Temple prep - "Sacred Covenants"

The following text is taken from the pamphlet "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple" (2002) and annotated by me.

The Lord in the revelation now known as section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants announces:

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. (D&C 132:4–5.) This is the section Joseph "received" justifying polygamy. The new and everlasting covenant is unequivocally plural marriage. This is also the section that threatens Emma with death if she doesn't let Joseph marry the women he's already married and marry even more that he hasn't yet married.

President Joseph Fielding Smith defines the new and everlasting covenant in these words:

What is the new and everlasting covenant? I just told everyone, sorry. I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. Totally! Many believe it's eternal marriage. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations. Huh? You know you didn't really say what it is, right? For those of you who missed it above, the new and everlasting covenant is heaven sanctioned polygyny. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56], 1:156; hereafter cited as Doctrines of Salvation.)

This covenant includes all ordinances of the gospel—the highest of which are performed in the temple. To quote President Smith again:

Now there is a clear-cut definition in detail of the new and everlasting covenant. Let's hear the clear-cut version now... It is everything—the fulness of the gospel. That's not very clear. You've just muddled everything into one. It's almost as if you haven't read Section 132. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else—every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is a part of the new and everlasting covenant. Once again, that is not the definition the Lord gave in Section 132. I think you're probably trying really hard to downplay the importance of polygamy to early Mormonism. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158.)

In the verse quoted previously (Doctrine and Covenants 132:4) the Lord spoke with unmistakable plainness: “… for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” Right. The purpose of this revelation was to force Emma into accepting her husband's sleeping around. Emma however had the good sense to burn the revelation when Hyrum brought it to her (because Joseph didn't have the balls to bring it to her himself).

Those who go to the temple have the privilege of taking upon themselves specific covenants and obligations relative to their exaltation and that of others. Please tell us all exactly what these covenants are. It would be really awkward to drag someone to the temple dress them all up and sit them down for the movie and leave them completely ignorant of the promises they're there to make. Elder James E. Talmage wrote:

The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for the list, I just have a question for you: how are these not covered in the baptismal covenants? I think they're already covered, bro. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions. What blessings? Tell us. Actually maybe I'll just take a moment to list them for everyone. The gods promise they "will provide a Savior for you, whereby you may come back into our presence, and with us partake of Eternal Life and exaltation". Part of this partaking of "Eternal Life and exaltation" includes "the day... when you will be... Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses" in heaven. It sounds impressive, doesn't it? (The House of the Lord, page 100.)

We covenant with the Lord to devote our time, talents, and means to His kingdom. Meaning what? All of our time, talents and wealth, or just 10%? Do I need to make the LDS Church the sole benefactor in my will? Can you be a little more clear?

We are a covenant people. We covenant to give of our resources in time and money and talent—all we are and all we possess—to the interest of the kingdom of God upon the earth. So I should rewrite my will. In simple terms, we covenant to do good. "Good" according to the Church means "help the Church". "Good" according to Jesus means helping the sick, hungry and downtrodden. We are a covenant people, and the temple is the center of our covenants. The covenant center, if you will. Those meeting houses where we're required to renew our baptismal covenants every week? Not so central. It is the source of the covenant. You might have been thinking Jesus was the source, but he's not. The temples that we make (and only ours, mind you) are a magnificent fountain spewing forth covenants upon the world.

Come to the temple. Don't tell me what to do! You ought to come to the temple. If you want to see the hidden side of Mormonism, then you really ought to. Here, acting as proxy for someone who has gone beyond the veil, you will have reviewed before you the covenants that you have made. This is actually the only way for you to review because the Church won't give you the text to study unless you're one of the actors in the drama. You will have reinforced in your mind the great spiritual blessings that are associated with the house of the Lord. Those blessing (eternal life with God) are what we're promised at baptism though, so feel free to stop at baptism (if you believe in that sort of thing).

Be faithful to the covenants and ordinances of the gospel. Give the Church EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT and DON'T TELL ANYONE your secret name or passwords and shit! Qualify for those sacred ordinances step by step as you move through life. Don't we have to qualify before we go to the temple? Isn't that what all the interviews were about? Honor the covenants connected with them. Or be prepared to excuse yourself from the endowment when they ask if anyone wants to leave. Don't be nervous - no one ever dares leave. Do this and you will be happy. Unless you're still deeply unsatisfied with things.

