Word Of Wisdom Poll

[VideoGameJunkie]

I need to cut out the Monster energy drinks on my Saturday early morning shift.

[BCSpace]

I take the temple worthiness approach and consider the rest, because it was neither given as a commandment or made into a commandment, to be an example for us to watch what we ingest.

 

In addition, I was raised in a no caffeine household and so I have imparted that to my family, as per the above reasoning that we should watch what we ingest. Considering the negative effect caffeine has on people who drink a lot of that kind of soda, I often wonder about the Church saying it has nothing against cola drinks in general and yet teaches that we should avoid habit forming substances.

 

However, it is not meet that the Lord should command in all things and so you have your choice and just because there is no regulation on it does not mean it is not sin for you to ingest it. That's the way it is with a lot of things like being overweight or not getting enough sunlight.

[Calm]

I need to cut out the Monster energy drinks on my Saturday early morning shift.

Probably would be a good idea, that level of caffeine can start to be detrimental. And the crash afterwards isn't particularly pleasant if it hits you that way. Edited November 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rivers]

The word of wisdom in its entirety is important but how can the church measure all of it? How much meat counts as sparingly? How fat is too fat? How much fruits and veggies is sufficient.

The current stipulations for temple worthiness can be measured and enforced. This doesn't mean we shouldn't all be doing are best to be healthy in every aspect. We don't need to be compelled in everything.

[JLHPROF]

 So do we as a Church keep the Word of Wisdom.

Let's simplify by actually reading the scripture (I know, crazy right) and determining which parts we follow on the smorgasbord and which parts we ignore (as a membership in general).

If I get anything wrong, please correct me.

 

 

 

1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

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—

 

Officially the Word of Wisdom is now a commandment of the Church (either since Brigham Young put members present at conference in 1860 under covenant to follow it or 1921 when Heber J. Grant made it an absolute requirement for Temple Admission).

 

 

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.

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

 

Why it was given.

 

5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

 

Wine and strong drink (interpreted as liquor) not are not good.  Wine can be used for the sacrament if we make it ourselves instead of procure it from the world.

Required by Church.

 

8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

 

Tobacco bad except as an herbal poultice.

Required by Church.

 

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

 

Hot drinks - interpreted to mean coffee and tea but not cocoa, herbal tea, pero/caro, bovril, postum et al.

Previously said to include only caffeinated drinks and so extended to soda, recently re-clarified not to include soda.

 

Current church policy limits this to tea and coffee only for some reason.

 

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—

11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.

 

Using herbs for health and eating seasonally.

Not  required by Church.

 

12 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;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

 

Eating meat sparingly (rarely) and preferably only in times of famine.

Not required by Church.

 

16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

 

Grain and fruit is the main diet.

Not required by Church.

 

18 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;

19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

 

Should be significant to those who are endowed - a connection between the WoW and Celestial Glory.

 

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

 

So can we honestly say we follow the Word of Wisdom, or just the bits needed to get through a recommend interview.

[Kiwi]

Sorry if I seem pedantic, or semantic, or whatever, but in order to avoid comparing apples with oranges these kinds of questions require a clearly defined benchmark. I feel the current wording of the questions are just too ambiguous to be answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer.

 

Q1: Exactly as written in revelation (to the best of my ability)

 

The revelation was given “not by commandment or constraint” and does not specifically proscribe the use of coffee, tea, caffeine, or (illegal) drugs. It does prescribe using eating healthy grains, and using meat “sparingly” and “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” So technically someone who is a vegetarian for 3 seasons of the year, and who in moderation drinks tea, coffee, and caffeinated drinks, and eats wholemeal cannabis cupcakes, could answer ‘Yes’ to this question.

 

Q2: Exactly as required for Temple worthiness only (as the current prophets ask)

 

The temple recommend interview only asks “Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?” Since coffee, tea, and “illegal drugs” have since been officially proscribed by our prophets, your qualifier “(as the current prophet asks)” would exclude these as well. However, since caffeinated drinks, other habit-forming substances, or even the excessive use of legal drugs have not been officially proscribed, these would still be fair game. On the other hand, the WoW still includes consuming meat sparingly, and “only in times of winter.” The question specifies “exactly” so anyone who eats meat more than sparingly and/or at other times of the year would have to answer ‘No’ to this question.

 

 

Q3: Exactly as traditionally practiced (except that whole Caffeine/Coke thing)

 

What does “as traditionally practiced” mean? I’m guessing it was probably intended to mean abstinence from the officially proscribed items, but taking the prescribed items with more than a pinch of salt (or sugar).  

