- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I found the article in the August 2019 New Era magazine. However, I am a little annoyed at how it was written or the lack of an author. The “important messages” in New Era or the Ensign normally have an author listed, so is this just an opinion editorial? Or if this is coming straight from the first presidency why doesn’t it state that? My problem really comes down to watching my MIL who had been consuming these small bars that had green tea extract in them, they made her feel good and gave her a “boost” to really get her mornings going. She has given them up, sadly according to her, because of this article. But did the person who approved and wrote this article did they have the authority to do so? Do they hold the keys for this? Or does the first presidency authorize articles like this that could be based in opinion.
I am very much like the starter of this thread, no TR, doesn’t adhere to wow, and holds a calling. So there’s no judgement from me if you do or don’t partake. You do you.
I kind of think the 1st Presidency sit in a good position. They endorse the articles that go into these church magazines so church members will take them to heart.
But the 1st Presidency can claim they didn’t “write” these articles…so if later on things change…the 1st Presidency has an out.
Best of both worlds.
This topic was on my mind as I did this week’s Come Follow Me reading. On a side note, I think the Church will have only themselves to complain if those of us really embracing this new method and studying in small groups/pairs on our own (home-based church!) start finding joy in diving deep and therefore find alternative, valid, scripturaly supported, interpretations. 1 Corinthians 8:8 reads “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” There have been a few discussion already in Corinthians about similar topics. It boils down to the sentiment that certain laws and rules were put in place for the benefit of the weakest among us. I would think the WoW was set for those inclined to gluttony or addiction. Those who can resist the true sin/danger that is being defended against have the power to choose to live according to their own best interests. However, they should live in such a way as to not tempt or challenge those who do not have that ability. This then led to the question of how do I determine if I should follow the “safer” way? As a child, it is wise to start there. As an adult, I know that I am not inclined to develop a caffeine addiction. I possibly have a proclivity to drug or alcohol addiction, but I’ve not tested that other than prescriptions after surgery (and based on that have no intention to go anywhere near that.) Is it pride to look at myself then and say I don’t need to follow it? I don’t have an answer, it’s just a thought.
The metaphor I came up with is weight loss. If you aren’t needing to lose weight, but a friend is, you don’t need to watch what you eat. But especially if you know they really like food, you should be supportive and not (for example) order a really rich dessert if the two of you are going out to eat. Or if they are coming over, make something healthy to share. And then you can indulge to whatever degree is healthy for you when they aren’t around.
Heber13 wrote:
I kind of think the 1st Presidency sit in a good position.They endorse the articles that go into these church magazines so church members will take them to heart.
But the 1st Presidency can claim they didn’t “write” these articles…so if later on things change…the 1st Presidency has an out.
Best of both worlds.
In the Mormonland podcast with Elder Snow a few weeks back he made the point that the essays were read and approved by each of the Q15. He thought that should have made more clear. I think you have a good hypothesis as to why that isn’t the case.
Daughter1 wrote:
The metaphor I came up with is weight loss. If you aren’t needing to lose weight, but a friend is, you don’t need to watch what you eat. But especially if you know they really like food, you should be supportive and not (for example) order a really rich dessert if the two of you are going out to eat. Or if they are coming over, make something healthy to share. And then you can indulge to whatever degree is healthy for you when they aren’t around.
:thumbup: I like your metaphor.
The strange thing is why God would have to tell a prophet to make common sense matters a determining factor on worthiness for essential eternal ordinances, or watching your kids getting married.
You think the church could change the question to ask an individual if they have an addiction to caffeine. If so, work on that prior to baptism. If not, it’s not an issue.
I wish God would speak up on this issue. I think the leaders don’t hear anything, so they just let an old rule stay as it is.
Heber13 wrote:
I wish God would speak up on this issue. I think the leaders don’t hear anything, so they just let an old rule stay as it is.
I think this is very likely. I’m also of the opinion that they have only their own experience to guide them, so there are questions they simply don’t ask to God.
