Does coffee threaten one's hope of eternal life?

[Storm Rider]

I think that we have answered the question of this thread several times and it is clear that what we drink is not what brings salvation, but it is our willingness to serve, our obedience that brings us closer to the Savior and through him we gain our salvation.

I was think of this as I was reading today and went to Matt 15:10-11 - 

      10 ¶And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

      11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I generally find that I am apathetic to the Word of Wisdom except as it is written in the 89th Section.  I have stated before that I chaffe at policy because policy, more often than not, is used to evade revelation, which is one of our bedrock doctrinal positions.  If God does not speak i.e. declare his will through revelation and the prophet comes forward with that revelation and speaks "Thus saith the Lord...." then I wish leaders would hold their tongue.  No man, not a single one, is capable of guiding the Kingdom of God without direct revelation.  Until God speaks then hold steady in the way and continue to wait upon him.  

What we each do with our mouth - what comes out of it - does far more damage to others and to ourselves than what we eat or drink.  I am grateful that I find many members so willing to ignore completely the potential violations of the WofW as practiced in our day by non-members and those who come to church for the first time.  There are so many more things of more importance than the whether someone drinks, smokes, etc.  The WofW is a Telestial teaching; we need to focus on the Celestial behaviors.

[spartacus]

"I recall a bishop telling me of a woman who came to get a recommend. When asked if she observed the Word of Wisdom, she said that she occasionally drank a cup of coffee. She said, “Now, bishop, you’re not going to let that keep me from going to the temple, are you?” To which he replied, “Sister, surely you will not let a cup of coffee stand between you and the House of the Lord.”

Tithing and the Word of Wisdom deal with straightforward and easily comprehended things." - Gordon B. Hinckley, April 1990

Just in case no one brought this up yet.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No the Church doesn't offer guidelines?
Seriously though I agree with you that drinking coffee won't keep you out of the CK.  (See, we agree sometimes.  )

 

It's a wonderful thing.  Just so you know even though we debate and disagree I quite like you and you are one of my favorite posters here.  You are willing to own it all when it comes to Mormonism.

[Honorentheos]

I feel that the bigger question of how the WoW plays into one's ethical framework was glossed over in trying to ascertain if God is looking for strict obedience or more concerned about charity.

I'd argue the need for a strong individual ethic is just as greatly in demand in a cultural context where proscribed norms and behaviors are so dominant as they seem to be in LDS culture as it is in a more morally pluralistic cultural context where one is forced to work out questions of right and wrong.

Moral norms such as the WoW leave people with little to work with as to what makes for appropriate behavior both among their religious peers and the broader society. To a person who views any drinking of coffee as "bad" and that is essentially the extent of their moral reasoning, the person who drinks coffee will be assigned some status as a sinner. It may be softened with notions that a person won't be held accountable for laws they were not aware of, etc. But it still affects both the person with that view and their relationship to the broader world. That seems dubiously immature in thinking were it to occur that creates weakness in the social fabric. And perhaps those weaknesses in the fabric in turn are much greater threats to one's ability to behave ethically in a pluralistic society.

[waveslider]

I think the greater lesson is not the exact particulars of the WOW, like for instance coffee, but the whole reason for the WOW in the first place. It is like a maintenance manual for the physical body, geared for our day. It isn't the first time God has given a WOW. The first time was in the garden of Eden. Disobedience brought about death. Every dispensation seemed to have a WOW. It makes sense that without modern day refrigeration that pork and things would be bad to eat. I think in order to answer the question about coffee, I think we need to look at what it does to our body. There is no nutritional value to coffee, when it is consumed. The oils that come out of the coffee beans, when heated and brewed, actually eat away at our stomach lining, and can cause more acne as your body tries to rid itself of those toxins. The caffeine found in coffee is a psychoactive drug, and is very addicting, creating a chemical dependency upon the body, and in light of what our body actually is, is it really such a good thing to ingest even if the WOW doesn't specifically say the word, "coffee," in it?:

"19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Don't forget what the WOW says at the beginning:

"2  To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3  Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
D&C 89:2-3

We are weak if we are trying to rationalize away anything here. How are we to recognize revelation when our temple body is ill? It is already hard enough to recognize that still small voice, amidst the loud cacophony of the worldly influences all around us, in a fully healthy body. By focusing on the Spirit and housing it in something that is called by such a holy name as, "Temple," we will naturally find ourselves in agreement with the view points of the church, and we will naturally be ready to enter the building called, "Temple," or, "The House Of The Lord." We don't need to wonder if a bishop or stake president will deem us worthy, if we already have this type of attitude.

That all said I have seen coffee help with asthma attacks, when no inhaler was available, I have also seen doctors say that coffee enemas will clean out the liver so well that it can help get rid of cancer. So I'm sure there is a place for coffee medicinally, but to rationalize it as such just to fudge a temple recommend interview won't actually make you worthy to enter a temple, even if you fool the authorities with your rationalizations.

Do we really need to have church authorities tell us every little detail on how to live our lives:

"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

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by waveslider
I really need to proof read before posting. Extra word.

[JLHPROF]

While we cannot discuss specifics on the board I think it is no coincidence that the promises made in the Word of Wisdom bear a striking resemblance to something received in the temple.
That we are now required to obey the Word of Wisdom in order to enter the temple and receive that particular blessing seems fitting somehow.

Whether that includes coffee or not is another issue.

[Honorentheos]

One's perspective of the providence of the WoW will likely play into how strongly a person believes it has much to say about modern health needs or otherwise. It's probably been debated to the nth degree if it is merely one expression among many in that time period of the 19th century and the temperance movement, or if it has some deeper roots.

 

I'd contend it doesn't matter when related to developing one's framework for ethical behavior, though. The urge to externalize one's moral choice rather than develop one's moral understanding in a complex, pluralistic society isn't without consequences of it's own. Ethical ones at that.

 

The notion that drinking a cup of coffee has moral consequence is one that ought to be worthy of serious contemplation with revealing consequence I imagine if one is so inclined to really think about it outside of the very simplistic question of whether or not one imagines God said not to. The euthyphro dilemma applies once one invokes belief in God or God's involvement in Section 89 of the D&C, showing this isn't a "get out of moral dilemma free" card one can invoke to satisfactorily answer questions of moral behaviour.

 

Quote

The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Johnnie Cake]

Coffee is just fine as long as its Coffee Ice Cream

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-romney-no-coffee-but-coffee-ice-cream/

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Coffee is just fine as long as its Coffee Ice Cream

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-romney-no-coffee-but-coffee-ice-cream/

The Word of Wisdom says hot drinks.  Ice cream, by no definition, qualifies as a hot drink. 

President McKay seemed to have similar feelings about the acceptability of rum cake.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Word of Wisdom says hot drinks.  Ice cream, by no definition, qualifies as a hot drink. 

President McKay seemed to have similar feelings about the acceptability of rum cake.

 

Well you'll get no argument from me mate, So everyone should be lining up for their Iced Coffee right?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well you'll get no argument from me mate, So everyone should be lining up for their Iced Coffee right?

Figured you'd respond with the iced coffee  You'd have to do more than put a little ice in it to lure me to the dark (roast) side.

[cdowis]

Bottom line ==

A cup of coffee will not send you to hell.  Rebellion,  and willful disobedience will.

Edited October 20, 2016 by cdowis

[VideoGameJunkie]

Coffee is so nasty and gives me the shakes. Tried it once when I was going through insomnia and it made everything worse about my health and my heart almost gave me an anxiety attack. Definitely would not recommend. The biggest problem with the word of wisdom and members is probably abuse of opiate painkillers and prescription drugs.

[thesometimesaint]

On 10/19/2016 at 7:11 PM, cdowis said:

Bottom line ==

A cup of coffee will not send you to hell.  Rebellion,  and willful disobedience will.

Agreed.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Agreed.

And eating whole bags of potato chips.

[sunstoned]

On 8/17/2016 at 1:19 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Which men? Were they wrong?

Who are men to counter act the word of God?  God spoke and said this was not by commandment.  Which prophet changed this into a commandment?  Did this prophet declare that a new revelation had been received that counteracted the original?  Let me answer my own question.  No. This revelation has not been superintended by a new  commandment.  It was upgraded to a commandment by the had of men.  

 

CFR on anyone who clams that God (not men) have upgraded the WofW to a commandment.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And eating whole bags of potato chips.

The only whole bags of potato chips are those little lunch sized ones. My biggest problem isn't that I like food. It is that it likes me too well, it is always sticking around my midsection.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Who are men to counter act the word of God?  God spoke and said this was not by commandment.  Which prophet changed this into a commandment?  Did this prophet declare that a new revelation had been received that counteracted the original?  Let me answer my own question.  No. This revelation has not been superintended by a new  commandment.  It was upgraded to a commandment by the had of men.  

 

CFR on anyone who clams that God (not men) have upgraded the WofW to a commandment.

SEE n.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/History_and_implementation

[The Nehor]

On 10/20/2016 at 8:56 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Coffee is so nasty and gives me the shakes. Tried it once when I was going through insomnia and it made everything worse about my health and my heart almost gave me an anxiety attack. Definitely would not recommend. The biggest problem with the word of wisdom and members is probably abuse of opiate painkillers and prescription drugs.

While I am not a pro-coffee person by any means I think if you were struggling with insomnia and tried coffee as a possible solution the fault does not lie with the coffee in this case.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Who are men to counter act the word of God?  God spoke and said this was not by commandment.  Which prophet changed this into a commandment?  Did this prophet declare that a new revelation had been received that counteracted the original?  Let me answer my own question.  No. This revelation has not been superintended by a new  commandment.  It was upgraded to a commandment by the had of men.  

 

CFR on anyone who clams that God (not men) have upgraded the WofW to a commandment.

I asked God. He told me he had it upgraded.

THUS SAITH THE NEHOR!!!!!

[The Nehor]

On 10/19/2016 at 5:17 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Well you'll get no argument from me mate, So everyone should be lining up for their Iced Coffee right?

No, that stuff is nasty.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I asked God. He told me he had it upgraded.

THUS SAITH THE NEHOR!!!!!

I can't argue with this

[smac97]

On 8/17/2016 at 8:24 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

There is NOTHING inherently evil, wicked or harmful about coffee. 

I pretty much agree with this.  I don't think there is inherent evil in any of God's creations.  Rather, evil arises when God's children uses God's creations in improper ways and/or with improper motives.

Look at tobacco.  Coca.  Poppies.  These are all things that have uses in a certain sphere, and misuses in another sphere.

On 8/17/2016 at 8:24 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

It only becomes so when religion puts a mark of evil on something so enjoyable as coffee.

I don't think the LDS Church characterizes coffee as "evil."  It's just a substance which the Lord's covenant people have been commanded to not consume.

On 8/17/2016 at 8:24 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Most if not all of the founding men of Mormonism, Joseph included drank coffee,  Coffee was on the list of essential items our pioneer forefathers were instructed to bring with them on their trek from Nauvoo across the plains, Coffee was served in the Hotel Utah a church run establishment, it was served in the SL Temple cafeteria and church administration building board rooms through the 19-teen hundreds.  Members of the 12 promoted its exclusion from consideration in the WoW.  When banned many continued to drink it and those that abstained lamented its demise (I have no CFRs for any of the above claims...so don't ask...most are common knowledge but may be a surprise to some..still a simple google search will confirm most of these claims)

Yep.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

Adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom was not made a requirement for entry into LDS Church temples until 1902. However, even then, church president Joseph F. Smith encouraged stake presidents to be liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea. Of those who violated the revelation, it was mainly habitual drunkards that were excluded from the temple. Around the turn of the century, the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom were not strictly adhered to by such notable church leaders. Anthon H. Lund, a First Counselor in the First Presidency, drank beer and wine; apostle Matthias F. Cowley drank beer and wine; Charles W. Penrose, who also served as a First Counselor in the First Presidency, drank wine; Relief Society general president Emmeline B. Wells drank coffee; and church president George Albert Smith drank brandy for medicinal purposes. In 1921, church president Heber J. Grant made adherence to the proscriptions of the Word of Wisdom an absolute requirement for entering the temple.

...

{40} Thomas G. Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88.

I think it is the province of the Presiding High Priest and those who counsel with him to determine such things, particularly as they pertain to participation in sacred ordinances.  There may have been some hiccups/errors in interpretation and application through the years, but I will leave such things to be settled between those who were in authority at the time and their God.

Meanwhile, I think the current interpretation of The Word of Wisdom is sound and appropriate for our times.  I think many problems and heartaches arise from substance abuse in our day, many/most of which are avoided when the Saints observe The Word of Wisdom.  I also think the Saints (myself included) could improve their adherence to the principles of health enunciated in D&C 89 and elsewhere.  Too many of us are overweight, lead sedentary lives, eat unhealthy foods, etc.  This is why I have a hard time tut-tutting the early Saints for their apparent flaws in observing these principles.

We are all sinners in one way or another (or several ways).  I think we should strive to be more obedient, not less.  I think we should seek to look for ways to be more exacting in our obedience, not for loopholes or justifications for disobedience.

On 8/17/2016 at 8:24 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

It was Heber C. Grant who ignored the minority of the 12 who wanted to exclude coffee.  He alone turn a enjoyable social drink into the piranha that it is seen as in the Mormon community today. 

I assume you meant "pariah" (not "piranha").  In any event, I am not sure you are correct.  The exegesis of "hot drinks" which the Church uses today originated with Hyrum Smith (and, apparently, with Joseph).

On 8/17/2016 at 8:24 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

And finally it warms my heart to see so many Starbucks and independent coffee houses pop up along the Wasatch front...

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 8/20/2016 at 5:24 PM, Storm Rider said:

I chaffe at policy because policy, more often than not, is used to evade revelation, which is one of our bedrock doctrinal positions.  

With respect, I can't agree to that.  I cannot attribute such things to the Brethren.  I cannot accuse them of having such a wicked motive ("evad{ing} revelation") when they promulgate policies and guidelines.  

Instead, I think the Brethren provide policies and guidelines in order to help local leaders and individuals properly apply revealed principles.  

On 8/20/2016 at 5:24 PM, Storm Rider said:

If God does not speak i.e. declare his will through revelation and the prophet comes forward with that revelation and speaks "Thus saith the Lord...." then I wish leaders would hold their tongue.  

I don't think this is correct.  In D&C 58:26, the Lord said: "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."

It sounds like you are advocating that the Brethren become slothful and unwise servants.  The Brethren have a mandate to lead the Church.  Consequently, I think they are striving to do what Joseph Smith said: "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.”  We can argue all the day long about the scope and and depth of these "correct principles," but in the main I think the Brethren do a very good job of it.

On 8/20/2016 at 5:24 PM, Storm Rider said:

No man, not a single one, is capable of guiding the Kingdom of God without direct revelation.  Until God speaks then hold steady in the way and continue to wait upon him.  

Again, "it is not meet that I {the Lord} should command in all things."

Let's think about this for a minute.  God knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

 

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

For me, I think the Word of Wisdom is "doctrine."  The "principles" we glean from the Word of Wisdom pertain to healthy living, abstaining from certain specified things (coffee, tea, tobacco), and so on.  The "application" of the Word of Wisdom will proscribe things like heroin and cocaine, because using such substances cannot be squared with either the "principles" or the "doctrine" arising from the Word of Wisdom.

Elder Bednar's remarks have applications in many other areas of life.  For example, is pornography specifically prohibited in scripture?  No, but using it cannot be squared with the Law of Chastity (any more than using heroin can be squared with the Word of Wisdom).  Plus it has been specifically and emphatically and repeatedly condemned by modern prophets and apostles.  So the "application" of the Law of Chastity to the viewing of pornography is fairly clear-cut, even though we're speaking of principally of "application" (of a "principle" gleaned from a "doctrine").

And so it goes.  The Brethren are attempting to guide the Church by teaching correct doctrines and principles, and I think the Church's policies and guidelines are appropriate "applications" of those things.

On 8/20/2016 at 5:24 PM, Storm Rider said:

What we each do with our mouth - what comes out of it - does far more damage to others and to ourselves than what we eat or drink.  

I don't understand this.  Although gradations of sin apparently exist (murder and denial of the Holy Ghost being the "worst" necessarily means there are "less worse" sins out there), I'm not sure the Saints are at liberty to justify/rationalize committing "lesser" sins simply because they are "lesser."  I think this is covered in 2 Nephi 28:8-10:

Quote

 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

 9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

 10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.

So yes, damaging/hateful/profane words may be more damaging than imbibing alcohol or coffee or whatnot.  But that does not excuse or justify imbibing.  Not for the Lord's covenant people.

On 8/20/2016 at 5:24 PM, Storm Rider said:

I am grateful that I find many members so willing to ignore completely the potential violations of the WofW as practiced in our day by non-members and those who come to church for the first time.  There are so many more things of more importance than the whether someone drinks, smokes, etc.  The WofW is a Telestial teaching; we need to focus on the Celestial behaviors.

I don't think we can achieve "Celestial behaviors" by ignoring/disobeying preparatory steps to get there.

I think the Saints are much, much better off adhering to The Word of Wisdom than not.  

I also think The Word of Wisdom is principally a revelation pertaining to health, but it also has the net effect of distinguishing and setting the Saints apart from the rest of the world.

I also think this distinguishment can trip us up.  We can and should be grateful for the blessings wrought through healthy living.  And there are many, many people outside of the Church who admire us for attempting to adhere to such a high standards.  There are also many people who join the Church, in part, because of those high standards.  But none of this gives us justification for thinking we are "better" than our fellow brothers and sisters.  Adherence to The Word of Wisdom is principally an act of faith, and therefore deserves respect.  However, those who adhere to it are not at liberty to disrespect those who do not find cause to participate in this act of faith.  So while I respect Jews and Muslims who abstain from pork as an act of faith, I do not feel "less" than them for not sharing in that act.  I likewise respect strict Buddhists who abstain from meat, and Hindus who abstain from beef, and Muslims who abstain from alcohol, and Catholics who abstain from meat on Fridays, and so on.

So when it comes to The Word of Wisdom, I think the Saints should strive to adhere to it, and I also think we should be grateful for it.  But in the immortal words of Han Solo: "Great, kid!  Don't get cocky!"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 10/20/2016 at 7:56 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Coffee is so nasty and gives me the shakes. Tried it once when I was going through insomnia and it made everything worse about my health and my heart almost gave me an anxiety attack. Definitely would not recommend. The biggest problem with the word of wisdom and members is probably abuse of opiate painkillers and prescription drugs.

And eating too much.  And eating too much meat.

Thanks,

-Smac