 

Q4: According to the dictates of my conscience only (occasional bending)

 

Does that mean living the letter of the law but occasionally bending the spirit of the law? Or occasionally transgressing against the proscribed items? Or occasionally transgressing against the prescribed items?  

 

 

I have noticed that when it comes to the WoW, many of us tend to be very Pharisaical. We tend to focus primarily on abstinence from the officially proscribed things, justify anything that is just as unhealthy but not specifically proscribed, and conveniently disregard the prescribed items.

 

To my shame I have to admit that I’m not living the letter nor spirit of the WoW as well as my conscience dictates I should. I have always abstained from all of the officially proscribed items, and even abstain from caffeinated sodas etc., out of principle to the spirit of the law. But I do eat meat all year round, and though it’s generally sparingly, I do indulge in a nice big juicy steak every now and then.

 

My biggest vice though, is the consumption of (too much) foods containing too much sugar and fat, and not exercising enough to compensate. I could justify this by saying that neither the consumption of sugar nor fat is specifically regulated by the WoW, but I know that would be a blatant affront to the spirit of the law. I don’t believe this makes me unworthy of temple attendance, but I do believe it is something the Lord would expect me to keep working on.

[JLHPROF]

Sorry if I seem pedantic, or semantic, or whatever, but in order to avoid comparing apples with oranges these kinds of questions require a clearly defined benchmark. I feel the current wording of the questions are just too ambiguous to be answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer.

 

Q1: Exactly as written in revelation (to the best of my ability)

 

The revelation was given “not by commandment or constraint” and does not specifically proscribe the use of coffee, tea, caffeine, or (illegal) drugs. It does prescribe using eating healthy grains, and using meat “sparingly” and “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” So technically someone who is a vegetarian for 3 seasons of the year, and who in moderation drinks tea, coffee, and caffeinated drinks, and eats wholemeal cannabis cupcakes, could answer ‘Yes’ to this question.

 

Yep!  This option is for those who follow the original revelation as written, not the current standard as required.

 

Q2: Exactly as required for Temple worthiness only (as the current prophets ask)

 

The temple recommend interview only asks “Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?” Since coffee, tea, and “illegal drugs” have since been officially proscribed by our prophets, your qualifier “(as the current prophet asks)” would exclude these as well. However, since caffeinated drinks, other habit-forming substances, or even the excessive use of legal drugs have not been officially proscribed, these would still be fair game. On the other hand, the WoW still includes consuming meat sparingly, and “only in times of winter.” The question specifies “exactly” so anyone who eats meat more than sparingly and/or at other times of the year would have to answer ‘No’ to this question.

 

Yes, the WoW still includes the meat clause, however it is not required for temple worthiness today.  You can violate that portion of the WoW but not the tobacco portion and still receive a recommend.  So this option is for those that follow the requirements to get a recommend, not the requirements in the original revelation.

 

Q3: Exactly as traditionally practiced (except that whole Caffeine/Coke thing)

 

What does “as traditionally practiced” mean? I’m guessing it was probably intended to mean abstinence from the officially proscribed items, but taking the prescribed items with more than a pinch of salt (or sugar).  

 

This is for those who follow the cultural requirements and are less concerned with the specific rules of either the Church or the revelation.

 

Q4: According to the dictates of my conscience only (occasional bending)

 

Does that mean living the letter of the law but occasionally bending the spirit of the law? Or occasionally transgressing against the proscribed items? Or occasionally transgressing against the prescribed items?  

 

This is for those who agree with the WoW in principle and try to live it, but may have the occasional beer or some iced coffee.  The people who never smoke anything but might have had a glass of champagne last New Years.  Who usually eat meat sparingly, but did enjoy 3 burgers on the last 4th of July.   Basically - those who say "I don't drink usually, but there was this one time".

 

 

I have noticed that when it comes to the WoW, many of us tend to be very Pharisaical. We tend to focus primarily on abstinence from the officially proscribed things, justify anything that is just as unhealthy but not specifically proscribed, and conveniently disregard the prescribed items.

 

To my shame I have to admit that I’m not living the letter nor spirit of the WoW as well as my conscience dictates I should. I have always abstained from all of the officially proscribed items, and even abstain from caffeinated sodas etc., out of principle to the spirit of the law. But I do eat meat all year round, and though it’s generally sparingly, I do indulge in a nice big juicy steak every now and then.

 

My biggest vice though, is the consumption of (too much) foods containing too much sugar and fat, and not exercising enough to compensate. I could justify this by saying that neither the consumption of sugar nor fat is specifically regulated by the WoW, but I know that would be a blatant affront to the spirit of the law. I don’t believe this makes me unworthy of temple attendance, but I do believe it is something the Lord would expect me to keep working on.

