Cold Caffeine Vs Hot Caffeine

[Stargazer]

Why on earth would a senior enlisted submariner want to weigh in on this? And why would that be definitive?

Lehi

That one sailed right over their heads, Lehi. It's rather a very very specialized usage of the acronym, as you must know! This reminds me of the proverb, "What if they held a war and no-one came?" Except in this case, "What if you told a joke and no-one laughed?"

I at least appreciated it and so you got at least one laugh.

For those of you who are less familiar with US Naval terminology, the acronym COB stands for "Chief of Boat", which, since submarines are "boats" rather than "ships", means the most senior chief petty officer on board.

Which should prove with finality the truism that a joke explained is not funny.

[Stargazer]

deleted due to BAD GATEWAY ERROR CAUSING ME TO POST A DUPE!

DARN IT! I've been getting these all evening. In Firefox, in Internet Explorer, and in Chrome.

It's not a browser issue. The problem is the forum software, or some glitch with the server.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Stargazer

[Messenger]

deleted due to BAD GATEWAY ERROR CAUSING ME TO POST A DUPE!

DARN IT! I've been getting these all evening. In Firefox, in Internet Explorer, and in Chrome.

It's not a browser issue. The problem is the forum software, or some glitch with the server.

Today, after a few lost posts, I now type up everything in MS Word, then paste. If the forums fails, I try again! LOL

[TAO]

Today, after a few lost posts, I now type up everything in MS Word, then paste. If the forums fails, I try again! LOL

If you have Firefox, press Back when you see this, and it should be fine. And it should be posted already too anyways... but maybe it effects your comp different than mine =/.

Hope it helps... but it might not =0.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[LeSellers]

That one sailed right over their heads, Lehi. It's rather a very very specialized usage of the acronym, as you must know! This reminds me of the proverb, "What if they held a war and no-one came?" Except in this case, "What if you told a joke and no-one laughed?"

I at least appreciated it and so you got at least one laugh.

Thanks, but the joke aspect was not my primary point.

What, I wondered, was the "COB"? I knew (from the context) that it was not the "Chief of (the) Boat", but what the abbreviation "COB" was I did not get.

For those of you who are less familiar with US Naval terminology, the acronym COB stands for "Chief of Boat", which, since submarines are "boats" rather than "ships", means the most senior chief petty officer on board.

Which should prove with finality the truism that a joke explained is not funny.

Wasn't it Samuel Clements who said explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. When you're finished, you understand, but it didn't do the frog any good at all.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

Messenger,

I am really not sure what your positions is. Does someone abusing something violate the WoW, yes I think it does. Does the Dr. Pepper I drank today violate the WoW, no it does not. Do I miss out on "inspiration" because I drink Dr. Pepper? No, I do not.

What I gather from your responses, is that caffeine is a habit-forming substance and the consumption of which violates the spirit of the WoW. If such is the case, then chocolate - which contains caffeine - also violates the spirit of the WoW, regardless of amount of chocolate consumed. If caffeine is to be avoided, then it is the substance itself an not the amount.

So I am not clear on what you have been stating, abuse of substance yes I agree violates the Word of Wisdom occasional consumption of a substance with caffeine - soda or chocolate - no I do not believe there is a violation.

[Storm Rider]

Caffeine is not any part of the law save for a personal interpretation.

At some point after this excellent point is clarified by several people and others continue to repeat this nonsense of caffeine being a part of the Word of Wisdom we just have to shake our heads in bafflement. Look boys and girls, please go back to the Word of Wisdom section and read every word of it. Do not interpret, do not add to it, do not take away from it. Do not presume you know the reasons why God has provided it to us. Do not presume that you understand how the promise works. We will run and not be weary, walk and not feint, AND THE DESTROYING ANGEL will pass by us.

Those blessings is what often leads people to assume how it works. The answer is because God promises it. To assume that if we eat a specific diet we will be healthy is man's understanding, but God is saying something different. More importantly, how does obedience to the Word of Wisdom cause the Destroying Angel to pass by?

People NEVER say that caffeine has anything to do with the Word of Wisdom; only Pharisees would state such; it is man's understanding and has nothing to do with the Spirit or the Letter of the law. It amazes me that being corrected results in such stiffneckedness.

[Calm]

it is man's understanding and has nothing to do with the Spirit or the Letter of the law.