Your lives will then be in order—all things lined up in proper sequence, in proper ranks, in proper rows. We have to rank something and put stuff in rows? What? Is this a military analogy? Your family will be linked in an order that can never be broken. On second thought it can still be broken, like in the case of temple divorce, deceased family potentially rejecting the temple ordinances done on earth, living family members abandoning ship, future family members choosing not to do the Mormon thing, or someone like Joseph Smith being sealed to your wife and thereby eternally inheriting all your kids.

In the covenants and ordinances center the blessings that you may claim in the holy temple. No, the blessings mentioned in the temple, with the exception of "protection" thanks to garment wearing, are blessings you can only receive after death. Surely the Lord is pleased when we are worthy of the title: A keeper of the covenants. You know what? I'm not at all sure he is.

Folk magick

God cares a great deal about what others would consider total bullshit. Take for example dowsing, or water witching. God totally loves that shit and he's recorded in The Doctrine & Covenants as saying as much.

"... you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God."

(For a detailed explanation of where "the gift of Aaron" comes from and what it means, click here.)

Why would God endorse Oliver Cowdery's "gift" in folk magic that has been proven to be absolutely powerless? Was this really a revelation from God or was it Joseph casting the spell of flattery on his close associate?

"No, seriously, bro, I'm unstoppable with my water wand."

Polygamy - Joanna's take

Here are a few things to consider from Joanna Brooks' recent blog post.

"[T]he new website on Joseph Smith’s polygamy does not say that Smith was wrong—not for marrying against the wishes of his first wife Emma, or marrying women already married to other men, or marrying girls as young as fourteen. It acknowledges that Smith’s polygamy demanded heartwrenching sacrifices of his first wife, but it sidesteps the crucial question of whether these sacrifices were founded in lasting principles of Mormon theology, or were they pains caused by the human excesses of our charismatic founder?

Is it the will of God that polygamy should persist in LDS Church theology and policies pertaining to LDS temple marriages, as it does to this day?"

Dear Tommy, would you and your buddies please let us know if LDS Mormons today are rightly dreading future (and eternal) polygamy?

Gone rogue

It's been said (by a prophet and repeated frequently by others) that God will not let his people be lead astray. You can find this in LDS scripture and in the Church's general teachings about the nature of the relationship between God and his prophets.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Is this why Joseph Smith was murdered at 44? Was the mob at Carthage somehow sent by God to remove his delusional and fallen prophet? Was Brigham wrong to take up the bizarre cause of polygamy? What if we can't trust the Brighamite branch of Mormonism at all?

If we can't trust Brigham and his followers than we can't trust what Wilford said either, and I totally believe what Wilford said, ergo everything must be fine. Joseph must have been a holy son of a gun and Brigham must have been right to fight for polygamy. The Church is true! Doubt no longer!

Heavenly fatherliness #26 - Tolerating mistakes

According to popular wisdom, a good father allows his kids to make some mistakes, however, he makes it clear that repeated irresponsibility won't be tolerated.

 Mormon beliefs about Heavenly Father's tolerance of sin suggest a fairly benevolent god, who will forgive us as often as we repent. Of course, if you don't repent you'll be eternally damned, so it's hard to maintain that the Father is entirely benevolent. His approach is "I forgive you only if you're sorry," and yet he asks us to forgive all regardless of whether or not they ask for that forgiveness.

"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10)

That's called a double standard.

We should also keep in mind that proof of God's forgiveness or of his eternal rage are impossible to find here and now. We have to wait until we die to see how it all plays out. For the time being the Father of the Universe is showing no limits whatsoever as to what behavior he will tolerate.

*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.

Filling pockets full of virgins

Isn't it at least a little strange that following Joseph Smith's death many of his wives were divvied up between Brigham Young and Heber Kimball? It's a fact that many of those women didn't meet the requirements for plural marriage in the first place and should not have been married to Joseph, but why would they end up automatically marrying other early Mormon bigwigs? Is there another rule about wives trickling down the chain of hierarchy upon a prophet's death?

What about Brigham and Heber's other wives? I'm sure if we were to look at the lives of each of these sister wives and the situations surrounding their polygamous marriage, as has been done with Joseph's wives, we would find plenty of instances to doubt the divinity and righteous practice of the Law of Plural Marriage. Maybe some day I'll get around to it, but then where would I then stop? How many early Church leaders practiced polygamy? How many women had to cope with the practice despite their better judgement?