[Kiwi]

Using herbs for health and eating seasonally.

Not  required by Church.

 

Eating meat sparingly (rarely) and preferably only in times of famine.

Not required by Church.

 

Grain and fruit is the main diet.

Not required by Church.

 

So can we honestly say we follow the Word of Wisdom, or just the bits needed to get through a recommend interview.

 

 

The Temple Recommend interview simply asks "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?" It doesn't actually specify what that entails, assuming the interviewee knows based on the official teachings of the Church. Though clearly the proscribed items of the WoW seem to get the most attention, as far as I have been able to determine, there is actually no official Church teaching that excuses members from abiding by the prescribed items. So even though I doubt any bishop would disqualify anyone for eating too little grains, fruits and vegetables, and too much meat, technically those things are still just as much part of the WoW as the proscribed items.

[JLHPROF]

The Temple Recommend interview simply asks "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?" It doesn't actually specify what that entails, assuming the interviewee knows based on the official teachings of the Church. Though clearly the proscribed items of the WoW seem to get the most attention, as far as I have been able to determine, there is actually no official Church teaching that excuses members from abiding by the prescribed items. So even though I doubt any bishop would disqualify anyone for eating too little grains, fruits and vegetables, and too much meat, technically those things are still just as much part of the WoW as the proscribed items.

 

Agreed, but we clearly don't apply the parts of the WoW equally to worthiness.

[Kiwi]

I don't know why the Church doesn't give the prescribed items the same attention as the proscribed ones. But I suspect that if the Church were to actually adopt exactly the opposite stance to the one they have now: strong emphasis on the prescribed items - including temple worthiness, and simply leaving the abstinence from the proscribed items to the personal judgement and common sense of the individual, there would probably be a whole lot more generally healthy members than there are now. ;-)

[Kiwi]

I don't know why the Church doesn't give the prescribed items the same attention as the proscribed ones. But I suspect that if the Church were to actually adopt exactly the opposite stance to the one they have now: strong emphasis on the prescribed items - including temple worthiness, and simply leaving the abstinence from the proscribed items to the personal judgement and common sense of the individual, there would probably be a whole lot more generally healthy members than there are now. ;-)

 

I suspect that the reason for the imbalance in emphasis may have to do with the original historical setting, and subsequent evolving tradition.

 

At the time the WoW was given, people generally already had relatively healthy diets. Food was generally prepared from fresh fruits and grains of the season, ingredients were generally unprocessed, and sugars were more of a luxury than a staple. Most people also led very physically active lives, working the land, raising cattle, building their own homes, walking to more than they would ride/drive, etc. As such, the prescribed guidelines for healthy foods and lifestyles was probably more of a confirmation than a revelation for most members.

 

People generally didn't drink much hot chocolate (or eat cold chocolate) either, because cocoa was a luxury. (Even now hot chocolate is generally still only consumed occasionally). On the other hand, tea and coffee were much more commonly consumed. (This would have made it fairly obvious to the members of the day that that was what was meant by "hot drinks", but when other hot drinks became more readily available, and disputations arose, a clarification was needed.

 

The question could be asked: if the issue was really the caffeine, why did the Lord not just specify that? Well firstly, I suspect that at the time people didn't know much (if anything) about caffeine, or which substances contained it; and secondly, the only common and widely consumed source of caffeine was tea and coffee. Cola and other caffeine rich products weren't invented or readily available until much later, and it wouldn't have made much sense for the Lord to stipulate things they didn't about or have access to. If the caffeine content was not the issue, then what was the issue? If it was just the fact that pouring hot liquid down your throat wasn't really such a smart thing to do, then why didn't the Lord also specify soup, which was probably the most commonly consumed hot liquid of the day?

 

The consumption of alcohol, and tobacco were quite common at the time, and though it was clear that smoking and chewing tobacco was a dirty habit, it was as yet unknown that it was also unhealthy. The same goes for the consumption of alcohol. It was clear that it negatively affected the user mentally, which often also negatively affected their families, but it wasn't yet known that it was also unhealthy in other ways. Hence the need to clearly specify these products.

 

Because it was (and still is) very easy to recognize whether or not someone smoked or drank, (even coffee and tea to some degree), these transgressions were (and still are) the most commonly disciplined. On the other hand, whether or not someone transgressed against the prescribed items of the WoW was practically impossible to know, and they had little immediate effect on the transgressor or anyone else, so such transgressions received little attention. This unavoidably created a general focus on transgressions of the proscribed items, with very little attention for transgressions of the prescribed items, which it seems has become a generally accepted tradition in the Church.

