The prophet and coffee

Not strictly what you’re asking for, but this is an “official” statement from the church.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-word-of-wisdom-august-2019” class=”bbcode_url”>https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-word-of-wisdom-august-2019

There’s also section 38.7.14 in the handbook:

Word of Wisdom and Healthy Practices

The Word of Wisdom is a commandment of God. He revealed it for the physical and spiritual benefit of His children. Prophets have clarified that the teachings in Doctrine and Covenants 89 include abstinence from tobacco, strong drinks (alcohol), and hot drinks (tea and coffee).

Neither is the words “don’t drink coffee” coming out of Nelson’s mouth while acting in the capacity of president of the church, but things labeled official communications and information in the handbook might as well be. I’d think Nelson would take issue if those didn’t represent his thoughts on the matter.

Digging is difficult because the ban on coffee is just understood, not many feel the need be explicit, but I did find the following talk from Nelson during the October 1988 general conference:

http://churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1988/10/addiction-or-freedom?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>http://churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1988/10/addiction-or-freedom?lang=eng

His Word of Wisdom includes sound nutritional guidance and simple instructions. We are not to drink alcoholic beverages. (See D&C 89:5–7.) We are not to use tobacco. (See D&C 89:8.) We are not to drink tea or coffee. (See D&C 89:9.) And in this same spirit, we are not to use addicting drugs.

Yes, that quote is dated, but nothing has changed in the interpretation of the WoW since that talk was given.

I don’t drink either tea or coffee (and have no plans to) but I think the church’s policy on coffee and tea is a ridiculous stake to put in the ground. I think with time more and more members will just ignore parts of the WoW and not care, eventually forcing a change once it reaches critical mass.

I wouldn’t worry about what people on either side of the debate say, you do you. There’s always going to be that person that berates others for not following the prophet… and chances are they’ve justified not following the prophet when it suited them on some other subject.

Neither is the words “don’t drink coffee” coming out of Nelson’s mouth while acting in the capacity of president of the church, but things labeled official communications and information in the handbook might as well be. I’d think Nelson would take issue if those didn’t represent his thoughts on the matter.

Very true, and if ever discussing the subject with someone, a “Well technically…” isn’t going to fly since it is just generally understood as doctrine, as you said. Not that I have any interest in having such a discussion; no minds would change on either side. For many, the spirit of the WoW isn’t health, but obedience. Something that I think departs from the original point of the WoW, but they can do them and I’ll do me. I was really more interested as an exercise of intellectual honesty for myself. If something that was originally stated to not be a commandment is being treated as one, then I like to have my logical ducks in a row when breaking from the current practice of said “commandment”. And thanks for finding those sources.

I recently ran across the following quote from Brigham Young:

The Lord gave me strength to lay aside tobacco, and it is very rarely indeed that I taste tea or coffee; yet I have no objection to aged persons, when they are fatigued and feel infirm, taking a little stimulus that will do them good. It is wrong to use narcotics, for the nervous system is destroyed or injured thereby; but we should maintain a healthy action of all the powers of the body, which should be devoted to the service of our Father and God in building up His kingdom on the earth.

JD 11:140-141, Brigham Young, October 9, 1865.

That’s a fascinating quote, and not one that I’ve heard before. It’s interesting the number of things said and done during Brigham Young’s time that are so different from the church today. But then that was a century and a half ago; lots of time for the cultural and political tides to change.

When I was a missionary, it was expected from our investigators to completely quit the use of tobacco & alcohol before they could be baptized.

I always wondered why don’t we ask for a commitment to quit over time? Changing a habit is difficult to do. When you can’t do it immediately,

you will, a lot of times say, what is the use? I tried to quit immediately & relapsed & feel guilty. I don’t measure up to the LDS “standard” & never will.