Years ago we heard that polygamy helped house and provide for widows. Taking care of the surplus of women is a good thing. We heard that polygamy was needed to boost the Mormon population even though polygamy doesn't actually do that. We were told that only a very small percentage of Mormon men practiced it as if that would somehow make how it was practiced ethical. We even heard our prophet say he did not think polygamy was doctrinal even though the commandment and explanation of it is still contained our scripture.

There's a lot of history here that we could discuss - a lot - and the LDS Church is trying to discuss it as little as possible while still appearing open and willing. What I would like to see is more focus on the people who felt constrained to practice and not on the institutional justifications.

A change of tune

Before Section 132 was included in The Doctrine & Covenants in 1876 there was another section that addressed polygamy specifically. It was Section 101 verse 4 (later Section 109), now edited out. It explicitly called polygamy a crime, denied its practice in the Church, and clarified that a man should have only one wife and a woman should have only one husband.

Apologists rest their defense of Joseph Smith's and early leaders' practice of polygamy despite scripture commanding against it on the fact that polygamy was not generally practiced in the Church, and/or that Oliver Cowdery wrote the now removed Section 101 as a statement of belief that was then approved by the ignorant masses of General Conference and not a revelation to the prophet. So why didn't Joseph repeal it, like, ever? Or at least modify it?

Why didn't the Church redact Section 132 in 1995 when it released the very monogamous-sounding Family proclamation? Or why didn't the Church at least include a more obvious polygamous family option in the proclamation so as to be true to its current doctrine? It all seems a little dishonest.

Call it sanctioned by God, call it evil, ignore it, either way it's coming back to hit you.

Them there's the rules!

Unlike in other books of scripture, The Doctrine & Covenants contains a very precise explanation of how to properly engage in divinely sanctioned polygyny.

1. Women who are sealed to other men are disqualified because that would be polyandry. (D&C 132:41)
2. The bride to be must be a virgin and
3. you have to ask your current wife or wives for permission. (D&C 132:61)
4. If the wife says no, she's a sinner and the husband is exempt from practicing polygamy. (D&C 132:65)
5. You have to have babies. (D&C 132:63)

The key concept to understand here is that once a woman has sex with a man, she belongs to that man.

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified." (D&C 132:62)

Virginity is not a gift that keeps on giving - it's a one time trade - , but as long as you can pile on the virgins you're good. Thus sayeth the Lord.

Pluralities

The LDS Church currently does not allow its members to have two living spouses. Anyone in the Church with more than one living spouse is most likely keeping it a secret from member friends and local leaders. Consequently most members take the Church's current position to mean that the Church doesn't practice polygamy and others might not believe its part of Mormon doctrine.

However, the fact is that polygamy, when divinely commanded, is a divine principle according to Mormon scripture, and God could at any moment bring it back.

Not that it's actually gone away completely. Currently apostle Dallin Oaks is expecting to live eternally with at least two women. He married Kristen McCain after his first wife, June Dixon, passed away. He is eternally sealed to both women, who get to share his eternal companionship.

 Eternal companion #1

 EC2

Previous wives don't have to be dead though. Today a Mormon man can be sealed to more than one living woman as long as he is only legally married to one and not cohabitating with the one(s) he had divorced. In other words, a man can be sealed in the temple, divorce that wife, and be sealed to another woman even if the first is still alive.

I'm not sure if the Church puts a cap on how many times a man can divorce and be sealed to a new woman, but I do know that there's a cap on how many times a woman can be sealed in the temple while living. Once. Any marriages following a death or divorce are for time only.

Yes, that's sexist. No, I don't think it's right.

It's all Greek to us

Joseph Smith had a very difficult time distinguishing Hebrew names from Greek and Latin ones. One of his biggest blunders shows up in Doctrine and Covenants 110, which reccounts the supposed visitations to Joseph and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland temple. In verse 12 Joseph says "Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed," which sounds totally cool and only slightly confusing (why's Elias officiating for the gospel of Abraham, and what the hell is Abraham's gospel anyway?). The problem occurs in the next verse when "Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us." The problem is that Elias is the Romanized Greek version of the Hebrew name Anglicized as Elijah. In other words Elias and Elijah are the same person, the former spelling of his name appears in the New Testament and the later form is found in the Old Testament.

