The Ban on Coffee

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

And yet for those who have to get their functionality from an energy drink, there is no problem with the WoW.

The Saints should not have to be commanded in all things. The wisdom of avoiding so-called “energy drinks” is something we ought to be able to figure out on our own. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In 1867 he was promoting Valley Tan, his own Whiskey label.  

Where in the blog does it say he was promoting his own brand in 67?  I did a search on "67" and found nothing.

Also, wish the author provided sources for some of his claims.  Much of the stuff he put up had nothing to do with BY himself, but just people using his name or image.

[Jake Starkey]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It just makes your heart race, pops your blood pressure up and is addictive.   Other than that.... if you put sugar and creamer with artery clogging saturated fat in it, it's splendid.  

Speaking of splendid then you have your choice of artificial sweeteners to make it even more splendid!   Great stuff!  

Thank you for that, mfbukowski: I never have consumed one, and I never will.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Sanpitch]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Where in the blog does it say he was promoting his own brand in 67?  I did a search on "67" and found nothing.

Also, wish the author provided sources for some of his claims.  Much of the stuff he put up had nothing to do with BY himself, but just people using his name or image.

Do a search on Google for Brigham Young and Valley Tan you should find this for 1873:   "Terming the Mormon leader Brigham Young a “whiskey man” might strike some as an absurdity, given the injunction against strong drink that has been a traditional teaching of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.  The facts seem otherwise.  For example, in 1873 at Young’s request the territorial legislature granted him the exclusive right to manufacture and distribute whiskey and other spiritous liquors in Utah.  “Valley Tan” was the name of his principal brand.

 

Young seems to have been of two minds on the subject of strong drink.  Although indications are that he drank beer when polluted water was an issue, he is said never to have tasted whiskey.  Brigham is recorded saying:   “If I had the power, I would blow out the brains of every thief in the territory, and I despise the whiskey maker more than I do the thieves.”  Strong words indeed from a religious leader   

and sometime distiller."

[Calm]

Okay, I was confused by the 67, thought there was something connected with that year that you were referring to. I take it that was a typo?

Do you know of a source for the 73 legislative claim?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Calm

[Sanpitch]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Okay, I was confused by the 67, thought there was something connected with that year that you were referring to. I take it that was a typo?

Do you know of a source for the 73 legislative claim?

Sunstoned was the original poster on this subject, I was just butting in.  The only thing I know is from the web site:  http://pre-prowhiskeymen.blogspot.com/2016/08/brigham-young-and-valley-tan-whiskey_18.html

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Saints should not have to be commanded in all things. The wisdom of avoiding so-called “energy drinks” is something we ought to be able to figure out on our own. 

Agreed.

It's the arbitrary adding and changing of temple worthiness requirements that cause concern.

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.

It's the arbitrary adding and changing of temple worthiness requirements that cause concern.

So I take it, then, that you dispute the authority of the Church president, acting under inspiration in his office as prophet, seer and revelator, to specify and sustain temple-worthiness requirements. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Saints should not have to be commanded in all things. The wisdom of avoiding so-called “energy drinks” is something we ought to be able to figure out on our own. 

That's the problem, we are sometimes infantile because of it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

That's the problem, we are sometimes infantile because of it. 

Because of what? Because of the Lord giving specific direction on some matters but not on others? I don’t accept that. 
 

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.”

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it, then, that you dispute the authority of the Church president, acting under inspiration in his office as prophet, seer and revelator, to specify and sustain temple-worthiness requirements. 

I dispute the acting under inspiration part, yes.  God is not the author of confusion.  And the abitrary nature of WoW policy has nothing consistent about it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Sanpitch said:

Sunstoned was the original poster on this subject, I was just butting in.  The only thing I know is from the web site:  http://pre-prowhiskeymen.blogspot.com/2016/08/brigham-young-and-valley-tan-whiskey_18.html

Sorry, half asleep. 

