Word of Wisdom and mild drinks

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think there is enough evidence to at least conclude that coffee and tea are not a health hazard, and there is some evidence to indicate benefit, especially with green tea. 

Now as for myself, I don't think of scripture and modern teachings as being two separate categories (all are human teachings trying to get at the divine), but arguably scripture has a special category in LDS doctrine. What's going on is that interpretation and tradition are superseding what is thought to be direct revelation from God to Joseph Smith. 

So there were no Prophets of God after Joseph Smith?

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So there were no Prophets of God after Joseph Smith?

There were no prophets of God after Joseph Smith who claimed a special revelation on the topic of the Word of Wisdom. 

[thesometimesaint]

SEE https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_68.pdf

[hope_for_things]

On 4/18/2016 at 9:28 AM, JAHS said:

True. Joseph Smith himself did clarify what hot drinks meant. On a Sabbath day in July (1833) following the giving of the "Word of Wisdom," when both Joseph and Hyrum Smith were in the stand, the Prophet said to the Saints: "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.'(Johnson, J. H., A Voice from the Mountains, p. 12)  

That's a very interesting quote.  Does it have a date for when it was recorded?  I'm curious how early this recollection is. The earliest I've seen in the past is a W.W. Phelps second hand quote from 1835 that references tea and coffee.  Its not a really clear denouncement of tea and coffee though.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think there is enough evidence to at least conclude that coffee and tea are not a health hazard, and there is some evidence to indicate benefit, especially with green tea. 

Now as for myself, I don't think of scripture and modern teachings as being two separate categories (all are human teachings trying to get at the divine), but arguably scripture has a special category in LDS doctrine. What's going on is that interpretation and tradition are superseding what is thought to be direct revelation from God to Joseph Smith. 

God told Joseph Smith that "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." (D&C 89) Joseph Smith later clarified that coffee and tea are what the Lord meant by hot drinks as I referred to earlier. (Johnson, J. H., A Voice from the Mountains, p. 12). Since he was the one who received the revelation I assume he knows God's meaning on that.

That is the same thing our prophets are saying today; hot drinks = tea and coffee,  so I don't see that we have created any "traditions" with regards to hot drinks.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

God told Joseph Smith that "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." (D&C 89) Joseph Smith later clarified that coffee and tea are what the Lord meant by hot drinks as I referred to earlier. (Johnson, J. H., A Voice from the Mountains, p. 12). Since he was the one who received the revelation I assume he knows God's meaning on that.

That is the same thing our prophets are saying today; hot drinks = tea and coffee,  so I don't see that we have created any "traditions" with regards to hot drinks.

I don't know of any statement from Joseph Smith clarifying it (Hyrum Smith yes), but saying tea and coffee does not mean that the idea wasn't to avoid high temperature drinks. It was likely the intention that high temperature beverages were to be avoided - examples of those being coffee and tea. Of course making hot drinks was a great way of killing pathogens in the water, so this is one area where human wisdom of the time was not borne out. 

Prophets are saying today that compliance is a commandment, which explicitly the opposite of what it says in the WOW. They also prohibit beer, which seems to be on the allowed list of beverages in the original WOW. 

There are larger procedural issues at play here. There don't seem to be any formal rules for how any of this is supposed to play out (or where there used to be formal rules, they are currently ignored). 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Gray

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know of any statement from Joseph Smith clarifying it (Hyrum Smith yes), but saying tea and coffee does not mean that the idea wasn't to avoid high temperature drinks. It was likely the intention that high temperature beverages were to be avoided - examples of those being coffee and tea. Of course making hot drinks was a great way of killing pathogens in the water, so this is one area where human wisdom of the time was not borne out. 

Prophets are saying today that compliance is a commandment, which explicitly the opposite of what it says in the WOW. They also prohibit beer, which seems to be on the allowed list of beverages in the original WOW. 

There are larger procedural issues at play here. There don't seem to be any formal rules for how any of this is supposed to play out (or where there used to be formal rules, they are currently ignored). 