[cursor]

What was culturally happening when these dictates were issued that might stimulate such a proclamation? 

 

My dad told us that face-cards were evil, yet playing Pit was OK. Also, UNO was OK. Playing Monopoly was awesome. Doing crossword puzzles singularly, or as a group, was awesome.

(Truly) healthful methods, truthfully, extent substantially beyond the very limited expression in the "Word of Wisdom." Tea has it's place. Coffee does no harm, except in severe excess [does that mean that we should never consume? ... based on what real scientific analysis]?

• The truth is that there is nothing wrong with coffee.
• The truth is that there is nothing wrong with tea.
• The truth is that obsessive consumption of carbonated drinks is harmful.
• The truth is that obsessive consumption of Red Bull (or any other nonsensical brand of caffeine drink) is harmful.
• The truth is that obsessive consumption of menu items from the Cheese Cake factory is harmful (and not in keeping with the Word of Wisdom
• The truth is that a three egg breakfast, combined with a 300 calorie breakfast muffin, with potatoes, combined with [gee] fruit?, combined with ... whatever ... is not in the interest of one's personal health ... and not in keeping with the Word of Wisdom.

[ What was the current status of cultural events when this mandate was issued? ]

 

Those who don't engage in such activities have access to a Temple recommend ... while those who drink coffee [ir]regularly cannot enjoy such access. 

 

Oops ...I drink coffee.

 

As far as the WoW goes ...

 

I can do more squats [with more weight], or do more curls [with more weight], or do more triceps extension exercises [with more weight] than I expect most/any of you can do [even given you're younger age and fitness status (and I expect that I'll live longer, as the result). And I'll be 62 in about a week. I don't eat crap, yet I do drink coffee, with light cream ... no sugar ... yet that alone precludes me from a temple recommend. Yet, I see overweight and obese bishops, and shape stake presidents, and plenty of ward members who don't have a clue about physical fitness awareness. Isn't that after-all what the Word of Wisdom is all about?

 

I'm currently 72" tall, 182 lbs, 9% body fat, at nearly 62 years old ... yet find myself out of the loop in Mormon circles.

 

To make dietary consumables a matter of acceptance to the CLUB is nuts. Frankly. And, when those WofW questions regarding personal health come from a 350-lbs Bishop ... then you're turned down ... that's pretty distasteful to me.

 

How freakin' shortsighted. I very seriously God supports the same nearsightedness.

Edited November 4, 2014 by cursor

[Silhouette]

I forgot whether it was in a thread on this forum or another forum, but someone said that the Word of Wisdom is an obedience commandment, rather than being put in place because of the contents (such as caffeine) of the things we are commanded not to partake of. In other words, it was given as a test of obedience, and nothing more.

[BYU Jane]

I suspect that the reason for the imbalance in emphasis may have to do with the original historical setting, and subsequent evolving tradition.

 

Great analysis, Kiwi! I wrote something recently for Meridian Magazine on this same topic (and covered some of the same ideas): “Discovering the Word of Wisdom: Why the Preoccupation with the Prohibitions?” http://ldsmag.com/article-1-14929/

[shinedown]

I am trying very hard to follow the WoW.  As a new member though, I find it to be especially challenging at times.  I work so much and really miss my coffee throughout the day to keep me going.  I know that technically I could switch to coke, but that seems to defeat the purpose to me. 

[Stargazer]

The idea behind Coke and Pepsi came up because the idea of Tea and Coffee didn't make much sense.  We don't follow the hot drink rule or else Cocoa, Herbal Tea, Ovaltine, Pero/Caro, Bovril, Horlicks, and all the others would be out too.

So why tea and coffee - well, maybe it's because they have caffeine.

But so does Coke, Pepsi, Doctor Pepper, Mountain Dew etc.

 

See - the problem goes back to Tea and Coffee being banned.  If we ban them for temperature we have to ban other things too.  If we ban them for chemical/drug we have to ban other things too.  Otherwise, we are banning tea and coffee for absolutely no reason.

 

I find myself chiming in every time on this subject.

 

The term "hot drinks" does not describe the temperature.  Seriously.  If it did, they we could drink them iced, or room temperature.  And we have to eat our soup cold, as well.  The term "hot drinks" refer to coffee and tea, because that is what was understood by the term at the time the Lord gave Joseph the WoW.  And coffee and tea refer to the plants in the coffea genus, and the species camellia sinensis, the tea plant. 

 

There are some LDS who see the word "tea" as the prohibition, and do not partake of "herbal" teas like peppermint.  The problem with this, of course, is that the people of England call their evening meal "tea", in honor of the fact that that was when the drink was chiefly served.  So British LDS could not eat the evening meal if the word "tea" was the prohibition.  I had a personal experience with this once!  My family moved there for my Dad's employment, and I refused to "stay for tea" one evening when an LDS family invited me to share their evening meal.  I was shocked, thinking that they were openly breaking the WoW.  Because I didn't know that was the way they referred to the meal!  They didn't drink tea. 

 

Tea is the plant.  Preparing a drink using hot water and some dried vegetable matter is to make an infusion.  Thus, peppermint tea is erroneously named; it is an infusion of peppermint.

 

It is NOT the caffeine.  If it were the caffeine, then removing the caffeine would make tea or coffee OK.  But it doesn't.

 

And then there is cocoa.  Most varieties have some caffeine, some have more.  But drinking hot cocoa is not against the WoW.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on that subject.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

I find myself chiming in every time on this subject.

 

The term "hot drinks" does not describe the temperature.  Seriously.  If it did, they we could drink them iced, or room temperature.  And we have to eat our soup cold, as well.  The term "hot drinks" refer to coffee and tea, because that is what was understood by the term at the time the Lord gave Joseph the WoW.  And coffee and tea refer to the plants in the coffea genus, and the species camellia sinensis, the tea plant. 

 

There are some LDS who see the word "tea" as the prohibition, and do not partake of "herbal" teas like peppermint.  The problem with this, of course, is that the people of England call their evening meal "tea", in honor of the fact that that was when the drink was chiefly served.  So British LDS could not eat the evening meal if the word "tea" was the prohibition.  I had a personal experience with this once!  My family moved there for my Dad's employment, and I refused to "stay for tea" one evening when an LDS family invited me to share their evening meal.  I was shocked, thinking that they were openly breaking the WoW.  Because I didn't know that was the way they referred to the meal!  They didn't drink tea. 

 

Tea is the plant.  Preparing a drink using hot water and some dried vegetable matter is to make an infusion.  Thus, peppermint tea is erroneously named; it is an infusion of peppermint.

 

It is NOT the caffeine.  If it were the caffeine, then removing the caffeine would make tea or coffee OK.  But it doesn't.

 

And then there is cocoa.  Most varieties have some caffeine, some have more.  But drinking hot cocoa is not against the WoW.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on that subject.

 

Thank you.  Now, CFR that that is what the Word of Wisdom meant.  I appreciate this interpretation, but where is the evidence that "The term "hot drinks" refer to coffee and tea, because that is what was understood by the term at the time the Lord gave Joseph the WoW."  I have read nothing contemporary to this effect.

[Kiwi]

What was culturally happening when these dictates were issued that might stimulate such a proclamation? 

 

My dad told us that face-cards were evil, yet playing Pit was OK. Also, UNO was OK. Playing Monopoly was awesome. Doing crossword puzzles singularly, or as a group, was awesome.

(Truly) healthful methods, truthfully, extent substantially beyond the very limited expression in the "Word of Wisdom." Tea has it's place. Coffee does no harm, except in severe excess [does that mean that we should never consume? ... based on what real scientific analysis]?

• The truth is that there is nothing wrong with coffee.
• The truth is that there is nothing wrong with tea.
• The truth is that obsessive consumption of carbonated drinks is harmful.
• The truth is that obsessive consumption of Red Bull (or any other nonsensical brand of caffeine drink) is harmful.
• The truth is that obsessive consumption of menu items from the Cheese Cake factory is harmful (and not in keeping with the Word of Wisdom
• The truth is that a three egg breakfast, combined with a 300 calorie breakfast muffin, with potatoes, combined with [gee] fruit?, combined with ... whatever ... is not in the interest of one's personal health ... and not in keeping with the Word of Wisdom.

[ What was the current status of cultural events when this mandate was issued? ]

 

Those who don't engage in such activities have access to a Temple recommend ... while those who drink coffee [ir]regularly cannot enjoy such access. 

 

Oops ...I drink coffee.

 

As far as the WoW goes ...

 

I can do more squats [with more weight], or do more curls [with more weight], or do more triceps extension exercises [with more weight] than I expect most/any of you can do [even given you're younger age and fitness status (and I expect that I'll live longer, as the result). And I'll be 62 in about a week. I don't eat crap, yet I do drink coffee, with light cream ... no sugar ... yet that alone precludes me from a temple recommend. Yet, I see overweight and obese bishops, and shape stake presidents, and plenty of ward members who don't have a clue about physical fitness awareness. Isn't that after-all what the Word of Wisdom is all about?

 

I'm currently 72" tall, 182 lbs, 9% body fat, at nearly 62 years old ... yet find myself out of the loop in Mormon circles.

 

To make dietary consumables a matter of acceptance to the CLUB is nuts. Frankly. And, when those WofW questions regarding personal health come from a 350-lbs Bishop ... then you're turned down ... that's pretty distasteful. I'm currently 72" tall, 182 lbs, 9% body fat, at nearly 62 years old ... yet find myself out of the loop.

 

How freakin' shortsighted. I very seriously God supports the same nearsightedness.

 

I agree with the general sentiment of your comments. The WoW was clearly intended to promote both physical and spiritual health, so disciplining for transgressing against the proscriptions but not the prescriptions seems rather inconsistent with it's purpose. And I certainly agree that pointing the finger at someone who lives an otherwise healthy lifestyle but happens to drink coffee, while you yourself live an unhealthy lifestyle but don't drink coffee seems very hypocritical.

 

Like I said in my last post, I suspect that if the Church were to switch things around, and make the WoW prescriptions (i.e. healthy foods and lifestyles) a prerequisite for temple attendance, and leave the proscriptions (tea, coffee, alcohol) to the wisdom and conscience of the individual, the general Church population would probably be a lot healthier than they are now. Perhaps it is time the WoW were updated to reflect our current society.

 

However, I disagree with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with tea and coffee. Admittedly, one cup of tea or coffee a day will probably not physically harm your body, but it is an established fact that the caffeine they contain is an addictive stimulant that becomes enslaving when consumed regularly, and which negatively affects our spirit. Everyone knows that tea/coffee drinkers generally tend to be very irritable and lethargic until they get their morning dose of caffeine, and those who have formed a habit of consuming caffeinated drinks during the day tend to run out of steam and get irritable if they miss their dose. And just ask someone who has been a habitual tea/coffee consumer how hard it is and how long it takes to overcome their addiction.

 

But even if there actually wasn't anything wrong with tea or coffee, and the only reason the Lord proscribed their use was to test our obedience as some suggest, why resist? Clearly you value a healthy lifestyle and feel disgruntled about being hypocritically excluded from temple attendance, so why not just give up the coffee? Not to conform, but simply to show obedience to the Lord? Even if you contest that it was ever meant to be a commandment, and that the prophets got it wrong, I'm sure the Lord would be pleased with your willingness to obey their counsel despite not understanding/agreeing with it. Why kick against the pricks just for the sake of a cup of coffee?

 

As I've admitted previously, I'm not as valiant with the prescribed elements of the WoW as I feel I should be, so my question isn't meant as criticism or judgement. I'm just trying to understand your standpoint. 

[Stargazer]

Thank you.  Now, CFR that that is what the Word of Wisdom meant.  I appreciate this interpretation, but where is the evidence that "The term "hot drinks" refer to coffee and tea, because that is what was understood by the term at the time the Lord gave Joseph the WoW."  I have read nothing contemporary to this effect.

 

Sure, no problem.

 

Hyrum Smith, in Times and Seasons, 1 June 1842:

 

“And again, ‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.”

 

Joseph Smith is quoted by Joel H. Johnson on page 12 in Voice from the Mountains, issued by the Juvenile Instructor Office (Salt Lake City) in 1881,  as having said:

 

“I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. … “Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’”

 

The following appeared on page 12 in the Priesthood Bulletin of February 1972:

 

“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.”

 

While advising against them, the above statement stopped well short of including cola drinks (or similar drinks) as part of the Word of Wisdom.

 

All of the above quotations and citations can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), pages 206–211, which is available online:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-81-89/section-89-the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

 

So, I have quoted contemporary sources to the effect that coffee and tea is what "hot drinks" meant, and have shown that these sources are still considered binding and authoritative.  Does this answer your CFR? 

[Calm]

Iirc, throat cancer has been connected to drinking hot, hot tea as is done in Iraq? A quick search can find ,I am going to sleep.

[Kiwi]

I forgot whether it was in a thread on this forum or another forum, but someone said that the Word of Wisdom is an obedience commandment, rather than being put in place because of the contents (such as caffeine) of the things we are commanded not to partake of. In other words, it was given as a test of obedience, and nothing more.

 

Aren't all commandments "obedience commandments?" That's the whole point of commandments; to "prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." (Abr. 3:25)

 

I do believe that God sometimes initially withholds the purpose of some commandments, to allow us to demonstrate faith and obedience, but I have a hard time believing God gives pointless commandments just for the sake of testing our obedience. After Adam's first disobedience, God tested Adam's new resolve by giving him the law of animal sacrifice without initial explanation. Once Adam had demonstrated his unquestioning obedience for a time, God sent an angel to explain the purpose of the commandment.

 

Particularly with regard to the WoW, in which all aspects are a directly related to promoting health, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Lord would to insert a preclusion for tea and coffee unless their consumption was in some way detrimental to our physical or spiritual health. I personally believe that the reason is because they contain caffeine, which we now know is an addictive stimulant.

 

I also believe that the reason why the Lord didn't specify any other caffeine containing substances at the time is because there was no point because they weren't known or widely used at the time. And the reason why He hasn't provided any further specifications since then, is that the spirit of the WoW ought to be sufficiently clear to us, and modern science has afforded us more than sufficient insight into what is healthy and what isn't, and it isn't meet for us to be commanded in all things. Basically the Lord is now testing our spiritual maturity and integrity: do we humbly submit to the spirit of the law and proactively seek for ways to improve/maintain our health, or do we try to justify giving in to unhealthy temptations by hiding behind (a portion of) the letter of the law?

 

Food for thought (and further discussion ;-)

[Silhouette]

Aren't all commandments "obedience commandments?" That's the whole point of commandments; to "prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." (Abr. 3:25)

I do believe that God sometimes initially withholds the purpose of some commandments, to allow us to demonstrate faith and obedience, but I have a hard time believing God gives pointless commandments just for the sake of testing our obedience. After Adam's first disobedience, God tested Adam's new resolve by giving him the law of animal sacrifice without initial explanation. Once Adam had demonstrated his unquestioning obedience for a time, God sent an angel to explain the purpose of the commandment.

Particularly with regard to the WoW, in which all aspects are a directly related to promoting health, it just doesn't make sense to me that the Lord would to insert a preclusion for tea and coffee unless their consumption was in some way detrimental to our physical or spiritual health. I personally believe that the reason is because they contain caffeine, which we now know is an addictive stimulant.

I also believe that the reason why the Lord didn't specify any other caffeine containing substances at the time is because there was no point because they weren't known or widely used at the time. And the reason why He hasn't provided any further specifications since then, is that the spirit of the WoW ought to be sufficiently clear to us, and modern science has afforded us more than sufficient insight into what is healthy and what isn't, and it isn't meet for us to be commanded in all things. Basically the Lord is now testing our spiritual maturity and integrity: do we humbly submit to the spirit of the law and proactively seek for ways to improve/maintain our health, or do we try to justify giving in to unhealthy temptations by hiding behind (a portion of) the letter of the law?

Food for thought (and further discussion ;-)

Dunno. I was just sharing what someone else said. I guess it was just their own take on things.

[Kiwi]

 

It is NOT the caffeine.  If it were the caffeine, then removing the caffeine would make tea or coffee OK.  But it doesn't.

 

And then there is cocoa.  Most varieties have some caffeine, some have more.  But drinking hot cocoa is not against the WoW.

 

There are those who drink "alcohol free" beer, justifying that by saying the by removing the alcohol it is technically no longer an alcoholic beverage but a barley drink, and the WoW promotes barley consumption. Although technically they may be correct, in my opinion they are unnecessary flirting with a proscribed substance, and exhibiting the "appearance of evil" (1 Thess. 5:22). 

 

With hundreds of relatively innocent alternative beverages available to us, why would we purposely choose to drink alcohol free beer? One of my missionary companions was such a person. Can you imagine what the liquor store attendant and customers must have thought when he walked in wearing his name tag, bought an "alcohol free" beer, and proceeded to drink it in public?! I just about flipped, but he just laughed at me and gave me the "it's not against the WoW; it's a barley drink" excuse! Interestingly, he wasn't too concerned about strict obedience to other things either.

 

Despite the fact that the Lord didn't specify caffeine, (for probable reasons I have explained in my previous posts above), I personally believe the reason for the "hot drinks" proscription WAS precisely because of the caffeine. What other logical explanation could there be to proscribe these addictive stimulating drinks as part of a revelation that also proscribed other clearly unhealthy and addictive substances?

 

Rather than provide an exhaustive listing of every known type of alcoholic beverage, the Lord in the WoW sufficed by grouping them together under the single reference "wine or strong drinks." The meaning was clear to everybody and required no further explanation. In like manner, the Lord's grouping of the two most common and abundantly consumed caffeinated drinks of the day (tea and coffee) under the single reference "hot drinks" is entirely consistent with his grouping of the alcoholic beverages; and at the time it didn't require any further explanation either. 

 

Just as with alcohol free beer, removing the caffeine from tea or coffee would technically remove the reason for their proscription, but their consumption would still be unnecessary flirting with a proscribed substance and giving the appearance of evil. There are plenty of non-caffeine herbal infusion alternatives to choose from, so why specifically choose decaf coffee or tea?

 

Even if none of the cold or hot drink alternatives quite measure up to the taste of beer or coffee/tea, surely the alternatives include plenty of options that are sufficiently pleasing to the taste buds to remove any real need to resort to them? And surely there are plenty of pleasant tasting non-caffeinated and low-sugar sodas available to remove any real need to consume high-sugar caffeinated ones? Wouldn’t that be in keeping with the obvious intent or spirit of the WoW, regardless of whether or not the Lord or the Church officially proscribes them?

 

The proscriptions in the WoW don't appear to be intended to exclude all possible sources of unhealthy substances, even in the tiniest doses, but rather they appear to tackle the most common and most highly consumed sources because of the negative impact they have when consumed regularly and in higher doses. Hence there was no need to proscribe the use of cocoa, or other substances that were used infrequently and in low doses. But now that cocoa and other unhealthy and addictive substances (including fats and sugars) are more readily available, regular consumption and unhealthy doses would, in my opinion, transgress at least the spirit of the WoW, regardless of whether or not the Lord or the Church specifies it.

[JLHPROF]

Sure, no problem.

 

Hyrum Smith, in Times and Seasons, 1 June 1842:

 

 

 

 

Joseph Smith is quoted by Joel H. Johnson on page 12 in Voice from the Mountains, issued by the Juvenile Instructor Office (Salt Lake City) in 1881,  as having said:

 

 

 

 

The following appeared on page 12 in the Priesthood Bulletin of February 1972:

 

 

 

 

While advising against them, the above statement stopped well short of including cola drinks (or similar drinks) as part of the Word of Wisdom.

 

All of the above quotations and citations can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), pages 206–211, which is available online:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-81-89/section-89-the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

 

So, I have quoted contemporary sources to the effect that coffee and tea is what "hot drinks" meant, and have shown that these sources are still considered binding and authoritative.  Does this answer your CFR? 

 

Yes it does.  Thank you.

 

I honestly never realized that "hot drinks" were interpreted as tea and coffee so contemporary to the revelation.  I thought that was a later development.  Especially interesting since all the pioneer saints were instructed to bring a big bag or barrel of coffee with them.

[Rain]

And surely there are plenty of pleasant tasting non-caffeinated and low-sugar sodas available to remove any real need to consume high-sugar caffeinated ones? 

Try being a diabetic, who has given up caffeine, in a restaurant and you will feel otherwise.  Even in Utah it wasn't all that common to find a low sugar, caffeine-free soda in a restaurant.  After I gave up caffeine I made it a point at restaurants - telling managers etc. - that I was ordering water for the family because that alternative wasn't available for us.  I even had some of the managers tell me that they didn't have room because if they put it in they would have to take out one of the two fully leaded cokes and two diet cokes, two other caffeinated full sugar drinks and 3 other non caffeine full sugar drinks.   When we came across caffeine free diet sodas we made it a point to keep coming back and told the managers why.

 

It was quite often than we didn't find caffeine-free diet soda in Kmart, Target (without groceries), Staples etc. And try to find it cold! It wasn't that I would buy drinks everywhere, but after I gave up caffeine I started looking to see just what was available. Sometimes I would buy it ion the rare occasion I saw it, not because I wanted it at the time, but to send the message that there really are people willing to buy it.

 

Here in AZ I have yet to find a restauarnt that has a diet caffeine-free soda.

 

Then look at the grocery shelves.  (This was a blessing living in Utah where I always found at least 1 caffeine-free diet soda, but sometimes not more than one)  There are a lot alternatives there compared to 10 years ago, which isn't saying much.  But don't just assume that a diet orange or lemon lime is caffeine free.  Diet Sunkist has it.  It has more caffeine than regular sunkist.  In fact many diet drinks have more caffeine than their regular full sugar partners.  An awful lot of the flavored sparkling diet "waters" have caffeine or tea in them.  

 

And don't just assume that because you looked at the label when you bough a soda at Safeway and found no caffeine that the soda at Albertsons will have it caffeine-free as well.  Barq's rootbeer is sometime caffeinated and sometimes not.