On the Ethics of the Word of Wisdom

[Portia]

Moderator note: this would be question 66661, for reference.

Requiring someone to not do something trivial and harmless is not morally or ethically equivalent to commanding infanticide. I can't think of any ethical system where killing your son is justified, no matter if the voices in your head tell you it's okay (hopefully you have a good lawyer who can mount an insanity defense?). I'm always disturbed, quite frankly, by the idea of a system where you can't make any moral decisions through reason. I drink tea but I don't kill children; I'd go so far as to say I am glad to live in a post-Enlightenment society where we aren't subject to the whims of an amoral, ancient, basically lawless society. If my dad requested I not drink tea in his presence I might humor him. He tells me to murder my own kid, he's getting the cops called on his crazy, crazy self, stat.

[TheAnswerIs42]

As a parent, I can see the occasional need to tell my kids to "just obey" with no logic they know about because the reasons I know are far too much for them to understand at their age. My daughter loves knowing why we follow rules. (Quote for the week: " 'Cause you 'member, we hold hands when we cross the parking lot. If we don't hold hands, then we get squished by a car and get stripes on our back." I couldn't explain to her that only works in cartoons.) But since she is four, there are some things that I just can't explain.

And to me, the connection between Abraham and the WoW was just that don't know the reasons for either of them. Not that the severity is anywhere close, just that there are other times where God hasn't told us why.

[Katya]

Other significant differences are that the WoW is also an ongoing commandment, while God's commandment to Abraham was a one-time thing. Furthermore, the WoW wasn't emphasized as much in early church history as it is now, so I think there's an interesting sociological component to it, as well.

[Craig Jessop]

Furthermore, the WoW wasn't emphasized as much in early church history as it is now, so I think there's an interesting sociological component to it, as well.

Oh, you want books about this from the resident Church history major? Oh, okay.

The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle by Kathleen Flake. It discusses the sociological transition from polygamy as the defining doctrine of the Church to the First Vision and Word of Wisdom.

Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 by Thomas G. Alexander. He spends more time on the Word of Wisdom than Flake does, who talks mostly about the First Vision's role in Church doctrine.

Basically, their arguments can be condensed to mean that the Church filled its need to keep itself separate from the world by replacing polygamy with two other unusual doctrines and practices. The Word of Wisdom and First Vision fulfill that.

[Stego Lily]

Basically, their arguments can be condensed to mean that the Church filled its need to keep itself separate from the world by replacing polygamy with two other unusual doctrines and practices. The Word of Wisdom and First Vision fulfill that.

Interesting. Though really, the Word of Wisdom and the First Vision were still taught in the Church before polygamy was eradicated, so its not like they were invented to replace polygamy. But the emphasis has definitely shifted over time. And I wasn't aware that the First Vision wasn't heavily emphasized in the early days of the Church. How exactly has that changed over time?