Moderation, the Higher Law, and the WoW

Last updated on: February 3, 2008 at 1:25 pm by lxxluthor

Moderation, the Higher Law, and the WoW 2008-02-03T13:25:21-05:00 lxxluthor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I have often wondered how the order of heaven will differ from the order of the Church here on Earth. It seems to mostly be an exercise in futility; there is almost no way to prove one’s conclusions. And musings about the “higher law” (as defined below) would seem to fit nicely into this category. However, I’m not above wasting a little time on such things if they interest or amuse me, especially while I’m at Church.

The concept of the higher law as I understand it is that we here in mortality do not live the highest laws given by God, not even the highest laws we could be expected to live here on earth. For instance, tithing is expressly taught to be the lesser law to the law of consecration. Section 89 in the D&C where the Word of Wisdom is expounded contains words that could be understood as placing this law in the same category.

Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints. (vs. 3)

If this law is adapted to the weak and the weakest of all who can be called saints then it is almost certainly not the highest law. Speculation about what a higher or the highest law is may not yield the truth but it could, or at least could come close.

Today’s explicitly taught Word of Wisdom has been somewhat adapted from D&C 89. The primary focus is on what is forbidden; namely alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee, illicit drugs. Drugs were added for obvious reasons while the others derive directly from the section’s verses. But much is contained by way of “dos” in the section that don’t make it into the applied model today such as the exhortation for man to eat wheat in favor of the other grains. It has been adapted, but it is still likely to be a lesser law. So what is the higher law in this instance?

I’ve heard some speculate that the higher law could be vegetarianism or even veganism. Such arguments do not hold water with me in light of D&C 49:18-19 that explicitly states that whoever forbids the eating of meat is not ordained of God since it was expressly placed on earth for our benefit and use. Be this as it may, Section 89’s injunction to eat meat sparingly and especially only in times of cold, winter, or famine can get confusing. They don’t quite directly contradict, but they come close. So what is the principle that behind these two commands? I believe that it is moderation.

Another example from the Word of Wisdom that potentially proves this point is the law concerning alcohol. Section 89 strictly forbids the consumption of wine and “hard drinks.” Wine is explicitly permitted for use in the sacrament, though it should be of the members own making and not fermented (or at least not very). Hard drinks are meant to be any drink with high alcohol content. Mild barley drinks are commended, a term taken by some to mean beer (one can always hope).

Yet these injunctions for and against constitute a lesser law. It is doubtful to me that many, if any, illicit drugs would ever be permissible in the higher law of nutrition. You never know though, there are many cultures that give place to controlled use of such substances to induce visions from the gods and other spiritual experiences. Perhaps even this cannot be entirely discarded. We just don’t know.

Not every issue is as severe as the drugs one. And many seem much more relevant and current. My favorite one is the issue of caffeinated beverages. Coffee and tea aside (for being expressly excluded), the debate rages as to whether one partake in things like Coke, Mountain Dew, and Dr. Pepper (my fave). I’ve been through the stages of not caring, caring so much that I would not drink anything with caffeine, to my current stance. I applied the concept of moderation to my caffeine intake. I’d say I have a bottle/can or two a week at most. Sometimes none. I never take caffeine for the purpose of waking up or trying to stay awake (though no judgments on these issues is rendered here). I don’t think that these are in keeping with the moderation principle though others argue that it might be why God has given the world cocoa beans and is appropriate in moderation. I particularly think that the principle of moderation makes good sense when discussing meat consumption.

The truth is, I like applying the principle of moderation to all aspects of my life. While there are things that are required of the Saints that are below this law (tea?! what’s wrong with tea?!), I live those lesser laws because we are held to them. I look forward particularly to the permissible use of wine, especially in sacrament meetings.

The last thing I want to bring up in connection with this discussion is an interesting implication about the concepts of moderation and higher law; that is the probability of apparent inequalities created if this law is lived by each person. For example, if a person cannot control their coffee consumption then the moderate level for them to consume is none. This could look unfair when many others are able to control themselves and therefore able to drink at least some. If the use of any substances that we consider illicit is permissible then the gap could be even greater.

However, I believe that these things are fair and equal. Everyone lives by the same law, a law that says that each person takes in what he or she is able to handle. The differences from person to person do not create inequality, the application of the law is still equal. The concept that everyone must live, eat, drink, etc identically is flawed. In the same way that God does not grant all gifts and blessings to all people, the appropriate application of his highest laws are not painted with a broad stroke, so to speak. Unique individual applications for unique individuals.

Thoughts?

Doctrine

Speculation

Previous Post

January 26, 2008

Priesthood, Temple, and Semantics

Next Post

February 7, 2008 Neutrality, Stumbling Blocks, and the Path of Least Interference

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the correct order for putting off the old self and putting on the new self as described in Colossians?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Put to death earthly nature, rid yourself of anger/rage/malice, take off the old self, put on the new self, clothe yourself with compassion Clothe yourself with compassion, put on the new self, put to death earthly nature, rid yourself of anger Rid yourself of anger, take off the old self, put to death earthly nature, put on the new self Put on the new self, put to death earthly nature, clothe yourself with compassion, rid yourself of anger

Related posts from Faith-Promoting Rumor