Frozen Yogurt and the Temple
Posted by Ryan on April 26th, 2006
I have been flagrantly lying on my temple recommend interview…
Your minds must be racing right now, what could it be that Ryan has been lying about?
The law of chastity? No, I probably couldn’t break that law if I tried. My wife was the only woman in the world so full of charity that she would sacrifice her eternities so that I could be sealed to somebody. An infinite martyr. Adultery is definitely out of my league.
Sustaining the leaders of the church? No. I’ve got that down pretty good. I especially support the primary president under whom I serve in my calling. She brought our class popcorn two weeks ago when we were running low on goldfish crackers… How could she have known? Some might say this was a coincidence - but as Elder Packer once said: “Well, one thing’s for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith, humility, and obedience to qualify him for the visitation of the Spirit”. Take that you popcorn-miracle doubting Thomai. (the plural of Thomas).
So wherein lay my deceit? It was my… ahem… big-boned-ness. (That’s a euphemism for fatness.) A result of my eating too much and exercising too little. Ha. “too little” – that probably implies that there was even a small amount of exercise going on…hardly the case.
Strangely, I never had a single church leader call me out for it. Imagine the scenario:
“Do you keep the Word of Wisdom”
“Why, yes Bishop”
He looks me up and down
“Yeah, sure you do. DENIED!”
Perhaps I was allowed to slip by because at all times in my life I have had either an overweight Bishop or Stake President. Perhaps they were all too self-indicted to suggest that maybe I could more worthily enter the House of the Lord by converting my personal Salt Lake City style full-service temple to something more along the lines of a Monticello, UT or Chihuahua, Mexico sized temple.
Despite the free pass for the last several years, my conscience more than my self-image compelled me about 3 months ago to start exercising and eating healthier meals.
Last night my wife and I ran 3 miles (the round trip distance to the fat free frozen yogurt shop and back) as part of our training for a marathon in October. On the way we talked about our future children and wanting to go running with them and instill in them a desire to live an active healthy lifestyle. Amidst all this talk of families and maintaining our personal temples the strangest thing happened, our run turned dangerously close to being a spiritual experience (either that or my body was just releasing natural painkillers and I was experiencing some type of endorphin induced high). Either way it was nice to feel like my mastery of the common vices of the word of wisdom would no longer be my compensatory offering to the Lord in exchange for indulging in overeating and sitting around.
Now all I have to do is quit smoking those marijuana cigarettes and I’ll be all set.
Just kidding
Good for you!
Comment # 1 left by Eric on April 26th, 2006
Congratulations! Good luck!
Comment # 2 left by Edje on April 26th, 2006
I actually have a friend who is pretty physically fit (but who has other worthiness issues) who is really disturbed by the whole Word of Wisdom issue. Your post pokes fun at those of us with “moderation” in our health habits, but how serious are you about the lying issue?
This friend of mine actually believes a lot of people (including leaders as you mentioned) are lying when they say they obey the word of wisdom. He thinks it is a serious double standard in the Church to bar someone from entering the Temple who has an addiction to smoking while allowing obese people (who have serious food addictions) in by the truck load.
Indeed, one could argue the number one killer in America, Heart Disease, is due to overeating and that overeating is therefore a more egregious violation of the “Lord’s law of health” than any other.
Makes sense to me. But why isn’t it enforced or even taught? Is it too taboo?
(In the interest of full disclosure, I myself am about 15 pounds over weight — so my bias should actually be against what I’m arguing, but I see the truth in what my friend believes).
I wish you all the best in your new endeavor! I actually published something months ago about my efforts to discipline myself. Unfortunately, I fell off the wagon; I plan on getting back on after finals.
Comment # 3 left by Wade on April 26th, 2006
but how serious are you about the lying issue?
Quite.
In fact, back when I decided/posted about my conversion to more humorous posting, I noted that in my missionary journal my humor made for a pleasurable to read but did not mask the issues I was struggling with at the time of the entry.
The same applies here. Although I was joking around, I loosely agree with your friend that there is a nagging hypocrisy inherent in the word of wisdom interpretation and resulting temple question.
I think the major argument against my self accusation of “lying” during the interview is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere and the church has chosen a pretty reasonable line. What would your friend have Bishops ask about instead? How many servings of grains we’ve had each day or how many servings of meat?
I also don’t blame the church for the obesity violations because in the end we all are offered the opportunity to declare ourselves unworthy. That’s where I failed myself. Not where my Bishop or SP failed me.
Comment # 4 left by Ryan on April 27th, 2006
I also don’t blame the church for the obesity violations because in the end we all are offered the opportunity to declare ourselves unworthy.
Yes, I totally agree here.
