Coffee an Tea

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Here is a quote from a general conference talk by an Apostle.

“We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks - tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa and all drinks of this kind are not good for man.… We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious.” (George Q. Cannon, General Conference, April 7, 1868, Journal of Discourses, vol.12)

So maybe it is more than just coffee and tea.  No hot chocolate or soup? Which apostle do we follow?  It seems like they all have their own opinions.  

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Here is a quote from a general conference talk by an Apostle.

“We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks - tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa and all drinks of this kind are not good for man.… We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious.” (George Q. Cannon, General Conference, April 7, 1868, Journal of Discourses, vol.12)

So maybe it is more than just coffee and tea.  No hot chocolate or soup? Which apostle do we follow?  It seems like they all have their own opinions.  

As a non member with a pot of hot homemade soup on the stove..I have to tell you..I am a happy camper...cold outside!!

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

As a non member with a pot of hot homemade soup on the stove..I have to tell you..I am a happy camper...cold outside!!

You're fine if you don't drink the soup, just slurp it, that's safe.  :-)

One of the David O. McKay quotes I liked best from Greg Prince's biography on him was this:

Quote

At a reception McKay attended, the hostess served rum cake.  “All the guests hesitated, watching to see what McKay would do.  He smacked his lips and began to eat.”  When one guest expostulated, “‘But President McKay, don’t you know that is rum cake?’  McKay smiled and reminded the guest that the Word of Wisdom forbade drinking alcohol, not eating it.”

 

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Here is a quote from a general conference talk by an Apostle.

“We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks - tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa and all drinks of this kind are not good for man.… We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious.” (George Q. Cannon, General Conference, April 7, 1868, Journal of Discourses, vol.12)

So maybe it is more than just coffee and tea.  No hot chocolate or soup? Which apostle do we follow?  It seems like they all have their own opinions.  

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

ksfisher..if not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present constitutes doctrine..don't keep them out of the Temple because of it..for heaven's sakes...literally.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Jeanne

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

ksfisher..if not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present constitutes doctrine..don't keep them out of the Temple because of it..for heaven's sakes...literally.

What are you referring to?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What are you referring to?

Your quote to Sunstoned about tea, coffee..chocolates..etc. If prophets/apostles speak and it is not doctrine...is the church sometimes penalizing its members?

Edited December 8, 2017 by Jeanne

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Your quote to Sunstoned about tea, coffee..chocolates..etc. 

I'm not sure what you're understanding is from that.  What are you saying shouldn't keep members from receiving a temple recommend? 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure what you're understanding is from that.  What are you saying shouldn't keep members from receiving a temple recommend? 

I am just wondering if those Temple recommend questions are really doctrinal..at least the WOW one.   Are members not getting Temple recommends because of the WOW when it is not even clear if it is doctrinal??? 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am just wondering if those Temple recommend questions are really doctrinal..at least the WOW one.   Are members not getting Temple recommends because of the WOW when it is not even clear if it is doctrinal??? 

The temple recommend questions come from the First Presidency.  Church doctrine is defined by the First Presidency.

The First Presidency's statement on hot drinks is as follows:

Word of Wisdom The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#213

This seems clear.

 

The President of the Church hold all priesthood keys, including the keys to temple work.  He has the right, as well as the burden, of determining what standards members should be living  to gain entrance to that sacred space.  He is accountable.  In this duty he is assisted by his counselors, the apostles, as well as other general and local leaders of the church.  All these leaders have the right to and receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in carrying out this duty.

Edited December 8, 2017 by ksfisher

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The temple recommend questions come from the First Presidency.  Church doctrine is defined by the First Presidency.
The First Presidency's statement on hot drinks is as follows:

Word of Wisdom The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#213

This seems clear.
The President of the Church hold all priesthood keys, including the keys to temple work.  He has the right, as well as the burden, of determining what standards members should be living  to gain entrance to that sacred space.  He is accountable.  In this duty he is assisted by his counselors, the apostles, as well as other general and local leaders of the church.  All these leaders have the right to and receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in carrying out this duty.