LDS Church leaders have since decided that (1) there must have been some other prophet out there during Abraham's time named Elias (a Greek dude was hanging around with Abraham?) and that (2) Elias is probably a title for a forerunner prophet. I'm not making this shit up.

The more likely possibility seems to be that Joseph just didn't know the difference between Hebrew and Greek versions of the name in question.

Corroborating evidence to this latter theory is found in The Book of Mormon when Nephi uses the terms "Messiah," a Hebrew term, and "Christ," a Greek term - both literally meaning the anointed - in the same verse. Twice. Isn't that amazing? Nephi, a Hebrew is using messiah correctly (as a title) but using the Greek word Χριστός as Jesus' proper name. Nephi and Joseph need some serious help with their Greek.

Not that their Hebrew was any better. In 3 Nephi Jesus gives the Nephites chapter four of Malachi and the Nephites write down that "the Son of Righteousness" shall arise whereas Malachi wrote about "the Sun of righteousness." Now unless Jesus was speaking to the Nephites in English, it would have been very difficult for them to hear shamesh (Hebrew for sun) and then write down ben (Hebrew for son). What are the chances that Joseph's scribe screwed things up and the mistake going uncorrected all these years? What are the chances that Joseph thought he was being clever and screwed up?

The Book of Mormon also inserts the use of synagogues "after the manner of the Jews" in Nephite America even though synagogue worship did not exist at the time Lehi left Jerusalem. So where did the Jewish synagogue practice come from? Might Joseph have imposed New Testament era Jewish worship on people who would have been entirely ignorant of those practices?

"Just because we'll be living in the New World without any kind of telecommunicative technology doesn't mean we won't know exactly what our fellow Jews are up to in several hundred years."

Well how about Jews going to church? Laban and Zoram, two Jews living ca. 600 B.C.E., apparently were church goers, if that makes sense at all. It seems as though Joseph really liked Hellenizing his Hebrews.

Scriptural errors

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." (Title page of The Book of Mormon)

This would be a great "Get out of jail free card" for the ancient writers of The Book of Mormon if the faults and mistakes in their writings were not the same faults and mistakes of the translators of the King James Bible.

The Book of Mormon repeats verbatim the mistranslated words, it often keeps the non-textual words and phrases added by KJT translators, it promotes  misunderstandings of the Bible popular in Joseph Smith's time, and it doesn't even align with the "inspired" corrections of the JST.

To suggest that the Lehite prophets possessed the KJT is absurd. To suggest that God filled Joseph's illuminated translating mind with the texts he was already familiar with instead of giving him the actual translation of the gold plates defeats the purpose of bringing out new and improved scripture.

We need to think about this a little bit. If a student turns in homework with the same mistakes as another student, what is the teacher to think? If Thomas Monson came out tomorrow with a new book of freshly translated ancient scripture from Australia and a large part of it quoted verbatim sections from the Doctrine & Covenants and, say, the Book of Enoch, how would we feel about that?

Adam-ondi-Ahman

When the early saints moved down to Missouri Joseph Smith conveniently learned that it was a very cool place. Jesus was going to do some millennial ruling from there and, believe it or not, Adam, the father of mankind, would also be making a return visit! The exact location is called Adam-ondi-Ahman (Adamic for "Adam in the presence of God") but before that it was just good old Spring Hill.

"Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet." (D&C 116:1)

Actually, before that it was the Adams and Eves family stopping grounds. 

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing." (D&C 107:53)

 No Eden here, try Missouri.

Yes, that means the Garden of Eden was in North America and not somewhere in the vicinity of the Middle East. Here's what Spring Hill/Adam-ondi-Aham/Almost Eden looks like.

I always had a hard time with believing this story. Adam, as in an actual historical non-literary first man created by God 6000 years ago? Missouri, really? God's mentioning mountains, I don't think this can be the right place. What about the whole scientifically-based "out of Africa" thing? And why's Adam coming back for the Second Coming anyway? Won't that steal some of Jesus' thunder? What other big names are billed for the event? If I get tickets for Adam's Blessing will I still be able to catch the Destruction of Gog and Magogs? I hear that show's gonna kick ass.

And how about the Adam-ondi-Ahman temple? Is that venue up yet? I can't wait! I hear it's gonna be sweet!

