Does coffee threaten one's hope of eternal life?

[smac97]

12 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.

Here you go:

Quote

Notes and Commentary

D&C 89:2. Is the Word of Wisdom a Commandment Today?

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.

Bishops and stake presidents are responsible for determining whether members are worthy to receive Church ordinances such as baptism or those available in the temple or to enter the temple to receive ordinances for others. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is a part of that worthiness.

D&C 89:2. Why Does the Lord Say “Not by Commandment or Constraint”?

“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by President Brigham Young that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation and a command of the Lord. [See Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 183–84].” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14.)

President Heber J. Grant emphasized that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and warned those who did not obey it that “the day is gone by when the Lord will trifle with the Latter-day Saints. He has said that His Spirit shall not always strive with man.” (Gospel Standards, pp. 55–56.) Although the Lord allowed a time of adjustment for those who were already members of the Church when the Word of Wisdom was given, today it is expected that all Saints adhere to the commandment.

This article also does a good job of summarizing the developed application of The Word of Wisdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Me too! My problem is salty things...I can make a meal of saltine crackers...crazy!! 

[Jeanne]

BTW:  My grrandpa used to hide his Dr. Pepper in his back pocket...

[saemo]

On 8/16/2016 at 4:27 PM, JAHS said:

My old grandmother wanted to be able to return to the temple but she hadn't been in a long time and had developed the habit for drinking coffee. The Bishop encouraged her to stop and she tried but she had used it for so long that she was very dependent on it and her old body couldn't take the withdrawal pains of cutting it out completely. The Bishop finally told her the if she could cut it down to a half cup per day he would give her the recommend. That she was able to do and she got the recommend. So it's not the coffee itself but the obedience that's important and she was obedient to her Bishop's direction.

Caffeine helps relieve pain and inflammation. http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/guide/triggers-caffeine#1. Could have been helping out an old person with their aches and pains. 

[saemo]

On 8/16/2016 at 2:46 PM, theplains said:

I read something in the article on page 8, heading "April 2016 Conference Notebook".

"A promise was given that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, if we obeyed the laws and 
priesthood ordinances of the gospel, we would have eternal life, the greatest of all His 
gifts."

In light of the Word of Wisdom, does the LDS Church offer any guidelines as to whether the 
occasional coffee keeps you out of the temple and thus without hope for eternal life in the
highest division of the Celestial Kingdom?

Thanks,
Jim

A decade or so ago, when I worked at this place that was 99.9% LDS employees and 100% LDS owned, the place didn't have coffee in the building, anywhere. A coworker and I would head out for coffee and hide it all clandestine, because our LDS coworkers gave us the evil eye.  We used to joke the looks and comments were as though we were drinking coffee today and would be murdering tomorrow. The slippery slope from coffee to murder.  

If those coworkers are in any way, in charge of your station in the afterlife....well, you'll be in the sub-class heaven reserved for coffee drinkers. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

BTW:  My grrandpa used to hide his Dr. Pepper in his back pocket...

One summer long ago I had a thing for Dr. Pepper. I overexposed myself to it. I hardly ever drink it now-a-days.

[thesometimesaint]

42 minutes ago, saemo said:

A decade or so ago, when I worked at this place that was 99.9% LDS employees and 100% LDS owned, the place didn't have coffee in the building, anywhere. A coworker and I would head out for coffee and hide it all clandestine, because our LDS coworkers gave us the evil eye.  We used to joke the looks and comments were as though we were drinking coffee today and would be murdering tomorrow. The slippery slope from coffee to murder.  

If those coworkers are in any way, in charge of your station in the afterlife....well, you'll be in the sub-class heaven reserved for coffee drinkers. 

Good thing I don't want the job.

[Curious_About_Everything]

On 8/20/2016 at 11:45 PM, waveslider said:

There is no nutritional value to coffee, when it is consumed.

Incorrect.

1) Coffee and diabetes

Coffee may be protective against type 2 diabetes. Researchers at UCLA identified that drinking coffee increases plasma levels of the protein sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG). SHBG controls the biological activity of the body's sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) which play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Simin Liu, one of the authors of the study, said that an "inverse association" exists between coffee consumption and risk for type 2 diabetes.

Increased coffee consumption may reduce risk of type 2 diabetes - the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers gathered data from three studies. In these studies, the diets of the participants were evaluated using questionnaires every 4 years, with participants who reported having type 2 diabetes filling out additional questionnaires. In total, 7,269 study participants had type 2 diabetes.