[Jake Starkey]

Why would you think to put words in someone else's mouth, Scott Lloyd.  I certainly did not read it JHLPROF's way.  Prophets often act without the spirit of God to guide them, or we would not be going on 200 years of confusion.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Anyway I'm curious why President Nelson and the Church is so dedicated to banning coffee.  President Nelson talked about being careful being near a coffee establishment.  From the recent magazine, The Week: 

"Coffee:  Forget the warnings about coffee's link to cardiovascular issues.   A 2017 review of 400 studies determined that most people can safely drink up to 32 oz a day (sans sugar, of course).  Coffee is, in fact, the average American's leading source of antioxidants."

Seems to be fairly safe to me.  Any comments?

It smells good.  Like popcorn smells good, but a different aroma of course.  And like bacon smells good.  When near places with things that smell good we need to be careful otherwise we may be tempted to drink or eat whatever it is that smells good.

I don't know if the rest of the world likes Starbucks as much as the Pacific Northwest, where Starbucks came from, but there are a lot of Starbucks around here and a lot of people who like to drink coffee.  So the smell of coffee is pretty much around most people around here during a lot of time during each day.  It's not just a  breakfast drink about here.  People around here drink coffee pretty much 24/7 so it's fairly easy to be near the smell of coffee.  And I don't know if everyone else in the world likes the taste of coffee as much as people in the Pacific Northwest, either.  I know Starbucks sells coffee pretty much all over the world, and other places do too, but coffee around here is probably about as popular as wine is in Italy and in California. So people who are around places where they can easily get the stuff, or smell it to remind them or give them the idea of how good it would tastes "need to be careful" when they are near such establishments.

People who don't like the small or the taste are probably not affected by it very much.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Ahab

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I dispute the acting under inspiration part, yes.  God is not the author of confusion.  And the abitrary nature of WoW policy has nothing consistent about it.

Quote

8 ¶ For my ^athoughts are not ^byour thoughts, neither are your ^cways my ^dways, saith the Lord.

 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I quoted Brigham Young speaking in 1867 twice in the recently closed thread: 'I said to the Saints at our last annual Conference, the Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks. This is what the Spirit signifies through me'.

Why do you continue to reject Brigham's very clear statement? You are certainly free to argue that Brigham was lying or mistaken when he said that was what the Spirit had told him, but I still don't know if you believe (a) there is a God and (b) He revealed the Word of Wisdom to Joseph Smith. I've asked you twice, and both times you dodged the questions. Your answers are necessary context to understand your apparent hand-wringing over Brigham's inspired clarification in 1867, which has been with us from then till now, and later prophetic refinements to the Word of Wisdom as a doctrinal complex.

Latter-day Saints are not bound down to a single static revelation on any topic. You should know that.

Because the flip side of Brigham Young is his establishment of the wine industry in Southern Utah, and the whisky distillery.  And the fact that he would have wine with his meals.  We did quite an exploration of this on one of these WoW threads just a couple of weeks ago.  

So which BY do you believe is the real BY?  One statement is a whole lot less convincing than the amount of work BY went to in order for wine to be a significant industry in the Utah economy under his watch.  And a significant part of the culture of the members drinking it not only to celebrate special events like weddings and holidays, but as part of their meals and social gatherings in the southern part of Utah.  BY himself would have wine with some of his meals..  You can't really. have it both ways can you????

It is completely wrong to suggest that members of the church including BY did not drink alcohol in the early days of the Church.  There is way too much contrary evidence to suggest that the Church and BY was strongly opposed to drinking alcohol.  If you want all of the documentation on this, just look at the WoW thread. a couple of weeks ago.  

Edited October 21, 2019 by california boy

[SettingDogStar]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Easy answer - because obedience is the real test of the Word of Wisdom.  It has never really been about healthy vs unhealthy science.

So we follow the Lord's instruction either to the level of the revelation or to the level of the current leadership policy.  But it's about what we are willing to follow, not health science.

D&C 89:2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
            3 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.