The New Jerusalem

Are you ready to pack up and move to Jackson County, Missouri? Will you be willing to uproot everything when the prophet makes the call? It could happen any day now. These are the latter days, people!

Back when God revealed the location of New Jerusalem he made it clear that there was not time to waste.

"Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house." (D&C 84:2-5, emphasis added)

"And in order that all things be prepared before you, observe the commandment which I have given concerning these things— Which saith, or teacheth, to purchase all the lands with money, which can be purchased for money, in the region round about the land which I have appointed to be the land of Zion, for the beginning of the gathering of my saints; All the land which can be purchased in Jackson county, and the counties round about, and leave the residue in mine hand." (D&C 101:69-71, emphasis added)

For those who don't know the story, the saints were driven out of Jackson and many generations have passed away without erecting New Jerusalem in the slightest (I'm sure God was very discouraged, but hopefully he's over it by now). Instead we built Zion in Salt Lake City and after a while just told people to stay put for the time being.

But Jackson County's still slated to be Zion, the New Jerusalem. That hasn't changed. Since the 1970s the LDS Church has been "purchas[ing] all the lands with money [...] which can be purchased with money," just like it says to do in D&C 101.

So why do I doubt this Jackson County-New Jerusalem thing? Is it because God was wrong when he said "verily this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord" (D&C 84:5)? Is it because the Church seems so ho-hum about hastening the work? Is it because Missouri sucks? I mean, honestly, why would Jesus rule the entire world from Jackson County? It's weird.

Then again, is ruling the world from a throne build in rural America any weirder than ruling from Washington D.C. or London or Paris or Berlin or Moscow or Beijing or somewhere else? Jesus rules, he can do what he wants.

P.S. Goddammit people! Someone beat us to building building the New Jerusalem temple.

Believing blood

One of the stranger beliefs of Mormonism postulates that the more Hebrew blood you have the more receptive to the truth of the Gospel and authority of the LDS Church you will be. Apparently belief is genetic and the Hebrews hold the majority of shares when it comes to believing... that they're the awesomest, most chosenest people of God.

Even awesomer than believing in the truth because you've got a lot of Hebrew is that if you're of the tribe of Ephraim you won't rebel!

"And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out." (D&C 64:35-36, emphasis added)

So Ephraim just might be the least rebellious of all the believers of Israel. Very cool stuff (even if it's total nonsense).

It really gives you a sense of what the world lost when the blood of Joseph Smith, a pure Ephraimite, a pure non-rebellious believing blood type, was spilled at Carthage. What a fucking waste of the "best blood of the nineteenth century" (D&C 135:6)!

Joseph Smith III, half Ephraimite, half Moggle.

What's worse is that obviously Emma contaminated that blood because otherwise Joseph Smith III would have surely reunited with the saints in Utah. If only we could once again breed the purest of believers...

Wow - the joke

You know what would really be funny? If the revelation currently known as the Word of Wisdom were actually a joke that has since been taken very, very seriously!

But I doubt it was a joke. I have to doubt it.

WoW - divine origins

It's pretty much clear to every Mormon that the Word of Wisdom is a inspired counsel straight from God for the benefit of all who wisely decide to heed its words. Don't use tobacco? Nailed it! Don't abuse alcohol? Nailed it! Eat your veggies? Nailed it! Eat your grains (and drink others)? Nailed it! Don't kill animals unless you have to? Nailed it!

Who cares if God's law of health missed the boat on coffee, tea, sugar, recreational drugs, prescription drug abuse, mental health, social health, physical exercise, and diligent study? And anyone who tries to argue that God's instruction on alcohol is confusing or contradictory can just shut the heck up! All that bad, confusing, or absent information can easily be rationalized away.

The bottom line is that the Word of Wisdom obviously came from a divine source. There's no way in hell Joseph Smith was simply parroting the popular tenants of the temperance movement of the 1820s and '30s! Or is there?

Maybe Joseph didn't need God for this one after all.

WoW - mental health

Remember how the Lord finally addressed depression only six months ago? Of course, there are a number of disorders that God could have mentioned long long ago, way before last October, and yet he didn't bother. Mental and emotional disorders are nothing new, nor are they confined to human beings alone, and yet God never bothered bringing our various issues. It's almost as if our psycho-emotional well being had previously been of no interest to the Almighty otherwise he might have included a little something in his holy books and revelations. The Word of Wisdom would have been a wonderful place to address mental health. Not only did he not mention any of the common disorders people suffer from, he didn't bother mentioning the need for a loving family and trustworthy friends.