All I can say is that we are supposed to follow the modern living prophet who speaks for God in our times according to what we need now. If the prophet tells me today that it is now considered a commandment then that's what it is. God gives us information "line upon line" as we are ready for it. When His children progress in their obedience to His laws He gives us more and more. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_68.pdf

Thanks for sharing.  Such an interesting history and evolution of thought.  It seems to parallel the priesthood ban evolution in that Joseph Smith didn't start the modern interpretation, but it was later implemented and then exaggerations around the origins of the implementation and practice of the WoW happened over time.

I'm grateful for the WoW personally because it has kept me away from potentially risky substance abuse.  However, enforcing this as a litmus test to receive access to the temple, as well as how we exclude people from our group because they use these substances, all seem to be very negative elements to our current observance of the WoW within the church.

Unfortunately, this is not like the racist priesthood policy in that there will likely never be enough negative public pressure placed on the church to require the leaders to honestly reassess the practice and consider mellowing or moderating the current practice.   

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

All I can say is that we are supposed to follow the modern living prophet who speaks for God in our times according to what we need now. If the prophet tells me today that it is now considered a commandment then that's what it is. God gives us information "line upon line" as we are ready for it. When His children progress in their obedience to His laws He gives us more and more. 

Because there are no procedural rules being used for these changes in doctrine anymore, it becomes impossible to sort out "official" revelation from opinion. I'm comfortable with that, but it may be of some concern to those with more traditional views. 

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing.  Such an interesting history and evolution of thought.  It seems to parallel the priesthood ban evolution in that Joseph Smith didn't start the modern interpretation, but it was later implemented and then exaggerations around the origins of the implementation and practice of the WoW happened over time.

I'm grateful for the WoW personally because it has kept me away from potentially risky substance abuse.  However, enforcing this as a litmus test to receive access to the temple, as well as how we exclude people from our group because they use these substances, all seem to be very negative elements to our current observance of the WoW within the church.

Unfortunately, this is not like the racist priesthood policy in that there will likely never be enough negative public pressure placed on the church to require the leaders to honestly reassess the practice and consider mellowing or moderating the current practice.   

I joined the Church in 1971. I never agreed with the Priesthood Ban, but was willing to let God do the directing of his Church as he saw fit. I've been very blessed for it.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I joined the Church in 1971. I never agreed with the Priesthood Ban, but was willing to let God do the directing of his Church as he saw fit. I've been very blessed for it.

Why assume that God is doing the directing, when there is so much evidence that people are applying their own cultural biases and opinions to the process.  Are you equally "blessed" when you assume that its all God directed?  

Edited April 20, 2016 by hope_for_things

[thesometimesaint]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why assume that God is doing the directing, when there is so much evidence that people are applying their own cultural biases and opinions to the process.  Are you equally "blessed" when you assume that its all God directed?  

Because I agreed with the Truth Claims of the Church. If I didn't I'd still be Agnostic.By the time 1978 rolled around "cultural expectations"  were vastly different than in 1971. And equal pertinent question would be why did God allow Moses and the Children of Israel to wander 40 years in the wilderness? If the Scriptures are to be believed to let the older generation to die off. Or why did God allow only the first born sons of a High Priest of the Tribe of Levi to officiate at the Temple? Have I been blessed by joining the Church? Yes. More blessed by holding the Priesthood. Yes. Now that God has allowed all worthy male members to obtain the Priesthood we are all more blessed. If someday God restricts his Priesthood to only one eyed, one horned flying purple people. That is his call not mine.

Edited April 20, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because I agreed with the Truth Claims of the Church. If I didn't I'd still be Agnostic.By the time 1978 rolled around "cultural expectations"  were vastly different than in 1971. And equal pertinent question would be why did God allow Moses and the Children of Israel to wander 40 years in the wilderness? If the Scriptures are to be believed to let the older generation to die off. Or why did God allow only the first born sons of a High Priest of the Tribe of Levi to officiate at the Temple? Have I been blessed by joining the Church? Yes. More blessed by holding the Priesthood. Yes. Now that God has allowed all worthy male members to obtain the Priesthood we are all more blessed. If someday God restricts his Priesthood to only one eyed, one horned flying purple people. That is his call not mine.