However, does anyone honestly believe a bishop would sign the recommend of a person whom he sees smoking outside of Church between Sacrament and Sunday School every week? Herein lies the double standard.
I actually worked very closely with a woman on my mission who was extremely active in Church and who had a strong testimony but who never received a recommend because she just couldn’t give up tobacco. Her addiction was obvious to everyone and therefore I don’t think she could have pulled off a “lie” to the bishop. But how is her condition any different than mine or the vast numbers of other overeating members???
I think the issue is as follows. Culturally speaking, smoking is much more taboo than overeating (even though this absurd considering the number one killer in America). Because society thinks smoking is so “bad” (which of course I think it’s bad too), lying about smoking weighs much heavier on a person’s conscience in a recommend interview. However, because overindulgence is so common, indeed even encouraged and praised by society, it is much easier for us to lie because there is no social conscience arguing against us.
I think those who are truly in-tune, would have to admit they lie to the EXACT same degree as smokers.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on April 27th, 2006
However, does anyone honestly believe a bishop would sign the recommend of a person whom he sees smoking outside of Church between Sacrament and Sunday School every week?
I actually can’t say that I am aware of what the particulars are in that kind of situation. I mean, if during the interview the candidate is absolutely adamant that they keep the word of wisdom is a Bishop really counseled to withhold a recommend?
Further, let’s examine the leaders whom we sustain: There is obviously an extremely persuasive argument as to the equity between smoking/coffee/drinking and overeating.
Why then has the Lord not counseled his servants to speak up on the issue? Are they daft? Is there a flaw in the argument that isn’t being presented here? Is the Lord not concerned with the issue?
Comment # 6 left by Ryan on April 27th, 2006
Further, let’s examine the leaders whom we sustain…
I can see where this thread may be headed; I should probably get off the train right about now. Because, as I said in the Widtsoe thread, it’s really easy for me to be a side-line critic of what important leaders have to deal with. While I enjoy continued critique of the current Supreme Court Justices, I don’t think I’d like to get into further criticism of the Brethren at this point.
It’s a good question: “Why isn’t this issue pursued?” But I think it may be out of my league and to speculate may be out of propriety’s bounds for me.
Comment # 7 left by Wade on April 27th, 2006
I believe that there are historically two parts of the Word of Wisdom. There are those parts that are cousel and there are parts which have been adopted as commandments. We currently accept the prohibitions against comsuming certain things as “required” while the rest of the revlation is still on the “wisdom” category. For evidence of this standard, I’ll refer you to the set of missionary discussions that were used before Preach my Gospel.
This is really a practical matter, as has been pointed out above. It is easy for a 3rd party (bishop) to draw a line at “never” than it is at “moderation”.
Comment # 8 left by Bradley on April 27th, 2006
Ryan, my Dad told me that when he was a bishop he took the word of the member at face value. So, Brother Whatshisbucket said that he was not a full tithe payer at the last tithing settlement, but at the TR interview three months later he says that he is. To me this is why they include the catch-all question at the end? (”Is there anything else that you need to repent of, like, oh, maybe lying to me a few seconds ago?”)
Which brings up a question, at which point, after changing behavior does one become worthy to enter the temple? For the more serious problems like chastity, that is defined by the bishop. But say I wasn’t a full tithe payer last year, how long do I have to be a full tithe payer before I can enter the Temple in good conscience? Same with smoking, what if that ciggy the Bishop saw me have two weeks ago was my last one?
Comment # 9 left by Starfoxy on April 27th, 2006
…at which point, after changing behavior does one become worthy to enter the temple?
Good question. When Heber J. Grant was first called as a Stake President (in his 20s) he was asked if he obeyed the word of wisdom (it was commonly known that he drank beer on occasion in an effort to gain weight) and he said “yes”. Whereupon, the general authority (can’t remember who) asked “since when?” Then President Grant said, “Since right now”. He was then called as Stake President.
Comment # 10 left by Wade on April 27th, 2006
Great story Wade.
Thanks for the insight Starfoxy - do you recall whether your father decided on his own to do the interviews that way or if it was osmething he had been counseled to do?
What I’m trying to get at is if the Lord is not as concerned with cholesterol as he is with cirrhosis or cancer.
If we presume that the GA’s for the last few decades have for the most part been in tune with the spirit, we have to believe that it truly is a non-issue and that Wade’s friend and myself are unjustified in crying hypocrisy.
Comment # 11 left by Ryan on April 27th, 2006
“do you recall whether your father decided on his own to do the interviews that way or if it was something he had been counseled to do? ”
I don’t know for certain. However, I do know my dad, and I know that he would be *very* reluctant to give someone a recommend when he felt he had contrary evidence. My wager is that it was something he had been specifically advised to do.
