I begin writing this after a healthy sampling of a McDonald’s chicken sandwich slurped down with some Hi-C orange drink. I’m fat. I’m actually the heaviest (and perhaps unhealthiest) I’ve ever been. In college I ate Taco Bell 3 square meals a day. Seriously, I did…I mean c’mon 49 cent tacos? Hello…that’s better than Ramen. But I also worked out at least 3 times a week with weights and rode a bike everywhere out of necessity. So the byproduct of my crap eating never showed. I was always around 165lbs and felt great. Now I’m…well, let’s just say NOT 165lbs…those days are a distant memory. As I was alone this weekend (wife away visiting family in Indiana) and realizing what I was feeding my children, I felt ashamed. It caused me to reflect on the Word of Wisdom a bit. We’re given counsel that:
And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones…And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. Doctrines and Covenants 89:18,20
And it came to pass, that I cannot run and not be weary! In fact, I get friggin winded playing with my kids on the floor! I could reflect over time and try to understand where this occurred, but let’s just agree that my metabolism has slowed alright? Moving on…anyhow, I think most people external to the Church (and perhaps some members or converts) look at the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) and concentrate only on the alcohol/tobacco side of things. The history of the Word of Wisdom is actually an interesting and funny one as well.
The revelation was given to Joseph when he asked of God if it was okay that the men use tobacco in their meetings. Seriously, could you imagine? A member of the Bishopric getting up announcing the blessing of a baby only to pause and lean into the spittoon? Aside from the fact Emma disliked it as her and the sisters repeatedly had to clean up the floors, God basically gave the divine thumbs down. He then also provided an “oh, by the way…” with regard to a few other things…namely what is more commonly known in addition to tobacco are the “strong drinks” which we interpret to mean alcohol, among other things and the “hot drinks” which the Church has said refers to coffee and tea (hot or cold).
But examine the counsel further…
And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature and use of man. Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving. Doctrines and Covenants 89:10-11
So we know that we should be eating “healthy” by consuming herbs, fresh fruits and herbs. But who likes that? :-) — Let’s go to Costco, get some sweet rib-eye steaks and chow down…yum…
Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. Doctrines and Covenants 89:12-13.
So the Prophets have told us that the Word of Wisdom not only apply to alcohol and tobacco but to a health eating style as well. Those 4 steaks you had this week? Not so good. I know that people may scoff and say “hey, that’s a little extreme.” But we also hear the echo from President Snow nearly 70 years later reminding the members about the consumption of meats sparingly. One may be quick to point out that the “during winter” portion probably has some historic reference to the storage of raw meats and the missing refrigeration systems during those times. Nevertheless, regardless of refrigeration in modern times, the Prophets have not said “it’s okay now, we have freezers, go ahead and gorge yourselves.” Brigham Young’s made an assertion that the revelation given in the Word of Wisdom was a commandment from God (oddly enough only for those under the age of 90).
So why is it that we honor the alcohol and tobacco portions so easily (for most) but yet disregard a healthy lifestyle otherwise? Should the admonishing of refraining (note I didn’t say commandment) of caffeinated beverages be made a commandment? It certainly would be more in-line with the Word of Wisdom teachings. Surely it would be in the best interests of the saints? While a study has been conducted about mortality rates with regard to members and non-members, I’ve yet to see any study regarding expanding the principals of the Word of Wisdom and looking at obesity rates.
So as I look at myself and my eating habits I see that, in fact, they are NOT in line with the teachings of our Prophets. Why should I be so bold to assume that I’m following the commandments of the Word of Wisdom when I don’t drink/smoke, but my last 5 meals involved fried chicken, fast-food, and steak? I ask you, your thoughts?
Since becoming a member one of the things I get confused about from time to time is the authoritative direction given by the First Presidency. I have often felt that there has been times where they don’t want to get their fingers dirty, and then there are issues where they get deeply involved in controversy and politics. I remember one such moment in my research in becoming a member around the salamander letters (later admitted by Hinckley I believe as a moment of the Church’s history they could have done better in public politics/opinion). I’ve been a member now through almost 3 presidential election time periods and can distinctly remember (and I’m sure it will happen again) letters being read to the congregation from the Office of the First Presidency regarding politics (also known as ‘political neutrality’). In fact it is an item in the Newsroom:
The Church does not:
- Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
You may remember this too, as in fact it does generally only get read around elections of candidates rather than periods of topic-related issues. Because of this, I’ve often thought that the Church remains neutral to the land law all the time. Maybe I’m a sleeper, but I’ve not recalled a moment in my history with the Church where they’ve been so politically involved before…or even at all. These letters are etched in my memory of the opposite in fact. In 1995, the Proclamation to the World was issued by the Church and presumably should have put to rest the thoughts on family for the Church. It is a wonderful message and one I am proud that our faith has so widely declared. I’ve recently told my wife that I really think it should be hanging proudly in our home. I can’t think of a better discussion piece than a document/message that stresses our belief in the family unit than the Proclamation.
Fast-forward 13 years.
Actually you don’t have to fast fowrard that far. This same issue arose in California in May 1999 where declarations were made as well. The issue of same-sex marriage still exists. There are arguments on all partisan lines about it. Yesterday (13 AUG 2008), the Church issued a note on The Divine Institution of Marriage. Personally I wish the word ‘institution’ wouldn’t be used…it has such a connotation about it that is counter to the word ‘family’ to me. The message is in direct response to constitutional changes proposals in various states to ensure that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman. The message, outlines the defense of this message to readers in various areas and not just one singular view from faith. The message also talks about the difference from tolerance versus belief and that we should continue to be Christ-like to our friends and neighbors and exhibit ‘love thy neighbor’ traits. Being tolerant doesn’t mean that you have to be accepting of the same belief. it’s a struggle on both sides…those that will look at this message and chastise the Church will not be tolerant of our views either…double-edged sword.
But back to my point…such a strong, vocal stance on not only the issue, but a directive toward local political voting. It made me wonder what was going on here? I thought the Church stayed out of politics. Reading back to the political neutrality we can read that the Church does:
Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
And therein lies the involvement…moral issues. It still is odd to me as that one could argue one candidate’s platform strikes at the moral issues of our society as well. The struggle I have is that perception=reality. You can put any asterisk on a policy you want, but when you stay so neutral for most issues and then lurch out with a wide campaign encouraging your members to actively get involved, vote for the amendment, etc. it sends a weird message of a double-standard and confusion to those already looking for a way to probe our faith.
Please don’t misunderstand me here. I am for the family. I’m just confused to our own organization’s policies and involvements. I’ve been told that this has happened in the past though during debates on public education and other interesting times in our nation’s history. So maybe this is just new to me as a convert, which is fine…I’ll have to get used to it. It will be interesting to me to watch this get played out in the political and public forums. Regardless I still stand by my personal beliefs and think the Proclamation is an inspired message and this new message on marriage helps explain it deeper and put things in our faith’s perspective more.
But part of me can’t help but think that we’re acting a little like Sweden here – sit back a lot until the shores are attacked, then bring out the nukes. Maybe a more balanced, continued involvement with politicians would help things in the long run?
Comments from others…