The Lord's law of health is an interesting law indeed. It makes me wonder what good prophesy and revelation are when they fail to effectively address such an important source of human suffering or warn us of things to come. When it comes to issues of mental health, God has left us entirely in the hands of modern science, medicine, and therapies.

WoW - health, smarts, endurance

The Word of Wisdom is one of those awesome commandments with a promise at the very end.

"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 find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint." (D&C 89:18-20, emphasis added)

Health in the navel and the marrow means you'll be healthy to your core! A fountain of health from the depths of your very skeletal frame! That alone is reason enough to follow the Word of Wisdom, but there's more! Knowledge, popping up like gold nuggets on the coast of Nome! And serious physical endurance!

I just wonder why God doesn't recommend study as a means for attaining knowledge and wisdom and why he never once recommends physical exercise for people who want to "run and not be weary." It's almost as if God didn't see our days when advanced degrees and sedentary careers are the norm. This oversight has forced us all to extrapolate some modern-day wisdom of our own from the scarcity of words in the Word of Wisdom.

WoW - hot drinks

"That the children may live long / And be beautiful and strong, / Tea and coffee [...] they despise" says the hymn. Tea and coffee are what we are now to understand by "hot drinks" in Section 89. It just kind of happened that way, but it definitely makes sense. Consider how wise God has been in protecting his children from a drink that does not negatively effect your health. Now consider how infinitely wise God has been in prohibiting a drink that has significant positive effects on your health.

Don't let actual science beguile you on this matter, though, and don't you dare try to worm your way around the wording of the verse - iced coffee and ice tea are still no-nos. Temperature is not the issue here, even though originally is was very much the issue which is why, in addition to coffee and tea,  you couldn't drink hot chocolate, hot cocoa, hot soup, or any other hot liquids.

But look on the bright side, the ban on hot cocoa and soups never really stuck, so all that stuff's good too. And if you thought the ban on coffee and tea was about caffeine/theanine, you were wrong:

"With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided." (Priesthood Bulletin, Feb. 1972, p. 4.)

So drink all the non-harmful habit-forming substances you want, hot or cold, as long as they don't include coffee or tea. Herbal teas and Postum, for example, are just fine! (Just make sure you avoid the appearance of evil!)

WoW - meat eating

It's time to address the explicitly clear part of the Word of Wisdom that everyone hates. 

"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." (D&C 89:12-13)

In other words, God's cool with us eating a little meat if it's either (1) the cold season or (2) a time of famine.

If I had to guess, the justification for eating a little meat in the winter is that you can't grow crops when it's too cold and you're completely reliant on your most recent harvest; the justification for eating a little meat in times of famine is probably the same: you don't have crops growing.

Did God not foresee our day of global trade? We're no longer a bunch of do-it-yourselfer farming types. Did he not see the advent of industrialize agriculture? Did he somehow miss that science labs would produce super-hardy varieties of fruits and vegetables? We have fresh produce year round, brothers and sisters! The cold doesn't stop us! There are no more famines in the rich developed world! Who even needs meat anymore? Eat meat sparingly? Don't you worry, Lord, we no longer have to eat any at all!

The only problems is that we have all been seduced by the $1 hamburger menus across America. That's probably what God saw coming down the pipe. He probably saw the "evils and designs" of the "conspiring men in the last days" (D&C 89:4) running the vast majority of meat produced in the United States. God's just trying to protect us from extremely powerful men who want to cash us out, right? It's so clear!

And yet that's not what you'll hear in church. Ask any member about the "meat sparingly" bit in the Word of Wisdom and chances are you'll be informed that that advice is out of date and has been since the invention of the freezer/fridge combo. You see, back in the day they would never harvest an animal when it was warm because the meat would go bad so fast. Besides, the warm months are when grass grows and livestock can feed and fatten up. You want to get to butchering after the animals are fat, not before.

But what about the whole "sparingly" thing even when it was winter? It sounds an awful lot like God's trying to minimize the killing of animals. It sounds like God might be one of those PETA assholes. Let's not be ridiculous, we all know God's Kingdom invests in ranching.