Coffee an Tea

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, some leaders have emphasized canon over individual statements from church leaders, but the problem is there is no consistent rule for determining anything.

I think there is a hierarchy of authority for things like canon, statements by living leaders, statements by past leaders, the position of the person giving the statement, the frequency and specificity of the statement.  All kinds of factors could be used to argue the strength of ideas, but I agree with you that there seems to be no consistency with respect to how we apply these different factors to create policy and doctrine.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I can only guess since I wasn't there.  I think a lot was going on at the time and the WoW was given "not by commandment".  So it may not have been a the highest priority. This much is clear, the coffee and tea along with alcohol and tobacco continued to be consumed by the saints including Joseph Smith and other church leaders.

I am not debating the "not by commandment", but solely whether or not Hyrum's clarification of "hot drinks"  given in 1842 as coffee and tea would not have been corrected by his brother easily if Joseph thought Hyrum was wrong.  He had two years to say something and didn't as far as we know.

add-on:  it would appear that Joseph said the same thing from Smac's quote below...and with "what the Lord meant".  Given he was the one receiving the revelation, that is strong indication "coffee and tea" was revelatory.

It was pretty clear that the WoW was counseling not consuming of tobacco and at least stronger forms of alcohol, so the fact that coffee and tea were being consumed as well is irrelevant to my point.

I think one could interpret what Hyrum said as including coffee and tea and not only coffee and tea.  But he was Joseph's brother, who hung out with him all the time, not just some random guy giving his opinion.  I find those who dismiss the Church's official interpretation, but insist that others judge their interpretation as valid to be rather closeminded.

The Church's interpretation of coffee and tea, in my opinion, is as strong as the strongest of any other interpretation, even if it isn't the only valid one.  To dismiss it as nonrevelatory when we are talking about probably the person second to Emma with the closest of relationships just seems to me to be ignoring context.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Was Hyrum Smith giving his opinion of what hot drinks were defined as

He said:

Quote

D&C 89:9. What Does the Phrase “Hot Drinks” Mean?

Some of the early Brethren explained what was meant by this phrase. Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet, wrote: “And again, ‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.” (“The Word of Wisdom,” Times and Seasons, 1 June 1842, p. 800.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. …

“Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’” (In Joel H. Johnson, Voice from the Mountains [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881], p. 12.)

If we can conceptualize the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret, say, the scope of the Second Amendment, I think we can also conceptualize that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have authority to interpret an otherwise ambiguous term like "hot drinks."

The Church has adopted this construction/interpretation/exegesis by Hyrum Smith.  There really isn't any dispute about that.  I also don't think there is much room to argue that the leaders of the Church has some fairly broad discretionary authority to make calls like this.  That's their job.

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

or was he issuing another revelation, which hasn't be added to the canon anytime. 

A moot point.  Those in authority have explained what "hot drinks" means.  It's an authoritative explanation.  

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Surely you see the difference between a statement by a leader, and something that's in our canon?  

Yes.  But surely you see the broad authority vested in General Authorities to make judgment calls like this?

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm trying to describe how I envision the early Mormon church setting.  Revelation from God can take many forms throughout history.  

Yes.  But they end up being funneled through those in authority.

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, the environment is a huge factor.  Don't we often say by small and simple means, and often explain how uneducated Smith was?  My characterization in that sense seems quite compatible.  

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen Priesthood leaders renew recommends for people struggling with the Word of Wisdom for that very reason but it is their call.

Taken to extremes though would you suggest that someone trying to stop committing adultery should also be allowed to go to help with the struggle?

Okay...I will take that.  If a bishop who truly understands the nature and desires of a person to attend or get a temple recommend..that he uses not a judgement but an understanding of a person's personal struggle and desires to change.  But if they just go by a Bishop's handbook..it is the church's loss. We are talking about the WOW..and to make myself clear..other gospel principles do not apply to chastity...I understand the church's stance and mostly agree.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Jeanne

[Calm]

Okay, having looked up the full cite from Johnson, I am less prone to call it revelatory now as Joseph's phrasing is more reasoning it out when looking at the full text.  Makes it more iffy if he was trying to be persuasive on top of a "thus saith the Lord" or doing only an 'any idiot can tell the Lord was talking about' commentary.  Otoh, it makes it less Hyrum's opinion and much more him repeating what he heard Joseph state.

http://scottwoodward.org/wordofwisdom_hotdrinks.html

"I was with Joseph Smith, the Prophet, when the Word of Wisdom [D&C 89] was given by revelation from the Lord, February 27, 1833, and, I think, I am the only man now living who was present.

I was then thirty one years of age, and had used tobacco somewhat extravagantly for fifteen years. I always used some strong drink, and tea and coffee.

I knew that God had spoken and condemned the use of these things, and, being determined to live by every word that proceeded from His mouth, I laid them all aside, and have not used them since.

I well remember that, soon after the publication of the Word of Wisdom, the same excuse was made, by some of the people, for drinking tea and coffee that is now made—that hot drinks did not mean tea and coffee.

On a Sabbath day, in the July [1833] following the giving of the revelation, 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."

"The Lord was showing us what was good for man to eat and drink. Now, what do we drink when we take our meals?"

"Tea and coffee. Is it not?"

"Yes; tea and coffee."

"Then, they are what the Lord meant when He said 'hot drinks.'"

Brother Hyrum Smith spoke to the same effect. (Joel Hills Johnson, Voice from the Mountains, Being a Testimony of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as Revealed by the Lord to Joseph Smith Jr. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor, 1881), 12-13; quoted in Remembering Joseph, 253-254)"

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

 

"On March 17, 1838, when the body of Seventies were preparing for their pilgrimage to the "land of Zion," they agreed that they should see to it that "the commandments are kept, and the Word of Wisdom heeded, that is, no tobacco, tea, coffee, snuff or ardent spirits of any kind to be taken internally"...

Moreover, from the time that the Word of Wisdom was received, until the present day, the Church as a whole has understood and taught that the term "hot drinks" refers to tea and coffee and all similar beverages. This definition may be extended to include all drinks whether hot or cold in temperature which, like coffee and tea, contain any stimulating substance, for such are detrimental to health."

"492 LATTER-DAY SAINTS' MILLENNIAL STAR The Word Of Wisdom A MODERN INTERPRETATION By John A. Widtsoe and Leah D. Widtsoe" 

https://archive.org/stream/millennialstar10227eng/millennialstar10227eng_djvu.txt

hmmm....

For me, the Seventy quote is the best for limiting it to coffee and tea.  Widtsoe's stuff would suggest the Church is wrong about caffeine.  However, I need to find the original cite.

Add-on: This appears to be some more of the original, but it is a subscribed site so I am taking it off the google reference for now:

"of the appointment shall make all necessary arrangements for the providing of teams and tents for the journey; and they shall receive counsel and advice from the Councilors; and furthermore shall see that cleanliness and decency are observed in all cases, the commandments are kept, and the Word of Wisdom heeded..."

https://www.myheritage.com/FP/genealogy-search-ppc.php?type=&action=person&siteId=209131311&indId=10000038&origin=profile

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

From the same link:

"On March 17, 1838, when the body of Seventies were preparing for their pilgrimage to the "land of Zion," they agreed that they should see to it that "the commandments are kept, and the Word of Wisdom heeded, that is, no tobacco, tea, coffee, snuff or ardent spirits of any kind to be taken internally""

So they used them anyway??   

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

So they used them anyway??   

Who used them anyway?

The quote likely refers to the Kirtland Camp:

"In early 1838 the Church leaders left Kirtland, their lives threatened by a wave of apostate brethren. Loyal Saints followed after them as best they could. The seventy organized a company to journey by wagon to Far West, Missouri, and the whole of the quorum and their families, with many other Saints joining them, formed a caravan—called the Kirtland Camp—to make the journey. Their membership and discipline thus far had taught them loyalty, so that in spite of differences among them most of them stayed together until they reached Missouri. During a portion of the march, they stopped long enough to contract a road-building job. This was completed and the money was used to purchase much needed supplies for their journey. It took much of the spring and summer to make the journey. It was the first united effort of the Saints to pioneer their way."

It would be interesting to see how well they (the Seventies) kept to the commitment as well as if they meant the whole camp or just themselves to commit.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/07/the-seventies-a-historical-perspective?lang=eng

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

D&C 89:9. What Does the Phrase “Hot Drinks” Mean?

Some of the early Brethren explained what was meant by this phrase. Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet, wrote: “And again, ‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.” (“The Word of Wisdom,” Times and Seasons, 1 June 1842, p. 800.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. …

“Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’” (In Joel H. Johnson, Voice from the Mountains [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881], p. 12.)

If we can conceptualize the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret, say, the scope of the Second Amendment, I think we can also conceptualize that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have authority to interpret an otherwise ambiguous term like "hot drinks."

The Church has adopted this construction/interpretation/exegesis by Hyrum Smith.  There really isn't any dispute about that.  I also don't think there is much room to argue that the leaders of the Church has some fairly broad discretionary authority to make calls like this.  That's their job.

This is an example of very scant historical evidence for a tradition, developing into a fairly codified rule over time.  There is much more evidence for racist theology, the Adam-God doctrine, blood atonement, and many other ideas in the vast history of Mormon thinking, that have been discarded today.  My point being that this idea that coffee and tea were prohibited by revelation is a myth, and the fact that its become a rule in our present day is just a reflection of how traditions develop and grow over time.  

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A moot point.  Those in authority have explained what "hot drinks" means.  It's an authoritative explanation.  

Why is it authoritative?  Should it be authoritative?  

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Surely you see the difference between a statement by a leader, and something that's in our canon?  

Yes.  But surely you see the broad authority vested in General Authorities to make judgment calls like this?

Yes, they have authority to do anything, including discarding the coffee and tea rule because the foundations for that rule weren't based on any revelatory precedent.  Would you have a problem with the current church leaders rescinding the prohibition on coffee and tea?  

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Okay, having looked up the full cite from Johnson, I am less prone to call it revelatory now as Joseph's phrasing is more reasoning it out when looking at the full text.  Makes it more iffy if he was trying to be persuasive on top of a "thus saith the Lord" or doing only an 'any idiot can tell the Lord was talking about' commentary.  Otoh, it makes it less Hyrum's opinion and much more him repeating what he heard Joseph state.

http://scottwoodward.org/wordofwisdom_hotdrinks.html

"I was with Joseph Smith, the Prophet, when the Word of Wisdom [D&C 89] was given by revelation from the Lord, February 27, 1833, and, I think, I am the only man now living who was present.

I was then thirty one years of age, and had used tobacco somewhat extravagantly for fifteen years. I always used some strong drink, and tea and coffee.

I knew that God had spoken and condemned the use of these things, and, being determined to live by every word that proceeded from His mouth, I laid them all aside, and have not used them since.

I well remember that, soon after the publication of the Word of Wisdom, the same excuse was made, by some of the people, for drinking tea and coffee that is now made—that hot drinks did not mean tea and coffee.

On a Sabbath day, in the July [1833] following the giving of the revelation, 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."

"The Lord was showing us what was good for man to eat and drink. Now, what do we drink when we take our meals?"

"Tea and coffee. Is it not?"

"Yes; tea and coffee."

"Then, they are what the Lord meant when He said 'hot drinks.'"

Brother Hyrum Smith spoke to the same effect. (Joel Hills Johnson, Voice from the Mountains, Being a Testimony of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as Revealed by the Lord to Joseph Smith Jr. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor, 1881), 12-13; quoted in Remembering Joseph, 253-254)"

I wonder why the saints packed tea/coffee on their wagons to come west. http://files.lib.byu.edu/mormonmigration/articles/MormonPioneerNationalHistoricTrail.PDF

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the saints packed tea/coffee on their wagons to come west. http://files.lib.byu.edu/mormonmigration/articles/MormonPioneerNationalHistoricTrail.PDF

Because they had other reasons to view it as acceptable most likely...such as 'I t is not by way of commandment'  at that time.  Joseph himself appears to have done so on occasion.  It is hard to tell from the Seventy quote if it was meant to be just for the trip to Missouri in 1838 or ongoing, for the Seventies themselves or for everyone under their stewardship at that time.  The additional material I haven't been able to confirm seems to indicate campwide, but only for the journey.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Found the original, I believe, though it actually may be from elsewhere given the reference at the end "Taken from History of the Church Vol 3".

http://romrellnet.org/Bio/JohnHammond_w.doc

"At a meeting of the Seventies in the House of the Lord in Kirtland on the 6th of March 1838, the moving of the Saints from Kirtland to Missouri in accordance with the commandments and revelations of God, was spoken of and agreed that the Councilors should discuss the subject and meet again in four days.  At the meeting on the 10th of March much was said on the subject and while the discussion of going in a body was ensuing, the Spirit of the Lord came down in mighty power and some of the Elders began to prophecy that the Quorum should go in a body, pitching their tents along the way.  It was soon made manifest to all present that this was the will of the Lord and that they should proceed immediately to make preparation for the journey.

On March 13th, at another meeting, under the direction of Hyrum Smith, a constitution was drawn up and names of heads of families were taken.  One of the rules stated that "every man shall be the head of his own family and shall see that they are brought into subjection according to the order of the Camp."  Another rule adopted later was "the horn will blow at 4:00 AM for rising and at 20 minutes past 4 for prayer every morning, at which time every overseer shall see that the inmates of his tent are in order that prayer may commence throughout the Camp at the same time, immediately after the blowing of the horn.  John Hammond was chosen as one of the overseers.  His tent contained about 18 persons and had two teams of wagons.

The rules governing such appointments were thus:

"One man over each tent to take charge of it and from the time of the appointment shall make all necessary arrangements for the providing of teams and tents for the journey; and they shall receive counsel and advice from the Councilors; and furthermore shall see that cleanliness and decency are observed in all cases, the commandments are kept, and the Word of Wisdom heeded, no tobacco, tea, coffee, snuff, or ardent spirits of any kind are to be taken internally."

The extreme poverty of the majority of those belonging to the Camp, and the depression of their spirits in consequence thereof and the downfall of Kirtland; the opposition of those who had dissented from the Church, from those who opposed the Church and from many of the Saints themselves, were obstacles which made it hard for the Council to bring about order to accomplish the work; to unite the feelings of the brethren and to restore their confidence in each other, which had in a great measure been lost since the failure of their imaginary means of speculation of grandeur and wealth.  But, finally, on July 5th the camp commenced organizing on a lot near the House of the Lord.  Between four and five hundred people made preparation to spend the night in their tents and to be ready to start on the 870 mile journey the next day.

Many spectators from towns round about, as well as those from Kirtland came to watch the strange scene.  Not many of the deriders caused a fuss.  The next day the march was started and they went 7 miles that day.

The journey would end Oct 4th - three months in hot weather and trying circumstances; with births, sickness and death.  At times they would stay in one place for a time and get employment in order to buy provisions along the way.  One entry "cut wood and shoed horses" made 20 dollars.  The group worked on a turnpike for some time.  Many people in the towns would hear of this strange group and would line up and watch, and at times taunt them about "Joe Smith" and their delusion.  Many times the brethren were taken to task for not taking their place as head of the family.  One evening G. W. Brooks and wife were called before the Council for some investigation and in the course of inquiry it was acknowledged that Bro. Brooks' wife had used tea most of the time on the road, and had used profane language, and she declared she would still pursue the same course, and it was not in the power of her husband or the Council to stop it.  She further said that she was not a member of the Church and did not expect to come under the rules of the Camp.  The decision of the Council was that they should leave the Camp and Brother Brooks was severely reprimanded for not keeping his tent in order and not keeping his family in subjection, as a man of God, especially as an Elder of Israel."

-------

This could be interpreted to mean the WoW was viewed separately from "the commandments" or it was seen as a commandment that needed special attention:

" the commandments are kept, and the Word of Wisdom heeded"

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an example of very scant historical evidence for a tradition, developing into a fairly codified rule over time. 

I don't think it's merely a "tradition."

In any event, the issue is whether those who have "codified" this interpretation have authority to do so.  If they do, then the matter becomes significantly less problematic.  Being in a position of authority usually creates an expectation to utilize that authority, particularly in situations where ambiguity is present and guidance for those subject to authority is needed.

Did those in authority counsel together regarding the meaning of "hot drinks?"  Pray and ponder?  Seek guidance?  Reach a decision together?  

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is much more evidence for racist theology, the Adam-God doctrine, blood atonement, and many other ideas in the vast history of Mormon thinking, that have been discarded today. 

Discarded by those in authority.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My point being that this idea that coffee and tea were prohibited by revelation is a myth,

Well, no.  "Hot drinks" has to mean something.  What do you think it means?  And why is your interpretation superior to that of the Church's?

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

and the fact that its become a rule in our present day is just a reflection of how traditions develop and grow over time.

Traditions can and often do reflect correct principles.  Sometimes they don't (hence the reference in Alma 21;17 to certain "traditions of {the Lamanites'} fathers, which were not correct."

"Tradition" is, after all, merely "the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way."  The validity of those customs and beliefs is an independent question of how they have been transmitted.

Moreover, the interpretation of "hot drinks" is not, I think, correctly characterized as "tradition."  Hyrum Smith made a statement, and the Church has adopted it as authoritative.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

A moot point.  Those in authority have explained what "hot drinks" means.  It's an authoritative explanation.  

Why is it authoritative? 

Because those in authority have said as much.  The definition of "hot drinks" as represented by Hyrum Smith is promulgated by the Church.  The Church is the arbiter of its own doctrines.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Should it be authoritative?  

If those in authority have made such a determination, then yes.  It is their prerogative.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, they have authority to do anything,

No, not "anything."  The General Authorities have authority from God.  Such authority can be misused, as evidenced by provisions in scripture in case that happens.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

including discarding the coffee and tea rule because the foundations for that rule weren't based on any revelatory precedent. 

I suppose.  But they haven't.  And I don't think we are situated to declare that the "coffee and tea rule" is "{not} based on any revelatory precedent."  If you feel differently, then . . . CFR.

Your position requires you to prove a negative.  I think that will be difficult for you.

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you have a problem with the current church leaders rescinding the prohibition on coffee and tea?  

If they did so after discussion and counsel, after pondering and praying, and reaching a determination, no, I would not have a problem.  I think it would take some adjustment, but that's life.

I don't think that'll happen, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think we may have at least a partial answer here...

I work in an office where everyone around me is a zombie until her/his morning cup of coffee. This process has to be repeated mid-afternoon, or nothing gets done. When I was still at the university, it was a similar scenario but with tea throughout the day.

I suspect the God of freedom is as concerned by dependency as He is by poor health.

There was a tale of knights liberating Morris controlled Sicily and in a tower they found coffee beans, the drink of the Saracens.  Not long after the first coffee shop in the West opened in Venice.  No doubt the pope approved therefore as a cultural Christian who loves papal bling so do I, I know this to be true. 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose.  But they haven't.  And I don't think we are situated to declare that the "coffee and tea rule" is "{not} based on any revelatory precedent."  If you feel differently, then . . . CFR.

Your position requires you to prove a negative.  I think that will be difficult for you.

You're right, I can't prove this negative.  However, without evidence that it was a revelation, then my default position is different than yours, my default position is its not a revelation.  I agree with you that leaders have authority to make policy and doctrine, and they obviously have done so on this topic.  I believe they have unnecessarily done so, without revelation and without good cause.  I find fault in the way that assumptions are made about any statements made by authority figures in the past or present.  I don't accept them as good policy and doctrine just because of the title of the person that makes the statement.  My bar for revelation is higher than that.  

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If they did so after discussion and counsel, after pondering and praying, and reaching a determination, no, I would not have a problem.  I think it would take some adjustment, but that's life.

My other point is that if the original teaching was a whim that didn't involve pondering, praying, discussion and counsel, but was just a statement with little thought (this is my belief about how many church teachings came to be), why should the standard for changing these precedents require more effort than the standard for the creation of these practices in the first place?  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're right, I can't prove this negative.  However, without evidence that it was a revelation, then my default position is different than yours, my default position is its not a revelation. 

Hmm.  Why is that your default?

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you that leaders have authority to make policy and doctrine, and they obviously have done so on this topic.  I believe they have unnecessarily done so, without revelation and without good cause. 

Okay.  If I may ask, how did you reach this conclusion?  (Feel free to disregard if this is too personal.)

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I find fault in the way that assumptions are made about any statements made by authority figures in the past or present.  I don't accept them as good policy and doctrine just because of the title of the person that makes the statement.  My bar for revelation is higher than that.

What are your thoughts about discretionary decisions?  D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things...")?

"Hot drinks" has to mean something.  What do you think it means?  Why should your interpretation be privileged over Hyrum Smith's?

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My other point is that if the original teaching was a whim that didn't involve pondering, praying, discussion and counsel, but was just a statement with little thought (this is my belief about how many church teachings came to be), why should the standard for changing these precedents require more effort than the standard for the creation of these practices in the first place?  

That's a big "if."

Judgment calls have to be made by people in positions of power and authority.  All the time.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliblish]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I will admit that I have not read every post here..just page 2.  But I have a question and an observation..my opinion.  My question is:  Does the WOW still keep people out of the Temple who are otherwise worthy to attend??  I am talking coffee/tea..tobacco perhaps I can understand.  But if people are trying to keep the WOW as they are in trying to be better people in other areas of gospel principles, are they being denied Temple attendance?

My observation is that this is a silly thing to keep one from attendance..and another thing, the Saints would have never made it across those plains without some warm/hot to sustain.  To me, this is such a silly thing...especially when non coffee drinkers consume more chocolate than Carter's has pills.

I think they may be more strict today than they were 40 years ago.  When I was young back in the 1970's my grandmother drank coffee every day.  We had a coffee maker in our house just so she could use it when she visited.   I didn't think much of it at the time, but she also attended temple weddings.  The first person I heard question it was my brother in law after my sister's wedding.  Everyone in my family was just used to it but he thought it was odd that she drank coffee and went to the wedding.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

I think they may be more strict today than they were 40 years ago.  When I was young back in the 1970's my grandmother drank coffee every day.  We had a coffee maker in our house just so she could use it when she visited.   I didn't think much of it at the time, but she also attended temple weddings.  The first person I heard question it was my brother in law after my sister's wedding.  Everyone in my family was just used to it but he thought it was odd that she drank coffee and went to the wedding.

I agree...surely the Saints and generations later used coffee/tea for even medical reasons for a cold...stomachs...and just the very idea of hot porridge.

[mnn727]

Emma: "Joseph, I am getting sick and tired of cleaning up the tobacco juice for all of your friends,  and that tobacco smell...I'm not going to put up with it anymore. You Must do something"

Joseph: "Sigh"

Emma: "and furthermore, we don't have enough money to supply coffee and tea to everyone, can't they drink water?."

Joseph: "OK Emma, I'll come up with something."

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

So they used them anyway??   

Hugh Nibley told the story that when his g-grandfather crossed the plains their leader insisted everyone in the camp: man, woman, and child, were given a full cup of Arbuckle coffee to drink every morning so they had the energy to cross the plains.

Not sure that would fly today.  

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hugh Nibley told the story that when his g-grandfather crossed the plains their leader insisted everyone in the camp: man, woman, and child, were given a full cup of Arbuckle coffee to drink every morning so they had the energy to cross the plains.

Not sure that would fly today.  

When I was little, my cousin and I decided that we would make some homemade Brigham Tea...oh my...with sagebrush...I am surprised we are alive to tell the story. it was kind of like taking the indian tabacco from a stalk out in the field...rolling it up in school paper...and setting your hair on fire!!

Edited December 8, 2017 by Jeanne

[The Nehor]

I think it was on this board or one of its predecessors years ago that some poster shared a story about a relative or a friend’s relative. She was LDS and had a medical condition and went to a homeopathic quack who recommended coffee enemas and was having a pot or two a day. She insisted it was not against the Word of Wisdom because it was medicine. She insisted it did not affect her until someone secretly switched her to decaf and she had no energy but still insisted it was medicine and was okay.

The things some LDS come up with.

The best part of the story was the spin on the old coffee commercial they used: “The best part of waking up is Folgers up your Butt!”

[poptart]

Oh snap was i wrong!  The knights of st. John had a hand in coffee coming to the west! It really was will of God!  Deus Vult!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee

Edited December 8, 2017 by poptart

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, poptart said:

Oh snap was i wrong!  The knights of st. John had a hand in coffee coming to the west! It really was will of God!  Deus Vult!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee

I have to ask you Poptart....what would you do if someone said you couldn't have carrot cake???

[poptart]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I have to ask you Poptart....what would you do if someone said you couldn't have carrot cake???

Throw a fit like a girl.