The researchers found that the participants who increased their coffee intake by more than one cup a day (on average, an increase of 1.69 cups per day) over a 4-year period had an 11% lower type 2 diabetes risk over the subsequent 4 years, compared with people who did not change their intake.

2) Coffee and Parkinson's disease

Researchers in the U.S. carried out a study that assessed the link between coffee consumption and Parkinson's disease risk. The authors of the study concluded that "higher coffee and caffeine intake is associated with a significantly lower incidence of Parkinson's disease".

In addition, caffeine in coffee may help control movement in people suffering from Parkinson's, according to a study conducted at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI MUHC) that was published in the journal Neurology.

3) Coffee and liver cancer

Italian researchers found that coffee consumption lowers the risk of liver cancer by about 40%. In addition, some of the results suggest that if you drink three cups a day, the risks are reduced by more than 50%.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Carlo La Vecchia, from Milan's Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, said "our research confirms past claims that coffee is good for your health and particularly the liver."

4) Coffee and liver disease

Regular consumption of coffee is linked to a reduced risk of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), a rare autoimmune disease of the bile ducts in the liver.

In addition, coffee consumption can lower the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver for alcohol drinkers by 22%, according to a study at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, California, USA.

The authors of the study concluded that the results "support the hypothesis that there is an ingredient in coffee that protects against cirrhosis, especially alcoholic cirrhosis."

Research published in the journal Hepatology in April 2014, suggested that drinking coffee is linked to a decreased liver cirrhosis death risk. The researchers suggested that drinking two or more cups of coffee every day can reduce the risk of death from liver cirrhosis by 66%.

A study published in the journal Hepatology indicates that drinking decaf coffee also lowers liver enzyme levels, suggesting the benefits are not linked to caffeine content.

5) Coffee and heart health

Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that drinking coffee in moderation protects against heart failure. They defined 'in moderation' as 2 European cups (equivalent to two 8-ounce American servings) per day.

People who drank four European cups on a daily basis had an 11% lower risk of heart failure, compared to those who did not.

The authors stressed that their results "did show a possible benefit, but like with so many other things we consume, it really depends on how much coffee you drink."

Nutritional breakdown of coffee

Calorie count

Regular black coffee (without milk or cream) has a very low calorie count. A typical cup of black coffee only contains around 2 calories.

However, if you add sugar and milk, the calorie count can shoot up.

Antioxidants

Coffee is the number one source of antioxidants in the U.S., according to researchers at the University of Scranton.

Joe Vinson, Ph.D., lead author of the study, said that "Americans get more of their antioxidants from coffee than any other dietary source. Nothing else comes close."

The authors of the study emphasize moderation, stating that only one or two cups a day appear to be beneficial.

Caffeinated and decaffeinated versions provided nearly the same levels of antioxidants.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270202.php

[thesometimesaint]

I serious doubt many consume coffee just for its medical benefits.

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Incorrect.

1) Coffee and diabetes

Coffee may be protective against type 2 diabetes. Researchers at UCLA identified that drinking coffee increases plasma levels of the protein sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG). SHBG controls the biological activity of the body's sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) which play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Simin Liu, one of the authors of the study, said that an "inverse association" exists between coffee consumption and risk for type 2 diabetes.

Increased coffee consumption may reduce risk of type 2 diabetes - the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers gathered data from three studies. In these studies, the diets of the participants were evaluated using questionnaires every 4 years, with participants who reported having type 2 diabetes filling out additional questionnaires. In total, 7,269 study participants had type 2 diabetes.

The researchers found that the participants who increased their coffee intake by more than one cup a day (on average, an increase of 1.69 cups per day) over a 4-year period had an 11% lower type 2 diabetes risk over the subsequent 4 years, compared with people who did not change their intake.

2) Coffee and Parkinson's disease

Researchers in the U.S. carried out a study that assessed the link between coffee consumption and Parkinson's disease risk. The authors of the study concluded that "higher coffee and caffeine intake is associated with a significantly lower incidence of Parkinson's disease".

In addition, caffeine in coffee may help control movement in people suffering from Parkinson's, according to a study conducted at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI MUHC) that was published in the journal Neurology.

3) Coffee and liver cancer

Italian researchers found that coffee consumption lowers the risk of liver cancer by about 40%. In addition, some of the results suggest that if you drink three cups a day, the risks are reduced by more than 50%.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Carlo La Vecchia, from Milan's Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, said "our research confirms past claims that coffee is good for your health and particularly the liver."

4) Coffee and liver disease

Regular consumption of coffee is linked to a reduced risk of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), a rare autoimmune disease of the bile ducts in the liver.

In addition, coffee consumption can lower the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver for alcohol drinkers by 22%, according to a study at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, California, USA.

The authors of the study concluded that the results "support the hypothesis that there is an ingredient in coffee that protects against cirrhosis, especially alcoholic cirrhosis."

Research published in the journal Hepatology in April 2014, suggested that drinking coffee is linked to a decreased liver cirrhosis death risk. The researchers suggested that drinking two or more cups of coffee every day can reduce the risk of death from liver cirrhosis by 66%.

A study published in the journal Hepatology indicates that drinking decaf coffee also lowers liver enzyme levels, suggesting the benefits are not linked to caffeine content.

5) Coffee and heart health

Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that drinking coffee in moderation protects against heart failure. They defined 'in moderation' as 2 European cups (equivalent to two 8-ounce American servings) per day.

People who drank four European cups on a daily basis had an 11% lower risk of heart failure, compared to those who did not.

The authors stressed that their results "did show a possible benefit, but like with so many other things we consume, it really depends on how much coffee you drink."

Nutritional breakdown of coffee

Calorie count

Regular black coffee (without milk or cream) has a very low calorie count. A typical cup of black coffee only contains around 2 calories.

However, if you add sugar and milk, the calorie count can shoot up.

Antioxidants

Coffee is the number one source of antioxidants in the U.S., according to researchers at the University of Scranton.

Joe Vinson, Ph.D., lead author of the study, said that "Americans get more of their antioxidants from coffee than any other dietary source. Nothing else comes close."

The authors of the study emphasize moderation, stating that only one or two cups a day appear to be beneficial.

Caffeinated and decaffeinated versions provided nearly the same levels of antioxidants.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270202.php

If anyone is drinking coffee for health benefits is putting it in the wrong end:

 

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here you go:

This article also does a good job of summarizing the developed application of The Word of Wisdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for posting this information. I feel it supports my view that a revelation from God that was canonized has been changed by men.  If God did change is mind, then where is the revelation to that effect?

[Curious_About_Everything]

8 hours ago, waveslider said:

If anyone is drinking coffee for health benefits is putting it in the wrong end:

 

 

Researchers at Harvard Medical University describe the medicinal benefits of drinking coffee.

E

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Me too! My problem is salty things...I can make a meal of saltine crackers...crazy!! 

I remember putting butter on saltines and graham crackers growing up, yummy!!

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I remember putting butter on saltines and graham crackers growing up, yummy!!

My favorite was buttering the back side of pop tarts, after they were all hot and toasted so the butter melted right into it. That was yummy too!!!

[AKS]

On 10/22/2016 at 2:48 PM, thesometimesaint said:

I serious doubt many consume coffee just for its medical benefits.

And it tastes good too!  Seriously, the tea and coffee thing always truck me as arbitrary and, frankly, stupid.  Further, the fact that the church would not allow one to do something they deem critically important (temple) because they partake in a harmless substance like coffee seems wildly unjust.  It reeks of a turn of the century marketing ploy.

Edited October 24, 2016 by AKS

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, AKS said:

And it tastes good too!  Seriously, the tea and coffee thing always truck me as arbitrary and, frankly, stupid.  Further, the fact that the church would not allow one to do something they deem critically important (temple) because they partakes in a harmless substance like coffee seems wildly unjust.  It reeks of a turn of the century marketing ploy.

Two words: coffee breath. Nuff said.

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, AKS said:

And it tastes good too!

To me it tastes like burnt water! It only tastes good if you load it up with sugar and cream.... by then you might just as well get a hot fudge sundae instead. You can at least still go to the temple after.

[Storm Rider]

On 10/22/2016 at 9:24 AM, smac97 said:

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.  

• I think you misunderstood the intention of my statement - if leaders don't seek revelation for a specific issue, concern, or problem, but rather create a policy that affects the eternal welfare of the saints then I think that is a problem.  The Word of Wisdom is unique - the 89th Section was clear, accepted revelation by Joseph Smith.  It addresses the main concern thusly, "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".  Not by commandment or constraint - in other words it is not required, but it is a greeting, an invitation to the saints to serve temporal purpose. This is significant, it is for our temporal, mortal welfare.  This is scripture and remains scripture to this day.  No revelation has countered it or be added to doctrine of the Church.  The obvious problem is that the Word of Wisdom became no longer an invitation to the saints as the scriptures tell us, but the exact opposite of scripture.  It became a required action and noncompliance affected not the physical or temporal lives of the saints, but their eternal salvation by preventing them from attending the temple.
• This makes no sense to me.  If we are going to start affecting the eternal lives of individuals we are entering a realm where ONLY revelation will serve.  Why would it be different?  We now have a policy that is in direct conflict with scripture.  It is something that makes no sense to me; it does not fit within our pattern.   

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

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.

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

• Properly apply revealed principles is one thing, and I agree with the sentiment, but contradicting scripture is another.  If we are going to do this and if it is important then get another revelation that changes the scripture to what the Lord desires and then announce it to the saints.  I don't see a middle path here - either we have scripture or we do not.  If it is scripture than obey it and never contradict scripture without a good cause.  
• I have some ideas as to why this new policy was created, but it remains man's policy and no God's revelation.  The 89th Section is the revelation and the current teaching is the policy.  They conflict with one another and it has always been a stumbling block for me on principle.  I believe in revelation and think it is the absolute bedrock teaching of the Church and this policy conflicts with it.
• I think it is a stretch to cover this conflict under the umbrella of being commanded in all things.  I don't think it applies because we have scripture in one place and then a policy in another.  Are you saying that man knows better than God what is right?  Why isn't the 89th Section accepted as is?  Do we have another scriptural directive, uncontested by a later revelation, that we ignore as completely?  Why is this one an exception to the rule?

 

On 10/22/2016 at 9:24 AM, smac97 said:

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:

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":

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.

• When it comes to drugs or other items not specifically addressed in the 89th Section, you have a better application of the principle you mentioned above on not needing to be commanded in all things.  I don't see a problem here or a conflict with anything I have said previously.

.......

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

• Smac, we don't disagree with one another on the wisdom of following the 89th Section; the saints are far better in observing its principles than not.  The problem is in how we obey and why; more importantly, are we teaching the 89th Section in the say it was intended or not.  Unfortunately, we are not and have not been teaching it as written since the early 1920s. 
• There is no need to create conflict with scripture and no policy should ever do so.  If the Lord wanted it to be a commandment then let him speak and add it to scripture.  We are led by prophets, seers, and revelators and I freely think they do their best.  The problem becomes when they do not act in accordance to the role as prophets, seers, and revelators on teachings that affect eternal salvation without having revelation first.  Put bluntly, the Word of Wisdom is exactly what it says it is, but it is not a requirement of entering into the Celestial Kingdom; it is solely a temporal, a telelestial teaching.  The saints are invited to observe it, but should never be required to do so.  For example, what is more important learning to love our fellow man or obeying the Word of Wisdom?  Now, if you don't love your fellow man can you attend the temple?  Yes and that makes no sense.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me.  I think the whole back-and-forth about coffee massively misses the point.  Is God going to send someone to Hell  for drinking coffee ... coffee per se?  coffee qua coffee? ... No.  Hell will be too full of liars, murderers, and others of that sort.  On the other hand, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have already covenanted to keep the Word of Wisdom, simply by being baptized.  Is God merciful?  Yes.  But where's the mercy in saying, "Well, you're not keeping this covenant you already made at baptism because of [fill-in-the-blank here, and it doesn't have to involve coffee: it can involve any of the other promises made at baptism], but we'll just 'let that slide,' and let you go make more covenants, the breaking of which (and you're already breaking them, because you're already not keeping at least one other covenant you have made at baptism) will subject you to even direr consequences, but, heck, we don't want to be mean and keep you out of the Temple, so ..."

Anybody who is an outsider, or who formerly was faithful but now is disaffected, of course, is not likely to understand that, and/or is not likely to attach the same importance to those covenants that a faithful or striving insider would.  I won't demand that such people accept the faithful paradigm.   To each, his or her own.  I'll let God judge.  But to be blunt, "It's not the coffee, st***d, it's the covenant."  If I've got to face God and answer for the choices I've made, I'd rather say, "Well, no.  I wasn't perfect keeping the covenants I made at baptism," than, "Well, no, I wasn't perfect keeping the covenants I made at baptism, but since my bishop, and/or my stake president, and/or I (or some combination of us) decided it would be 'mean' or 'unfair' to keep me out of the temple, I/we 'fudged' it, and I then made more covenants which I wasn't prepared to keep and which I then broke (and for which the consequences of breaking them are even more serious) ..."

Am I perfect?  No, not by a long shot.  In fact, one of my biggest current struggles is that my schedule has essentially kept me from being a fully participating member of my own ward for quite some time.  I've made efforts to try to change that, but, so far, they haven't borne fruit.  I explained the situation to my home ward bishop when a temporary schedule change did permit me to go to my home ward, and I think he understands, but it might be a tough sell for me to try to renew a recommend since he hardly ever sees me.  I'm puzzling over what to do about that.  I know the first step is a simple phone call, but ...

I had some things to say about covenant-keeping and obedience once:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/on-gods-injustice/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/power-of-covenant-keeping/

Are there temporal benefits for abstaining from the clearly harmful substances the Word of Wisdom proscribes?  Yes.  But the Word of Wisdom's main benefits are spiritual: see Doctrine and Covenants 89:18-21.  As I believe I said in one of the foregoing links, I don't care if coffee is the very elixir of life itself, I have covenanted to not drink it, and I know I will be blessed for keeping that covenant.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[AKS]

54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me.  I think the whole back-and-forth about coffee massively misses the point.  Is God going to send someone to Hell  for drinking coffee ... coffee per se?  coffee qua coffee? ... No.  Hell will be too full of liars, murderers, and others of that sort.  On the other hand, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have already covenanted to keep the Word of Wisdom, simply by being baptized.  Is God merciful?  Yes.  But where's the mercy in saying, "Well, you're not keeping this covenant you already made at baptism because of [fill-in-the-blank here, and it doesn't have to involve coffee: it can involve any of the other promises made at baptism], but we'll just 'let that slide,' and let you go make more covenants, the breaking of which (and you're already breaking them, because you're already not keeping at least one other covenant you have made at baptism) will subject you to even direr consequences, but, heck, we don't want to be mean and keep you out of the Temple, so ..."

Anybody who is an outsider, or who formerly was faithful but now is disaffected, of course, is not likely to understand that, and/or is not likely to attach the same importance to those covenants that a faithful or striving insider would.  I won't demand that such people accept the faithful paradigm.   To each, his or her own.  I'll let God judge.  But to be blunt, "It's not the coffee, st***d, it's the covenant."  If I've got to face God and answer for the choices I've made, I'd rather say, "Well, no.  I wasn't perfect keeping the covenants I made at baptism," than, "Well, no, I wasn't perfect keeping the covenants I made at baptism, but since my bishop, and/or my stake president, and/or I (or some combination of us) decided it would be 'mean' or 'unfair' to keep me out of the temple, I/we 'fudged' it, and I then made more covenants which I wasn't prepared to keep and which I then broke (and for which the consequences of breaking them are even more serious) ..."

Am I perfect?  No, not by a long shot.  In fact, one of my biggest current struggles is that my schedule has essentially kept me from being a fully participating member of my own ward for quite some time.  I've made efforts to try to change that, but, so far, they haven't borne fruit.  I explained the situation to my home ward bishop when a temporary schedule change did permit me to go to my home ward, and I think he understands, but it might be a tough sell for me to try to renew a recommend since he hardly ever sees me.  I'm puzzling over what to do about that.  I know the first step is a simple phone call, but ...

I had some things to say about covenant-keeping and obedience once:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/on-gods-injustice/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/power-of-covenant-keeping/

Are there temporal benefits for abstaining from the clearly harmful substances the Word of Wisdom proscribes?  Yes.  But the Word of Wisdom's main benefits are spiritual: see Doctrine and Covenants 89:18-21.  As I believe I said in one of the foregoing links, I don't care if coffee is the very elixir of life itself, I have covenanted to not drink it, and I know I will be blessed for keeping that covenant.

We won't convince me that God arbitrarily limits peoples food any more than you could possibly convince me the priesthood ban was a divine edict.  

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, AKS said:

We won't convince me that God arbitrarily limits peoples food any more than you could possibly convince me the priesthood ban was a divine edict.  

I so appreciate, very much, the fact that you've let me know that I would be wasting my time attempting to do something which I wasn't even trying to do in the first place ... let alone that, as I believe my post makes abundantly, crystal clear, I'm not even inclined to do that.  Jist keep shootin' at them thar straw men, Clancy!  Ye'll git 'em all, yet!  

P.S.: You might want to re-read the first four sentences of the second paragraph of my previous post. Jist sayin'!  

Edited October 25, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[AKS]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I so appreciate, very much, the fact that you've let me know that I would be wasting my time attempting to do something which I wasn't even trying to do in the first place ... let alone that, as I believe my post makes abundantly, crystal clear, I'm not even inclined to do that.  Jist keep shootin' at them thar straw men, Clancy!  Ye'll git 'em all, yet!  

P.S.: You might want to re-read the first four sentences of the second paragraph of my previous post. Jist sayin'!  

I wasn't really saying that you were trying to convince me of anything.  My apologies, I thought that it was obvious.  My point is that I don't believe deity arbitrarily restricts food or drink intake.  What is the point?  I also don't believe God expects us to enter into arbitrary covenants.  Further, I believe the fact the lds leadership would restrict access to sacred ceremony because of a simple, harmless, and quite possibly healthy hot drink to be the height of, well it doesn't make any sense at all. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, AKS said:

I wasn't really saying that you were trying to convince me of anything.  My apologies, I thought that it was obvious.  My point is that I don't believe deity arbitrarily restricts food or drink intake.  What is the point?  I also don't believe God expects us to enter into arbitrary covenants.  Further, I believe the fact the lds leadership would restrict access to sacred ceremony because of a simple, harmless, and quite possibly healthy hot drink to be the height of, well it doesn't make any sense at all. 

I can understand your perspective, and might well feel much the same way you do if I felt that a restriction or a covenant purporting to be from God were arbitrary, or if LDS leadership were acting of that leadership's own accord rather than under God's direction in mandating the requirement, or if LDS leadership did not have my best interests at heart.  While I do believe that certain tangible, physical benefits accrue to me as a result of complying with those requirements, I believe the main benefits are spiritual in nature and, hence, more ethereal, more ephemeral, and perhaps more illusory, to someone who views the issue from your particular paradigm. 

While this is simply an observation rather than a criticism (each of us sees the world as he is rather than as it is: obviously you have a different paradigm that works for you), as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). And, as the Lord said through the Prophet Isaiah, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways  my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

With the caveat that such intake probably should occur in moderation, I don't share a Jew's or a Muslim's view on the potential spiritual consequences of consuming pork products.  Obviously, I am a Latter-day Saint because I believe that it's the best thing going, religion-wise, and I hope I would be prepared to explain why I believe that to anyone who asks.  However, even though I don't share the perspective of an observant Jew or an observant Muslim with respect to the potential spiritual consequences of consuming pork, I believe one should be the best Jew, the best Muslim, or the best [fill-in-the-blank here] one can possibly be, and that God is as pleased with their sincere efforts to do what they believe He asks of them as he is with my sincere efforts to do that.  And even if someone isn't of a particularly religious bent, if he is determined to benefit the lives of his family, his friends, and his fellow human beings for as long as possible and to the greatest extent possible before (from his perspective) "succumbing to the void," more power to him: "Inasmuch as men [men of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no particular religious persuasion whatsoever] do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 56:26).

For more of my thoughts on religious inclusiveness, see here: 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/

Edited October 25, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

My dad was a coffee drinker growing up. In order for him to be there for my temple wedding ceremony his bishop said he would need to go on decaff coffee. My dad had severe back pain from an injury that caused him scar tissue because of surgeries and coffee gave him relief. So my dad went on decaff in order to make his temple recommend current. 

Many years later I happen to discuss this with a primary president I was in a calling with. I asked why is it okay to drink soda with caffeine, why would my dad need to drink decaff in order to get his temple recommend current, if caffeine isn't the issue? Maybe my bishop at the time was just trying to make it all work to our advantage, bless his heart. 

Anyway, she said she thought it is because coffee has the appearance of evil. Think coffee and cigarettes going hand in hand. I think this might be why we're not to drink coffee. But it irks me that coffee or cigarettes should ever make a person appear like a bad person. 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

On 10/24/2016 at 1:59 PM, AKS said:

And it tastes good too!  Seriously, the tea and coffee thing always truck me as arbitrary and, frankly, stupid.  Further, the fact that the church would not allow one to do something they deem critically important (temple) because they partake in a harmless substance like coffee seems wildly unjust.  It reeks of a turn of the century marketing ploy.

Never did like the taste of coffee. By the time I added enough cream and sugar to it I was better off just drinking the cream and sugar. The Church will take no action against anyone for violations of the WoW. Temple attendance is not of critical importance. Though it is important for adults members of the Church who want to go to the Temple to take out their own Endowments, and/or their own dead. I guess if violating your agreements with God is harmless to you. Take it up with God.