Energy drinks

I’m for the decriminalization of cannabis but for its inclusion in the WoW.

I’m for the decriminalization of cannabis but for its inclusion in the WoW.

I am also in favor of legalization of marijuana, but I don’t see the leadership making any changes to the WoW nor do I feel they are inclined to do so. It is also not our place to add to the WoW. We are welcome to our own opinions on anything health related, and I do believe caffeine is addictive and can be harmful in large quantities. I do not use energy drinks, and while I do limit my caffeine intake I am by no means caffeine free. However, those are my opinions that I do for my own health in the same way I try to limit salt intake. Salt is also not mentioned in the WoW, but it certainly can affect the health of some people. Just because I limit my caffeine and salt intake does not make it a commandment, and there is no justification for “anything bad for you falls under the WoW” – it doesn’t say that anywhere in the WoW. I’m sure anyone who has been a member of the church for a few years has heard a justification similar to that, and if you’ve been a member long enough it’s likely you’ve heard about processed sugar and bleached flour with intimations that these things may be violations of the WoW when in reality they are personal decisions. I recently mentioned Elder Cook’s quote to a very orthodox friend who eschews caffeine but I did not mention caffeine, I just asked him what he thought of the quote (we talked about preppers too). His take on the quote was that it was directed at vegans who try to posit that not eating meat is in the WoW. Different example, same principle. Have your opinion, share it as appropriate, do the things that you think are good for you and avoid those you think are bad – but don’t try to make it look like your decisions are God’s will for everyone.

I want to revisit a portion of Cook’s quote:

[take] a position that is beyond or contrary to the teachings of Church leaders

Right after that he gives the example of the WoW and specifically says “advocates” which to me means something completely different than “taking a position,” I can take a position but not advocate for it.

I remember that quote from the most recent general conference. I remember not liking it very much. Where does personal revelation fit into the picture? Does this mean that all personal revelations must be vetted against what a leader says? Or maybe only in cases where you might be tempted to teach a personal revelation? The hair on my neck is standing up, almost as if two lines of communication is looking at me from behind some bushes. It’s nothing new though, this Coke/WoW thing has been discussed for almost 100 years now. Seriously. By now everyone already knows the answer, it’s just a mental exercise/teaching device used to remind everyone of who is in charge.

I get it though, if everyone is out there giving their personal revelations on everything there’s no order or doctrinal purity. There’s no church… under one definition of the word.

It’s still a problematic quote for me. I don’t think the idea that “Coke is against the word of wisdom” took root because Brother Insistent said so during Sunday school, I think it came about because at some point a church leader said something. All it takes is one GA giving a talk at stake conference about how they don’t drink Coke (they can even do what SWK did and preface it with a “this is not a part of the WoW, just something that I decided to do… and I hope no one does”) and suddenly “no Coke” is the path to a more righteous life and people can cite authority.

The label “church leaders” may be a little too nebulous; after all, a bishop is a church leader. Perhaps with the example of the WoW he would have been better off citing a policy as the gold standard because what a church leader says can vary from Sunday to Sunday and from leader to leader. Here’s the church policy:

21.3.11 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.

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

Emphasis added. So… no Coke then? I kid but that’s usually what people cite when they explain why they don’t drink soft drinks.

I like the wording of the policy, since “addictive” and “habit-forming mean different things to different people.

Seriously, I have a friend who quit cigarettes. It was hard, but he did it. He never could quit coffee. Trying to quit gave him migraines. I also have had friends who drank at least 12 caffenated sofas per day. Seriously unhealthy.

I wish the “hot drinks” had remipained undefined, as well – and I’m sure it got defined because enough people didn’t want to exercise their own agency and demanded one true answer.

This is a good case of the spirit of the law being enough to let each person be an agent unto herself.

I realize I get on the soapbox with this kind of stuff and I’m sorry if I have offended anyone. I just think that some members too often try to make everything a commandment as the basis for doing or not doing something. In reality I believe there are few commandments and we’re mostly allowed to act for ourselves without having to fear condemnation at the last day. Addictive drugs like heroin are bad for you. I have figured that out for myself, I don’t need to to be commanded not to do heroin or to teach my children it’s bad for you. I’m fine with there being church policies on addictive drugs, partly because I’m not sure we should go around baptizing addicts (that I’d probably get assigned to home teach). Policies and commandments are not the same. So, just because something is not in the WoW doesn’t mean it might not be bad for us but it doesn’t need to be in there for us to figure that out and we don’t need to say it is because the WoW is actually pretty specific.

All that said, while I don’t advocate for change in the WoW I do wish the Q15 had the gumption to do it.

Oh, and hot drinks – there was a common belief at the time that very hot stuff was bad for people to eat which at least partly accounts for that line. I even remember my uneducated grandfather talking about it. Modern research actually confirms the idea that very hot stuff is bad. My personal belief about tea and coffee specifically is that Brigham Young was concerned about the cost of importing tea and coffee to Zion, especially in light of the increasing British population.

One other side note. One of my missionary son’s many many mission specific rules is no caffeinated soft drinks.

My mission president specifically had Coke and Pepsi available with our lunches at Zone conferences to make the point that they weren’t forbidden in the WoW. He didn’t want us teaching it especially. That was back in the early 80’s before energy drinks were even thought of.

I’ve heard that Yerba Mate, a popular hot drink in South American containing caffeine, isn’t off limits for members of the church. I know a few RM’s who continue to drink it when they get home.

I decided a long time ago that anything in excess wasn’t good for me. Soft drinks have always made me feel bloated, so I avoid them. I’ll have an occasional Coke to help keep me awake on long drives. Chocolate is my vice, especially dark chocolate!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I realize I get on the soapbox with this kind of stuff and I’m sorry if I have offended anyone. I just think that some members too often try to make everything a commandment as the basis for doing or not doing something. In reality I believe there are few commandments and we’re mostly allowed to act for ourselves without having to fear condemnation at the last day. Addictive drugs like heroin are bad for you. I have figured that out for myself, I don’t need to to be commanded not to do heroin or to teach my children it’s bad for you. I’m fine with there being church policies on addictive drugs, partly because I’m not sure we should go around baptizing addicts (that I’d probably get assigned to home teach). Policies and commandments are not the same. So, just because something is not in the WoW doesn’t mean it might not be bad for us but it doesn’t need to be in there for us to figure that out and we don’t need to say it is because the WoW is actually pretty specific.

I agree with this. I had a good friend in middle school that was experimenting with smoking joints of household herbs like basil and oregano. He seemed surprised when I told him that smoke was bad for him even if it didn’t have any tobacco. There seems to be an idea that as long as we are obeying commandments – then we are fine and do not need to apply much personal judgment or situational ethics.

One other side note. One of my missionary son’s many many mission specific rules is no caffeinated soft drinks.

In my mission Caffeinated soft drinks were against one of the unwritten (but taught and peer enforced) rules. Then we got a new mission president and that rule went away. The new president acted as though that rule never even really existed. The story goes that one of the AP’s asked for clarification on how to handle a missionary that was secretly drinking Coke and the MP responded to do nothing as no such rule exists. This spread throughout the mission and there were no problems. Nobody ran out and drank themselves into a caffeine induced coma. The rules Nazis just shifted their stance a bit (let this one thing go) and went on harping on all the other stuff detailed in the white handbook.

In my other son’s mission there was also not a rule, and the MP openly drank Diet Coke and had it at leadership council meetings. In some parts of that mission drinking water was ill advised and the other choices were soda (which almost always meant Coke) or fruit juices which members did not normally readily have on hand (partly because of cost). They also drank mate, as did the MP. My son did bring some mate home and does drink it.