Does coffee threaten one's hope of eternal life?

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young (and, apparently, Joseph Smith) equated "hot drinks" with coffee and tea.  And yet you are suggesting that the "intent" of D&C 89's reference to "hot drinks" was to refer to "any hot beverage."  

Again, you are ignoring historical evidence.  And AFAIK, the WoW was never construed by the 19th-century Saints as prohibiting the consumption of soup or broth.  So the restriction to coffee and tea was not perhaps to some extent "consistent with," but certainly not identical to, "medical ideas of the time that hot drinks were injurious."

Right.  They say the prohibition had to do with coffee and tea.  Which is why I find a contrary suggestion that the "intent" was  "likely a prohibition against any hot beverage."  

Nope.  What we say today is based on statements by Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, and numerous other prophets and apostles, who have defined "hot drinks" as referring to coffee and tea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you find me a 19th century source saying that hot drinks in general are okay, and that only coffee and tea are verboten? Because I've already given you a 19th century source that says all hot drinks, including hot chocolate and soup, are off limits. 

[James Tunney]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Much (most?) of Isaiah could have been written with more clarity as well.  Same with much of the Psalms.  And most of Revelation.  Do you have any thoughts about why these parts of scripture could have been written with more clarity, but were not?

Meanwhile, I think the LDS paradigm has a ready answer.  We believe in continuing revelation.  In prophets and apostles.  In personal revelation.  And we are a record-keeping people as well, so we have quite a bit of information about the context and milieu in which The Word of Wisdom came forth.  We are not bereft of tools and resources for understanding it.  We have historical records which quote contemporary sources (Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, etc.).  We also have continuing guidance from prophets and apostles.  We also have personal revelation.  All of these things can and should be used by the Saints when reading D&C 89, or Isaiah, or Revelation, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

The other "scriptures" to which you refer are more of the same man-made attempts at finding and communicating to what they think is beyond. I happen to think that if God truly cared to communicate he would do so clearly and not in riddles or non-sensically.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

The other "scriptures" to which you refer are more of the same man-made attempts at finding and communicating to what they think is beyond. I happen to think that if God truly cared to communicate he would do so clearly and not in riddles or non-sensically.

First, I think dismissing the scriptures as "riddles" or "nonsense" is a bit . . . short-sighted.  Most things that are worthwhile require effort to study and understand.  And many of these things seem confusing ("riddles" or "nonsensical") to someone who has not devoted much time to understanding them.

Second, there are many, many aspects of the Restored Gospel that are very straightforward and easy to understand.  So I think God has communicated both "milk" and "meat."

Third, I did know know you harbored a priori assumptions that appear to preclude substantive discussion.  It does not have to be that way, though.  You don't have to agree or accept our beliefs in order to discuss them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I think dismissing the scriptures as "riddles" or "nonsense" is a bit . . . short-sighted.  Most things that are worthwhile require effort to study and understand.  And many of these things seem confusing ("riddles" or "nonsensical") to someone who has not devoted much time to understanding them.

Second, there are many, many aspects of the Restored Gospel that are very straightforward and easy to understand.  So I think God has communicated both "milk" and "meat."

Third, I did know know you harbored a priori assumptions that appear to preclude substantive discussion.  It does not have to be that way, though.  You don't have to agree or accept our beliefs in order to discuss them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well just because I've decided that its man-made doesn't mean I can't discuss it. Non-believers think the same way about discussing these issues with believers as well. Believers seem to be set on a conclusion that prohibits discussion when the discussion drifts toward pointing out the various contradictions and seeming illogic of the bible, bofm, d&c, and pogp.

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Well just because I've decided that its man-made doesn't mean I can't discuss it.

I'm glad to hear it.  But you have summarily declared all scripture to be "man-made."  I respect that position, but it rather kills any effort to analyze LDS doctrines and beliefs in situ.  For example, any discussion of The Word of Wisdom inevitably and immediately devolves to, in essence, "Well, none of this matters because Joseph Smith fabricated the whole thing anyway."

54 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Non-believers think the same way about discussing these issues with believers as well. Believers seem to be set on a conclusion that prohibits discussion when the discussion drifts toward pointing out the various contradictions and seeming illogic of the bible, bofm, d&c, and pogp.

Well, not really.  Mormons should be long accustomed to having discussions with people who do not share their faith.  

Thanks,

-Smac