I agree. Such restrictions are only a part of a personal covenant if the Spirit speaks directly to you confirming that for you.... this is what you need to do or if you have made a personal covenant with the Lord to avoid such things....but this does not make it part of the Law, binding upon all, but rather part of your personal relationship with the Lord and the Spirit (which I think is greater for us than the Law myself, the Law being the schoolteacher that brings us to seek out the Lord for greater knowledge...but such knowledge and commitments are unique to the individual as we all seek the Lord with the different understanding and abilities he has granted us and he as well seeks us to bring us closer to him in his own way and time). I would not be surprised if this personal covenant to limit certain substances not specific in the WoW was the case for many, but I doubt that it is the case for all as it does not seem the Lord works that way.

I think the scriptures are clear about whether or not the Lord approves of others extending his Law into areas he himself did not direct them to do so and then imposing their hedged about, man made 'Laws' on others, as opposed to abiding by it themselves and inviting others to do so, but not condemning them or portraying them as less faithful in God's Law.

Edited July 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[Messenger]

Messenger,

I am really not sure what your positions is.

That doesnt surprise me.

[Messenger]

I agree. Such restrictions are only a part of a personal covenant if the Spirit speaks directly to you confirming that for you.... this is what you need to do or if you have made a personal covenant with the Lord to avoid such things....but this does not make it part of the Law, binding upon all, but rather part of your personal relationship with the Lord and the Spirit (which I think is greater for us than the Law myself, the Law being the schoolteacher that brings us to seek out the Lord for greater knowledge...but such knowledge and commitments are unique to the individual as we all seek the Lord with the different understanding and abilities he has granted us and he as well seeks us to bring us closer to him in his own way and time). I would not be surprised if this personal covenant to limit certain substances not specific in the WoW was the case for many, but I doubt that it is the case for all as it does not seem the Lord works that way.

I think the scriptures are clear about whether or not the Lord approves of others extending his Law into areas he himself did not direct them to do so and then imposing their hedged about, man made 'Laws' on others, as opposed to abiding by it themselves and inviting others to do so, but not condemning them or portraying them as less faithful in God's Law.

Cal,

I think the spirit of the law IS a personal interpretation. And, just to make it perfectly clear, I am not a prophet for you, and merely have posted information on what the church has published about Caffeine. If those documents offend you, write a letter to the church telling them so. Secondly, if you think I am "imposing (my) hedged about, man made 'Laws' on others" you are sadly mistaken. But it’s clear you are offended. I'm sorry you are. I’m just trying to figure out why you are. I mean, if you are that confident in your opinion, why would mine bother you?

Again, all I have done is point of references from the church website about the dangers of caffeine and its possible addiction to some people based on quantity. It’s my opinion that some caffeine in low amounts is ok; but when it becomes an addiction, then its not. So what is not clear about that? Is there reference to church publications that addiction is against the spirit of the law of the word of wisdom? Yes. Can caffeine lead to an addiction? Yes. Is caffeine specifically prohibited in the Word of Wisdom? No. Why is that? In my opinion, it’s because in small amounts it’s not a problem, BECAUSE ITS NOT ADDICTIVE. (This was for you Frankie). But, when a someone or some manufacturer finds a way to take all the caffeine away from various plants, concentrate it, put it in powder form, and sell it to another company who then puts it into our food or drink in very high doses, to me its clear why. Isn't it to you?

Do you think this might be a problem?

Pure caffiene is now being sold as a legal mood enhancer at parties.

Do you think this might be a problem down the road for some people? Do you think I am full of it? Click here. Do you think its impossible to buy pure caffeine legally? Click here.

So, if you think that I am portraying you or anybody else as "unfaithful" because you may or may not be using the drug caffeine, that's just a silly opinion. Why? It’s because I am not a doctor and have no way to inform you if you have an addiction or not. But your reaction to my posts concerns me.

Anything in large amounts is not a good thing. Frankie, are you listening? We all need calories to survive and they are not against the word of wisdom. But when you take in too many, you then have health issues - that IS against the spirit of the word of wisdom in my opinion.

My opinions are formed from the references and documents located on the church website. I don’t make them up, I just conform my life to be congruent to them.

Mark

“It becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor” (D&C 88:81).

Edited July 6, 2011 by Messenger

[Calm]

But it’s clear you are offended. I'm sorry you are.

I am not offended, I just think you are taking a position that is a little beyond what the Church endorses and think people should be cautious in assuming that it is identical to the Church's (clearly, imo) stated position. A few of your comments could be construed to present a position as church doctrine that is not.

Not all my comments are directed to your posts either.