IMO in this case it is obedience to their priesthood head that is the test, not obedience to the scriptural Word of Wisdom.
And if someone shows they don't sustain their priesthood leaders by deliberately flouting their instruction receipt of a recommend would seem improper.
I don't think it is the partaking of tea and coffee that is the issue, it is the refusing to follow the instruction of the prophet.

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

IMO in this case it is obedience to their priesthood head that is the test, not obedience to the scriptural Word of Wisdom.
And if someone shows they don't sustain their priesthood leaders by deliberately flouting their instruction receipt of a recommend would seem improper.
I don't think it is the partaking of tea and coffee that is the issue, it is the refusing to follow the instruction of the prophet.

I also think it's something akin to some of the Jewish practices.  It's something that sets us apart from the rest of the world and helps remind us who we are.

And it could be that, many years down the road from now, science may figure out that Joseph Smith really did know what he was talking about.

[mrmarklin]

On 12/6/2017 at 2:02 PM, Rivers said:

I can understand why tobacco is outlawed in the Word of Wisdom.  It also makes sense that alcohol is in there considering all the negative effects of alcoholism. But why tea and coffee?  Is there any good scientific literature out there that supports the declaration that tea and coffee is “not good?”

Recent research indicates that coffee and tea, in moderation are good for one!

Two months ago in Consumer Reports they claimed that coffee was a good thing.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, ksfisher said:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

I agree that not every statement made by a church leader constitutes doctrine. In fact that was the point I was trying to make.  We have several conflicting statements about the WoW.  So where is the revelation that changed the original revelation from "not by commandment" to a commandment?   

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

As a non member with a pot of hot homemade soup on the stove..I have to tell you..I am a happy camper...cold outside!!

I feel the same way about a nice cup of tea!

[poptart]

On 12/8/2017 at 11:46 AM, ksfisher said:

The temple recommend questions come from the First Presidency.  Church doctrine is defined by the First Presidency.

The First Presidency's statement on hot drinks is as follows:

Word of Wisdom The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#213

This seems clear.

 

The President of the Church hold all priesthood keys, including the keys to temple work.  He has the right, as well as the burden, of determining what standards members should be living  to gain entrance to that sacred space.  He is accountable.  In this duty he is assisted by his counselors, the apostles, as well as other general and local leaders of the church.  All these leaders have the right to and receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit in carrying out this duty.

So in other words the the line or risk your church membershi and/or recommend?  Could always lie, knew people who did.  Annoyed me seeing people who would convert for the welfare benefits then lie for the temple recommend.  Never been one to believe in prophets nor faith as the LDS do but geez I have limits.  

Edited December 10, 2017 by poptart

[Jane_Doe]

29 minutes ago, poptart said:

So in other words the the line or risk your church membershi and/or recommend?  

When a person is baptized, they promise God that they are not going to drink coffee or tea.  Now, if they betray that promise to God, they're in no way going to get kicked out of church (aka your church membership isn't at risk at all).  Rather, we're going to try to encourage you to strengthen your relationship with God and hopefully one day be true to the promise you made Him.  While a person is working on that basic thing though, it is illogical for them go and make deeper promises to God, hence a  going to the temple.  

29 minutes ago, poptart said:

 Could always lie, knew people who did.  Annoyed me seeing people who would convert for the welfare benefits then lie for the temple recommend.  

Yep, some people do do that.  Such is their sin, their betraying promises to the Lord, and lying about it rather than seeking the help they desperately need.

[poptart]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

When a person is baptized, they promise God that they are not going to drink coffee or tea.  Now, if they betray that promise to God, they're in no way going to get kicked out of church (aka your church membership isn't at risk at all).  Rather, we're going to try to encourage you to strengthen your relationship with God and hopefully one day be true to the promise you made Him.  While a person is working on that basic thing though, it is illogical for them go and make deeper promises to God, hence a  going to the temple.  

Yep, some people do do that.  Such is their sin, their betraying promises to the Lord, and lying about it rather than seeking the help they desperately need.

Seems weird but then again people pity jews for not being allowed to eat bacon.  Then again, deep down i don't believe in the god you do.  Funny, deep down I really don't believe in much of anything.