• Pre 1978 priesthood ban = influenced by cultural bias.  
• WoW practice in 2016 = also influenced by culture
• Literal scriptural interpretation of Moses Exodus and Levite temple rites = also influenced by culture

• Future priesthood restriction to one horned flying purple people = DIVINE COMMAND FROM GOD.  

How do you decide which practices and doctrines are clearly 100% divine and which ones are not?

[thesometimesaint]

The doctrines are 100% divine. The practices may not be. God still works with his less than perfect children. Thank Goodness.

Edited April 20, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

Because there are no procedural rules being used for these changes in doctrine anymore, it becomes impossible to sort out "official" revelation from opinion. I'm comfortable with that, but it may be of some concern to those with more traditional views. 

I guess they need to realize that their traditional views are no longer emphasized today nor are some of them valid anymore. Many of these things aren't really changes in doctrine, but interpretations provided by our latter-day prophets that have been discussed in official venues like General Conference and church manuals. And so what if they are opinions? God is not going to hold it against us for following the opinion of his prophets. I trust them. I also consider the scripture. 

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." (D&C 58: 26)

We can take on some of the responsibility of praying and making proper applications of what we are told by our leaders, which might be different from how someone else applies it.

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The doctrines are 100% divine. The practices may not be. God still works with his less than perfect children. Thank Goodness.

There are multiple previous doctrines that are now looked at differently: Priesthood ban, Adam God, Blood Atonement, Polygamy, etc.

Yes, God has to work with humans, that's a given.  How do you as a human, determine which elements (doctrines) are God inspired and which aren't?  Are you comfortable saying that you are "blessed" for following teachings that aren't inspired by God especially if those teachings do harm to others like the dubious priesthood ban? 

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are multiple previous doctrines that are now looked at differently: Priesthood ban, Adam God, Blood Atonement, Polygamy, etc.

Yes, God has to work with humans, that's a given.  How do you as a human, determine which elements (doctrines) are God inspired and which aren't?  Are you comfortable saying that you are "blessed" for following teachings that aren't inspired by God especially if those teachings do harm to others like the dubious priesthood ban? 

There have been several bans on Priesthood throughout the millennia.IE; Christ went only to the Jews. Was that not from God?

Adam God was never a doctrine of Church, at best it was Brother Brigham's personal attempt to clarify "Name Tiles". Unfortunately he is not here to explain what he meant. So I can only go by what other former Presidents of Church have said.

We still believe in Blood Atonement. The only one that counts happened on a small hill outside of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago.

We still believe in polygamy. The Book of Mormon and D&C 132 are still part of our Scriptures. Just its earthly performance for now is held in suspension.

I don't know what you are specifically referring to when you write etc..

Moreover if you are uncomfortable with change this Church probably isn't for you.

SEE Articles of Faith #9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[why me]

i think that we need to realize just what it meant to have tea and coffee frowned upon for the early saints. I am sure that tea was quite a staple in US society at that time. The influence of this anglo-saxon cultural trait must have been high. Likewise for coffee. By giving the WoW and its interpretation meant a heavy sacrifice by the early saints. It crossed a very serious cultural tradition and tested the early saints in whether or not they would follow god's advice. I don't think that they found it easy to obey, espeically when we consider morning tea time, afternoon tea time and evening tea time. All most likely would have been a cultural norm then.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There have been several bans on Priesthood throughout the millennia.IE; Christ went only to the Jews. Was that not from God?

Adam God was never a doctrine of Church, at best it was Brother Brigham's personal attempt to clarify "Name Tiles". Unfortunately he is not here to explain what he meant. So I can only go by what other former Presidents of Church have said.

We still believe in Blood Atonement. The only one that counts happened on a small hill outside of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago.

We still believe in polygamy. The Book of Mormon and D&C 132 are still part of our Scriptures. Just its earthly performance for now is held in suspension.

I don't know what you are specifically referring to when you write etc..

Moreover if you are uncomfortable with change this Church probably isn't for you.