Again, I have no problem with people endorsing such a standard for their personal use or even encouraging others to do so for their own health, it just needs not to be presented as the Church's position so people don't get confused (as was, for example, the opening poster by his family's wrong, though well-intended representation). If you reread my posts, I think you will find that my own position tends to be one that encourages people not to use caffeine based on my knowledge of its potential side effects, especially in relation to those who have sleep disorders, this position is based on medical knowledge and a belief that the Word of Wisdom encourages us to study on our own to find out what is good and what is bad for ourselves, not on a specific instruction in the Word of Wisdom itself or another stated instruction from the Church.

No one is disagreeing with you as far as I've read that addictions should be avoided in the spirit of the Word of Wisdom. What that means though varies from person to person and should be kept very general and open, imo.

Edited July 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[Messenger]

I just think you are taking a position that is a little beyond what the Church endorses

In what way am I "a litte beyond" the churches position? Please quote my posts when clarifying. Thanks.

If you reread my posts, I think you will find that my own position tends to be one that encourages people not to use caffeine based on my knowledge of its potential side effects, especially in relation to those who have sleep disorders, this position is based on medical knowledge and a belief that the Word of Wisdom encourages us to study on our own to find out what is good and what is bad for ourselves, not on a specific instruction in the Word of Wisdom itself or another stated instruction from the Church.

No one is disagreeing with you as far as I've read that addictions should be avoided in the spirit of the Word of Wisdom. What that means though varies from person to person and should be kept very general and open, imo.

I have no problem with that part of your post. In fact, you and I are in agreement.

Not all my comments are directed to your posts either

Didnt say 'All' your posts were. But when you agree and quote someone elses post who disagrees and quotes mine, then I tend to think you are in disagreement with me.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Messenger

[alter idem]

My wife was in a relief society book club and they were reading a book that was very R rated. I'm simply saying that members of the church often have no problem following specific rules, but obeying principles is something else. I hope I'm some sense.

I'm sorry Rivers, your post was kind of the 'last straw' of my frustration with a number of posts.

I don't know what book they were reading, so I really can't comment on this--all I know is that the LDS women I know who have Book clubs through the Relief Society are pretty careful about what they choose to read in their groups. Maybe your wife's group is not part of the Relief society but is made up of LDS women. LDS members have their agency and vary in their commitment to gospel standards. I think it is problematic if you judge all LDS by the smaller number that you know in your circle of acquaintances.

As for caffeine being 'okay' for LDS if it's cold? I can tell you that as an LDS person, this is not the case. As an LDS person, I am taught that the 'don'ts' in the Word of Wisdom are; no alcohol--that's liquor, beer wine, etc.--if it's a beverage and it has alcohol, we don't drink it. No tobacco--smoked, chewed or snorted. No black/green tea (excluding herbal teas which do not violate the wofw) and no coffee--cold or hot, black or with sugar and milk. These are the standard set for Temple worthiness.

Church leaders have from time to time warned against illegal drugs and other stimulants. I don't believe I've ever heard a leader mention colas or chocolate, because they don't often get specific. But, we are expected to pray for guidance in determining if we individually need to make changes in our lives. Our leaders do not tell us what to do in every aspect of our lives--we are expected to make decisions for ourselves, without being specifically told. though, I believe that if they felt colas presented a dangerous threat, they'd speak specifically about them.

The actual word of wisdom in the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants gives additional counsel and we are wise to consider it and each act according to his/her own conscience.

[alter idem]

Of course not, I'm just using the terminology given in the title of the thread.

The problem lies with the title. Craig Paxton's cousin is the one who is confused. He asked why it was okay for Craig to drink diet Pepsi, but not coffee. His cousin had limited understanding of the Word of Wisdom.

If I'd been in Craig's position (which I wouldn't have been because I'm not a cola drinker) I would explain to the cousin that cola is not part of the word of wisdom prohibitions. Many LDS avoid colas and drinks with caffeine because they choose to, but it is not part of the 'word of wisdom' prohibitions used to determine Temple worthiness and is a matter of personal choice. Personally I think this is wise because caffeine is a stimulant and can be habit forming in large amounts. In small amounts it poses no danger, so most LDS don't worry about those products.

[frankenstein]

Messeneger, do you eat chocolate, if you do eat chocolate, a chocolate that contains caffeine, then in my opinion you do not have any grounds to stand on concerning caffeine.

Based on you "spiritual" understanding, should LDS not eat chocolate?

Wouldn't statements against caffeine cover caffeine in chocolates?

Edited July 6, 2011 by frankenstein

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: appears discussion is done and now it's getting personal

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff