoking.
Unless you mean his unrepentant attitude would proclude him from speaking/sacrament/holding callings. But generally speaking, I don't think someone can be formally disfellowshipped for drinking. Anyone know for sure?
As for 9 out of 10, you're probably right. I was just trying to say that a strong majority of Mormons would disagree. Whether it's actually 99 out of 100 or 9 out of 10 or everyone but this guy. There's not a big group of non-orthodox Mormons out there (unless you count the 5 out of 10 who don't feel they need to come to church .
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If his leaders were to confront him on it, and he would state that he has no intention of repenting of his drinking, and that he doesn't believe that the scriptures that state us such, or the repeated statements of the modern (and living) prophets, are authoritative, and he will go on teaching people that you can still be a Faithful Mormon and still consume alcohol - then I would think that Church Discipline (IE, Disfellowshipping) would not be out of lne.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my best friends is LDS, and considers the thing about "hot drinks" to be a warning against addiction, not caffiene. So. Is he unorthodox? I don't know enough about LDS to say.
Thing is, LDS is Christian, and Christians follow the spirit, not the letter, of the Law. We're not really about rules. "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." Do LDS people see this differently?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that all Christians fit that definition. In the LDS Church, there are some inflexible rules and some flexible ones. The restrictions in the Word of Wisdom are currently inflexible, so I would say that if your friend drinks coffee, he's unorthodox.
By the way, the Joseph Smith Translation of that verse reads, "All these things are not lawful unto me, and all these things are not expedient. All things are not lawful for me, therefore I will not be brought under the power of any." That sort of changes things. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hot Drinks has been interpreted to mean coffee and tea.
Cola drinks? That's left up to the member's own discretion, though the First Presidency has said that anything that leads to unhealthy addictions is best avoided.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But caffiene, specifically, is not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. Eating chocolate and taking Exedrin is not going to get you disfellowshipped.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree that you cannot really be a practicing Mormon while drinking alchohol, I still disagree with the following:
quote:I had thought that the provision against drinking was pretty much a key tenet of the LDS faith.
quote:Abstaining from alcohol is a key tenet of the LDS faith.
Not drinking alchohol is one of the most visibly obvious beliefs we have, but it is not a key tenant of our faith -- those are things like the Atonement of Christ, the Fall of Adam, the priesthood, and divine revelation.
Specific rules like not drinking alchohol is small potatoes in comparison to those. It's important to follow, but in now way would I call it key to our faith. There could be a revelation tomorrow that says that it's OK to drink alchohol, and our faith would be unchanged.
edit: changed "agree" to "disagree"
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, Thanks I was just going to add the same thing.
It is true that you can not receive a temple recommend unless you agree that you are following the Word of Wisdom -- ie not drinking alcohol.
You also couldn't hold any of the key leadership positions in a Ward, such as Bishop or Elder's quorum president, but you could hold most other callings.
And when it comes to the sacrament, that is a personal issue. You can not be official disfellowshipped for violating the WofW. I have known some Bishops who would encourage members with WofW problems to come and take the sacrament and others who would discourage it, but the decision is left to the member.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: By the way, the Joseph Smith Translation of that verse reads, "All these things are not lawful unto me, and all these things are not expedient. All things are not lawful for me, therefore I will not be brought under the power of any." That sort of changes things.
As Tom might say, Hoo Boy. It sure does.
I find this *very* disturbing. That first clause "all these things are not lawful unto me," when we go from other versions to Inspired, is altered by the word "not." That, of course, reverses the meaning!
Now, if LDS people believe that the Inspired Translation is inerrant, regardless of other versions including the Greek, then it's non-negotiable, and we need not discuss it. But reading the preface by Israel Smith (http://www.centerplace.org/library/tracts/iv_IsraelASmith.htm ), I think I understood that it wasn't the Greek N.T. that was wrong, it was KJV; that is; the Greek version is ok, but King James's scholars screwed things up. So if Inspired is just a better translation, then going back to the Greek should show us.
Before going further... is Inspired Translation inerrant, to LDS? If so, never mind. If not...Greek will tell.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess you understand a bit why people are so freaked out by Mormons.
Mormons believe in living prophets who have the right to interpret scripture. We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. How can we tell for sure if it is translated correctly? We can't really. We can't know scientifically what was changed without a Pastwatch machine.
But Mormons believe that Joseph Smith had the authority to receive revelation on what the Bible is actually *supposed* to say. This is a very scary idea for a lot of Christians. Not so scary for us, who trust that the Joseph Smith Translation was inspired of God. It's a matter of faith.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh? Israel Smith was leader of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and anyway, he explicitly states in that article that the Greek was "marred by mistakes." But no, the LDS Church does not believe that the Greek manuscript is inerrant.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Thing is, LDS is Christian, and Christians follow the spirit, not the letter, of the Law. We're not really about rules. "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." Do LDS people see this differently?
Mormons certainly believe in following the spirit of the law. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't follow the letter of the law as well.
I believe that, rather than excusing disobedience, following the spirit of the law usually requires you go above and beyond what the law itself states. Take caffeine for example; it isn't specifically prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. But you could argue the spirit of the law is to avoid addictive substances, so to obey the spirit of the law you should avoid caffeine. It's up to individuals to decide for themselves what the spirit of the law is.
I think it goes back to Christ's teachings on murder and anger, adultery and lust. The spirit of the law usually leads to a higher level of obedience, rather than a lower.
Oh, and a note on the Joseph Smith Translation for non-LDS posters. The KJV is the LDS church's officially endorsed English version of the bible. Bibles produced by the LDS church give the KJV text with footnotes and endnotes indicating Joseph Smith's changes.
And finally, a note from the LDS version of the scriptures about the JST: "Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another." (http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents)
Sorry, in advance, for the rambling nature of the post. I just find it an interesting subject that I think is generally misunderstood.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to add that we don't really think of our scriptures as inerrant. We believe they were written by imperfect men, so there could be inaccuracies in them, even in the Book of Mormon. We believe that current revelation always trumps older revelation.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well... I have no opinion about Saints who drink caffiene. Even if they're addicted, it's not for me to say that they're unrighteous. I mean, I don't know the circumstances, and it isn't specifically prohibited. Moreover, I've seen members who drink decaf coffee argue that they're not breaking the WoW, and I think this happens because people take a pretty clear cut rule, no coffee or tea, and start overanalyzing. They say, "why no coffee or tea?" and then think "it must be the caffiene" then they say, "so I can drink coffee without caffiene" and they end up going against the letter of the law. I take the law to mean no coffee, and no tea, and any justifications I can think of need to contain this basic premise.
For that matter, the WoW says eat meat sparingly. I happen to be a vegetarian, which I think goes along great with the WoW, but I've found Saints to be a pretty carnivorous group. I usually can't eat much at ward dinners and potlucks because people put either meat or gelitan in just about everything. But I don't think that makes them unrighteous. I don't really know how meat loving Mormons read the WoW, and it's not really any of my business.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a bishop lecture the ward once because people were avoiding Coke but drinking decaf. He said we obviously needed a little review on the WoW. It was hilarious. I love that bishop.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