That and emptying the church pocketbooks for those who really need it.

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, poptart said:

Seems weird but then again people pity jews for not being allowed to eat bacon.  Then again, deep down i don't believe in the god you do.  Funny, deep down I really don't believe in much of anything.

Do you believe that a person should keep their promises?

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Do you believe that a person should keep their promises?

Sure, which is why i'm very leary, most don't. 

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, poptart said:

Sure, which is why i'm very leary, most don't. 

So do LDS folks (even if many frequently fall short).  So what part of this below doesn't make sense (I highlighted the parts about making promises because that's the big thing here.  It's not really about coffee/tea, but about keeping promises)--

When a person is baptized, they promise God that they are not going to drink coffee or tea.  Now, if they betray that promise to God, they're in no way going to get kicked out of church (aka your church membership isn't at risk at all).  Rather, we're going to try to encourage you to strengthen your relationship with God and hopefully one day be true to the promise you made Him.  While a person is working on that basic thing though, it is illogical for them go and make deeper promises to God, hence not going to the temple.  

[poptart]

19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So do LDS folks (even if many frequently fall short).  So what part of this below doesn't make sense (I highlighted the parts about making promises because that's the big thing here.  It's not really about coffee/tea, but about keeping promises)--

When a person is baptized, they promise God that they are not going to drink coffee or tea.  Now, if they betray that promise to God, they're in no way going to get kicked out of church (aka your church membership isn't at risk at all).  Rather, we're going to try to encourage you to strengthen your relationship with God and hopefully one day be true to the promise you made Him.  While a person is working on that basic thing though, it is illogical for them go and make deeper promises to God, hence not going to the temple.  

I keep forgetting, the LDS make promises to diety upon joining.  I guess something like promising not to drink coffee seems dumb and I'd personally never make the promise to begin with.  I knew those who did and had their rent paid for it.  That however is something I will admit has a benefit, it gives the religion teeth.  I've heard of people not being able to do business/get hired in Zion due to not having a temple recommend.  Look at the Catholic church, among Anglo americans it has lost a lot of its teeth due to excommunication not having the punch it used to.

 

I think when it comes down to it my own beliefs dont involve making covenants with some higher power, you have enough rope to hang yourself with.

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by poptart

[Jane_Doe]

23 minutes ago, poptart said:

I keep forgetting, the LDS make promises to diety upon joining. 

Yep.

23 minutes ago, poptart said:

 I guess something like promising not to drink coffee seems dumb and I'd personally never make the promise to begin with.

That's your choice, of course.

23 minutes ago, poptart said:

  I knew those who did and had their rent paid for it. 

Poptart, when you phrase things this way it sounds like all you view "faith = cash cow, and nothing more".  If you do indeed view it that way, that's your choice.  But vast majority of people of faith (LDS or not) view "faith = love, loyalty, and hope".  It's not about the money.

23 minutes ago, poptart said:

I think when it comes down to it my own beliefs dont involve making covenants with some higher power, you have enough rope to hang yourself with.

Promises to God are for the express purpose of getting a person off their own hangman's rope.  

 

 

[poptart]

Hasn't religion always been atleast partially about control?  The church really came into its own when all other forms of power colapsed.  In times of crises its usually the church that steps in and does something.  TBH, yeah for the most part religion does seem about money, i know a lot of people who go to church mostly for a secure community of people that they can hopefully do business with.  I find it funny that someone who claims religion has no qualms with screwing someone outside of his group.  This has been my experience anyway. 

Does it work though?

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, poptart said:

Hasn't religion always been atleast partially about control?  The church really came into its own when all other forms of power colapsed.  In times of crises its usually the church that steps in and does something.  TBH, yeah for the most part religion does seem about money, i know a lot of people who go to church mostly for a secure community of people that they can hopefully do business with.  I find it funny that someone who claims religion has no qualms with screwing someone outside of his group.  This has been my experience anyway. 

(warning: incoming bluntness)

None of those people you are describing actually have a lick of faith.  Where their tail rest Sunday morning is irrelevant.  

Do you know anyone who ACTUALLY has faith?