That reminds me of a lady on my mission who had those same struggles. It was the issue of smoking for her. She was emotionally run through the dirt from the constant pressure put on her by us missionaries to get baptized. Which she genuinely wanted to, but could never get there because she couldn’t kick the smoking habit. I imagine every missionary has at least one person like that on their mission. As nibbler said, it’s a ridiculous stake to put in the ground, and especially so for a baptismal requirement. If the excuse for the WoW originally not being a commandment was so that currently addicted people wouldn’t have to beat an ingrained addiction to keep a new commandment, then wouldn’t logic follow that we apply the same principle to addicted converts?

My doctor told me to only drink coffee, unsweetened tea, or water (rather than sugary drinks). If the WoW was intended for health benefits then the coffee and tea parts do not seem to be helping.

I see it mostly as a cultural marker now, a way to divide the in group from the out group.

My uninformed guess is that the GAs know about all this variability and probably recognize it’s not necessarily the most important of all commandments but don’t want to risk alienating conservative members by loosening up the standards but also don’t want to alienate more progressive members with strong statements. So it’s a hill they don’t want to die on. My guess is that alcohol and tobacco (and related products) will always be forbidden but there will be a slow gradual evolution towards looking the other way when members drink coffee or tea. Maybe. We’ll see.

That’s something I hadn’t thought about, but there might be some truth to that. Back in 2019 when a clarification was published in the New Era about vaping, coffee tea, etc. the article didn’t have any GAs list as the author. I did also hear that someone from the publishers said that was an oversight or something, but still. It also doesn’t help that the standards of what the WoW encompasses varies at the local level. A past stake president of mine once said in stake conference he would not give anyone who drank coke a temple recommend and yet coke is served in some temple cafeterias. In places where marijuana is legal like Colorado, I’ve heard of people getting TRs while still being open casual smokers. But, cross the border into Utah and good luck with that.

My doctor told me to only drink coffee, unsweetened tea, or water (rather than sugary drinks). If the WoW was intended for health benefits then the coffee and tea parts do not seem to be helping.

I see it mostly as a cultural marker now, a way to divide the in group from the out group.

Tea is definitely something that IMO the church shouldn’t have gone so hard on. It is probably their biggest divergence from reality. Take Japan and green tea for example. How anyone can say that something guzzled by the healthiest and longest lived country in the world is an unhealthy drink, with a straight face, is beyond me.

Another thing I find funny about it being about health, is that it’s good for your health until your doctor tells you otherwise. My mother-in-law for example, had a glass of wine at night suggested to her by her doctor for headaches. Since is was for “medicinal purposes”, her bishop said it was okay. Do any other commandments get a hall pass from professionals? Say hypothetically, a marriage counselor suggested that a couple try swinging. Would that exempt them from the law of chastity?

Another thing I find funny about it being about health, is that it’s good for your health until your doctor tells you otherwise. My mother-in-law for example, had a glass of wine at night suggested to her by her doctor for headaches. Since is was for “medicinal purposes”, her bishop said it was okay. Do any other commandments get a hall pass from professionals? Say hypothetically, a marriage counselor suggested that a couple try swinging. Would that exempt them from the law of chastity?

Totally down to leadership roulette. Where that particular gun has two bullets instead of one (BP and SP interviews).

It’s a hypothetical, but you’d have to find a marriage counselor that would suggest such a thing and you’d have to find a BP and a SP that respected the counsel of a marriage counselor that would suggest such a thing. I doubt those stars ever align.

Wrong or right, I think people place more faith in medical professionals’ recommendations than they do in psychologist/therapists’ recommendations. The rules of if > then typically have a better track record in the physical sphere (set a broken leg this way, it heals) than they do in the mental sphere (too many unknown variables).

I recently ran across the following quote from Brigham Young:

The Lord gave me strength to lay aside tobacco, and it is very rarely indeed that I taste tea or coffee; yet I have no objection to aged persons, when they are fatigued and feel infirm, taking a little stimulus that will do them good. It is wrong to use narcotics, for the nervous system is destroyed or injured thereby; but we should maintain a healthy action of all the powers of the body, which should be devoted to the service of our Father and God in building up His kingdom on the earth.