Comment # 12 left by Starfoxy on April 27th, 2006
If we presume that the GA’s for the last few decades have for the most part been in tune with the spirit, we have to believe that it truly is a non-issue and that Wade’s friend and myself are unjustified in crying hypocrisy.
Okay, I’m taking the bait–can’t resist.
I actually don’t think it’s a matter of of the General Authorities being “in-tune” (of course we believe their in-tune). I actually think it’s something else entirely–something I’ve been pondering quite a bit for the past year or so.
Simply put, I think the Lord deals with us according to our conditions. To illustrate, just think about why we aren’t living the law of consecration right now, or why we don’t have the sealed portion of the BOM etc. If we as a people are not prepared for something, then it just won’t be given to us. Apparently the Lord thinks we are prepared to abstain from Coffee, Tea, Alcohol, Tobacco, and “Harmful Drugs” (whatever that means–material for another post). However, I think Ryan’s post has made it quite clear that the Lord thinks (knows) we aren’t “prepared” to live the “higher” part of his law of health. As such, it’s not only not enforced, but as Bradley put it, it hasn’t been declared a commandment to obstain from overeating.
In summation, I think it would be absurd to believe the Lord makes value distinctions between lung cancer and cholesterol. But I think it is correct to say he does distinguish between what we as a Church are ready to abide by and then reveals accordingly.
So I guess you could say I believe the World has a lot to say about what level of spirituality the members of the Church will be required to live by–inasmuch as we are influenced by the world. But this says nothing about what the Lord desires for us. (I could make similar arguments about the reasons for extension of the Priesthood to males being “delayed” until after the civil rights movement, the reasons for discontinuence of polygamy and much more based on my hypothesis).
And yes, I’m supposed to be studying, but I don’t have self-control and Eric and Ryan have just published some really good stuff. Back to my hole.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on April 27th, 2006
Wade, I thought I might be able to drag that out of you…
Honestly, I have a few concerns with how your theory correlates to this topic but I don’t really care to press the issue much further, I think it leads too much into what needs to be a separate post. Preferably by you.
Comment # 14 left by Ryan on April 27th, 2006
I might weigh in on this. Weigh in - hahaha. Mildly amusing at best.
I think part of this has to do with just being practical. Some lines are easier to draw than others. Do you use tobacco or not is pretty easy to answer. Are you healthy in your habits is hard. Not just to do but to evaluate.
Comment # 15 left by Eric on April 28th, 2006
Do you use tobacco or not is pretty easy to answer. Are you healthy in your habits is hard. Not just to do but to evaluate.
Well, I agree as to the answer not being easy for a bishop to evaluate. However, I think I disagree as to the hardness of the answer for the interviewee. True, the line is not as easily drawn, but I think there are cases in which there are clear violation and the interviewee should know it.
Comment # 16 left by Wade on April 28th, 2006
Maybe, but what seems clear to you may be unclear to someone else. We’ve already seen how unreasonably sacrificial Mormons become once they get amped up about something (see: caffeine)
So how do we deal with the people who would be ostracized within the church who gain weight because of medication or some other issue beyond their control. There are serious church membership effects beyond personal temple attendance associated with not holding a current recommend.
Comment # 17 left by Ryan on April 28th, 2006
Maybe, but what seems clear to you may be unclear to someone else.
True. But this has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom, it has to do with the natural tendancy to point out other people’s sin/faults to make ourselves feel better about our own — i.e. to justify our own lives.
It doesn’t matter what “seems” clear to us in regard to all other people, rather it only matters what is clear to us in regard to ourselves.
So, again the problem comes back to our exorbitant need to judge each other because we are full of pride–a central theme in the reasons why we don’t have more truth and blessings as a whole Church and people.
Comment # 18 left by Wade on April 28th, 2006
President Benson? Is that you? Why are you posting under Wade’s name? Wanna be a perma-blogger?
Comment # 19 left by Ryan on April 28th, 2006
I fudge. I always answer yes when I’m asked if I think the church is the only true and living church…
well…I do, but,
I think any good person is going to make it. I love other religions, they are good people, and I’m not down with sending them to a lower kingdom. Plus I’d rather have them up there with you guys, so that the Terrestrial kingdom will be a quiet neighborhood.
Comment # 20 left by annegb on April 30th, 2006
The difference between a food addiction and any other substance addiction is that food always has to be a part of a person’s life - you can’t exactly kick the eating habit. Because of that, there is no line of what is enough and what is too much.
Should any member who eats meat on a more than “sparingly” basis consider themself a violator of the word of wisdom? I have a feeling this would be most of the church.
Comment # 21 left by Anonymous on June 17th, 2006