I’ve never really agreed with that at least in regard to this particular revelation, but I don’t see anything directly wrong with it. God made it clear that it was not by commandment but some words of wisdom and that it was purely for our temporal, not spiritual, salvation. Always sounded to me like solid health advice for the time. 

I like to think of it like the ban on shellfish in the OT. It seems weird, but at the time there wasn’t a good way to clean out shellfish (cause they’re disgusting sea creatures) so it protected them.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.

It's the arbitrary adding and changing of temple worthiness requirements that cause concern.

Do I know enough about any given change in such requirements to know whether such a change was "arbitrary"?  I'm not sure I do: Obviously, your mileage varies.  To each, his own.  If Temple worthiness requirements were changed to require that candidates demonstrate the ability to stand on their heads while rubbing their tummies counterclockwise and clucking like chickens, I'm not sure I could do that, but being Temple worthy and participating in Temple ordinances is important enough to me that I certainly would try to do so. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Do I know enough about any given change in such requirements to know whether such a change was "arbitrary"?  I'm not sure I do: Obviously, your mileage varies.  To each, his own.  If Temple worthiness requirements were changed to require that candidates demonstrate the ability to stand on their heads while rubbing their tummies counterclockwise and clucking like chickens, I'm not sure I could do that, but being Temple worthy and participating in Temple ordinances is important enough to me that I certainly would try to do so. 

No, please no. 

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Do I know enough about any given change in such requirements to know whether such a change was "arbitrary"?  I'm not sure I do: Obviously, your mileage varies.  To each, his own.  If Temple worthiness requirements were changed to require that candidates demonstrate the ability to stand on their heads while rubbing their tummies counterclockwise and clucking like chickens, I'm not sure I could do that, but being Temple worthy and participating in Temple ordinances is important enough to me that I certainly would try to do so. 

 

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, please no. 

You missed the point ... badly.  Whooooooooosh!!!

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Do I know enough about any given change in such requirements to know whether such a change was "arbitrary"?  I'm not sure I do: Obviously, your mileage varies.  To each, his own.  If Temple worthiness requirements were changed to require that candidates demonstrate the ability to stand on their heads while rubbing their tummies counterclockwise and clucking like chickens, I'm not sure I could do that, but being Temple worthy and participating in Temple ordinances is important enough to me that I certainly would try to do so. 

It is impossible for a person to stand on their head.  People stand with their feet, not their head.  When people turn themselves upside down and support the weight of their body on their head, they're not standing.  They're just being silly.

[Jake Starkey]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

You missed the point ... badly.  Whooooooooosh!!!

No need to be mean.  The Church should have learned that lesson at Mountain Meadows.  God does not require silliness from His people.  And the leadership is still lacking in that area.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[SettingDogStar]

45 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

No need to be mean.  The Church should have learned that lesson at Mountain Meadows.  God does not require silliness from His people.  And the leadership is still lacking in that area.

Oof

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So which BY do you believe is the real BY? 

Like revelation itself, Brigham was neither a static man nor a static prophet. You seem to want to conflate decades of his leadership and his personal life into a single muddle and then cry foul. You could begin very simply by putting his many statements and even his personal actions into chronological order. The historical reality is not the confusion you want it to be.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Like revelation itself, Brigham was neither a static man nor a static prophet. You seem to want to conflate decades of his leadership and his personal life into a single muddle and then cry foul. You could begin very simply by putting his many statements and even his personal actions into chronological order. The historical reality is not the confusion you want it to be.

No not at all.  I want to dispel the notion that you seem to have that BY was completely against alcohol at some point in his life.  I want to point out that the obedience to the WoW as the church lives it today is not the same as it was during BY's time and long after he died.  I want to dispel the idea that BY was as clear cut  adamant against alcohol as you seem to want to present.    You stated that the quote clearly outlines BY views on alcohol.  Obviously it is much more nuanced than that.  The wine industry that he started lasted into the 1920's.  So it is not like he changed his mind in his later years and shut down the production of wine in Southern Utah.