JD 11:140-141, Brigham Young, October 9, 1865.

When I was a missionary, it was expected from our investigators to completely quit the use of tobacco & alcohol before they could be baptized.

I always wondered why don’t we ask for a commitment to quit over time? Changing a habit is difficult to do. When you can’t do it immediately,

you will, a lot of times say, what is the use? I tried to quit immediately & relapsed & feel guilty. I don’t measure up to the LDS “standard” & never will.

Going back to this idea.

Which is preferable, having someone that struggles to live the WoW join the church and even receive temple blessings but the WoW isn’t treated like a big deal. Maybe their children even struggle to live the WoW but they too are baptized and enjoy the blessings of the temple. Their grandchildren are able to live the WoW and their posterity lives the WoW from that point forward.

Compared to today’s model where the person that struggles to live the WoW is never allowed to join the church, their children don’t know a thing about the church because they never got exposure, their grandchildren don’t know about the church either, and their grandchildren subsequently don’t follow the WoW.

On the one hand there are three generations of people that enjoy the blessings of church membership and one of those generations lives the WoW. On the other hand there are three generations of people that never know membership in the church and none of them live the WoW.

And it’s all down to gating fellowship via policy.

By that I meant that under current policy, a failure to adhere to the WoW serves as a barrier for people to join the church and for members to go to the temple.

My previous post was a mental exercise. What if the policy was different? What if people could join the church and attend the temple without being strictly compliant with the WoW?

In the case of someone that can’t quit drinking coffee that wants to join the church, if the policy was changed that person could join the church and derive whatever benefits we believe people derive from being members of the church. Under current policies that person can’t join the church and they would be deprived of whatever benefits we believe people derive from being members of the church.

In the case of a member that can’t quit drinking coffee that wants to attend the temple, if the policy was changed that person could attend the temple and derive whatever benefits we believe people derive from attending the temple. Under current policies that person can’t attend the temple and they would be deprived of whatever benefits we believe people derive from attending the temple.

My own personal opinion is that drinking coffee or tea has no bearing on someone’s ability to follow Christ. Christ himself is attributed as saying, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” I don’t understand why drinking an occasional cup of coffee or even an hourly cup of coffee should deprive someone of access to ordinances that we believe are required for salvation.

Christ himself drank wine. When we’re teaching someone about baptism we often go to 2 Nephi 31 to say that if Christ was perfect and baptism was good enough for Christ, it’s good enough for us. If Christ drank wine…

If the goal is to get incrementally better, line upon line, precept upon precept, preventing people from joining the church or preventing members from attending the temple serves as a barrier for them to take that initial step.

In my previous post I talked about the current policy’s impact on generations of people. Line upon line, generation upon generation. Change the policy. Let the habitual coffee drinker join the church. Their kids become members and maybe the kids drink a little coffee but with the changed policy they don’t feel like second class saints and stay. The children’s children (grandchildren of the person that was originally allowed to join the church) are 100% compliant with the WoW, they had a generational foundation.

It’s the same reason given for easing the saints into the WoW when it was first introduced. People have habits, don’t block them from things that will help them, and maybe in time, even generations, their family line will have become free of the habit. We extended early saints that grace. We don’t extend that grace anymore.

What is the difference between a member of the church with a coffee drinking habit in 1835 that was given 100 years to kick the habit (generational shift) and a person with a coffee drinking habit that wants to join the church in 2022? Why isn’t the person that wants to join the church in the year 2022 allowed to join and why aren’t they given a 100 year grace period (generational shift) to kick the habit?

Why don’t we extend grace to more people in more ways? It feels like something Christ would have done. Under current policy the temple is a carrot on a stick to incentivize people to obey the WoW but under new policy the temple could serve as a testament of grace.