SEE Articles of Faith #9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There are literally hundreds of changes to church teachings over the less than 200 years since the founding of Mormonism.  If you need more examples, try reading This is my Doctrine by Charlie Harrell, or I've heard Terryl Givens new book Wrestling the Angel goes into a lot of the changes as well.  

It's apparent to me that many changes were influenced by culture and bias, which the Priesthood essay explicitly states.  You stated earlier that you were "willing to let God do the directing".  With so many examples that God is not doing the directing (see the priesthood essay) why are you so willing to assume that policies and doctrines of the 2016 church are any less flawed than prior policies and doctrines?  

[Jim Stiles]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yep, I think it definitely was a contributing factor to her hypertension. After she quit her symptoms subsided and she became much calmer. While drinking the coffee I would describe her as "fidgety." She had a lot of jerky movements with her hands. When she quit, she just seemed a lot calmer, but it also seems to me she drank decaff for a few years.

She was a fighter. She survived a double mastectomy for cancer. I have to say I was surprised to see her quit the coffee habit, but I believe it was a factor in her prolonged life.

Caffeine lowers blood pressure because it is a diuretic.

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There are literally hundreds of changes to church teachings over the less than 200 years since the founding of Mormonism.  If you need more examples, try reading This is my Doctrine by Charlie Harrell, or I've heard Terryl Givens new book Wrestling the Angel goes into a lot of the changes as well.  

It's apparent to me that many changes were influenced by culture and bias, which the Priesthood essay explicitly states.  You stated earlier that you were "willing to let God do the directing".  With so many examples that God is not doing the directing (see the priesthood essay) why are you so willing to assume that policies and doctrines of the 2016 church are any less flawed than prior policies and doctrines?  

There hasn't been hundreds of changes to Church doctrine. If you mean someone taught some unsubstantiated speculation then I invite you to Gospel Doctrine(Rumor) class. Over the last 45 years I've heard plenty of them.

It is our Truth Claim, and in our Articles of Faith, Baptismal Interview, and Temple Recommend questions that we believe God is doing that directing of his Church. If you don't believe it that is fine with me. 

Policies have always been subject to change.

[halconero]

On 2016-04-18 at 6:10 PM, BookofMormonLuvr said:

I seem to remember a certain group of men who put a safety net (extra rules) around the established rules, and Messiah being none too happy with them.

Interestingly, as I've reread the New Testament recently, his issue isn't so much the net, but hypocrisy in relation to it.

If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk, in other words.

[Gray]

On 4/17/2016 at 2:11 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

Can U drink beer & get a temple rec.?

Probably not simultaneously 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There hasn't been hundreds of changes to Church doctrine. If you mean someone taught some unsubstantiated speculation then I invite you to Gospel Doctrine(Rumor) class. Over the last 45 years I've heard plenty of them.

It is our Truth Claim, and in our Articles of Faith, Baptismal Interview, and Temple Recommend questions that we believe God is doing that directing of his Church. If you don't believe it that is fine with me. 

Policies have always been subject to change.

There have been hundreds of changes to Church doctrine (policy or doctrine, its just semantics), and will continue to be more into the future I imagine.  You can call these changes inspired, and that's fine with me.  I suggest you do some more research, study those books that I recommended and continue to study the history.  You likely won't learn anything new in GD class, but if your desire is to continue to rehash the same thing over and over again, feel free.  

I can't find anywhere in our AoF or Temple recommend interview questions that state that ALL direction in this church comes from God.  I can make a strong argument from the scriptures and teachings of modern leaders that God allows for a lot of human error.  The important thing is to try and determine what is from God and what isn't.  Making the assumption that its all from God or that we'll be blessed by following things that are erroneous just because, those are dangerous assumptions in my opinion.  

[Rivers]

I really like the analogy given by the Givenses in The Crucible of Doubt. They tell the the story of Joseph in Egypt being given the "ring of pharaoh," which signifies stewardship or the authority to act in pharoah's name.  However, having that authority doesn't mean that Joseph will do and act exactly how pharaoh would.  Joseph still has agency. And it is the same kind of thing with our church leaders. 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Rivers