Heber13 wrote:
I wish God would speak up on this issue. I think the leaders don’t hear anything, so they just let an old rule stay as it is.
While it would be nice if the
churchspoke up clearly and reasonably, I have come to the conclusion that God doesn’t care about stuff like this. God has bigger problems. My hypothesis is that this is 100% a thing of men. Like many other irritating “practices” in our church. I was in a coffee shop this morning while I was waiting for some tire work to be completed on my car. While browsing the news on my phone, I noticed two high-school age girls sitting across the seating area from me enjoying a couple of mochas. While discussing their seminary classes. One of these could have been my daughter. I’m aware that she and her friends partake from time to time. The way this is going, any prospective change(s) to the WoW will be a reaction from church leaders due to a grass roots campaign (much as the Utah Medical Marijuana legislation was). The men leading the church are in danger of the tail wagging the dog on this one.
I appreciate all the comments on this thread. I know that this is a divisive issue. One thing I have learned to appreciate over the past few years is that we all have our unique journey. And each is valid.
I was reading something else and ran across the following in LDS Living – http://www.ldsliving.com/What-a-Prophet-Told-the-Marriotts-About-Serving-Alcohol-in-Their-Hotels/s/91496/?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campa ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ldsliving.com/What-a-Prophet-Told-the-Marriotts-About-Serving-Alcohol-in-Their-Hotels/s/91496/?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campa Quote:J.W. still agonized over this decision in discussions with Bill, who had no similar misgivings. Bill advised J.W. to consult with Church leadership, as he had in the past. This time, he would talk with 87-year-old President David O. McKay.
“As you know, Brother Marriott,” President McKay told him, “the Word of Wisdom also enjoins abstinence from the use of tobacco, except as an herb for bruises and for sick cattle. Moreover, it enjoins abstinence from the consumption of hot drinks, such as tea or coffee.”
“Yes, President, I am aware of that.”
“Well, then, I will ask you as one brother to another, suppose a sheepman, like you were, goes into a grocery store owned by a Mormon to buy supplies, and he wants cigarettes for his men. If the storekeeper says—‘Sorry, we don’t carry tobacco in any form because it’s against our religion’—why, the customer won’t come back the next time. If he wants coffee for his men and the storekeeper says—‘We disapprove of it, and we don’t want your men to drink it either’—he won’t come back again. He’ll go to the store down the street not only for his tobacco and coffee, but for everything else he needs. In the long run, this could put the storekeeper out of business, don’t you agree?”
“Yes, President, it could—very easily,” J.W. responded.
“As I see it, Brother Marriott, if you don’t satisfy your customers’ wants and needs, you could be running the same risk. If liquor today is an essential part of the service that the hotel and restaurant industry offers to its patrons, it seems to me that you’re obliged to sell it to them. To sell it to them doesn’t mean that we approve of drinking any more than to sell a gun means approval of using that gun to commit a crime.
“The patron who believes as we do is not compelled to buy liquor, nor, indeed, is anyone. But it is the patron’s life, his money, his right to decide for himself, not ours.”
President McKay cautioned J.W. against liquor sales in any family-oriented Hot Shoppes, and concluded, “It is hard sometimes to find the right path in these confusing times. But I know you will find it, and I know you will follow it.”
In answer to the Original Post question – Not always.
I was discussing with a friend about the definition of addiction (he was using the term addiction very broadly to include things that we might do as coping mechanisms and strategies like comfort eating, video games, or Netflix) and he referred me to the church manual on addiction. I was surprised to find the following:
Quote:Addictions can include the use of substances such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and drugs (both prescription and illegal), and behaviors such as gambling, codependency, viewing pornography, inappropriate sexual behavior, and disorders associated with eating. These substances and behaviors diminish a person’s ability to feel the Spirit. They harm physical and mental health and social, emotional, and spiritual well-being.
I was quite surprised that the consumption of tea was included in this definition. After some preliminary research it appears that tea can/does contain caffeine. Still, it seems strange to single it out when there are energy drinks and other substances with greater addictive power. I surmise that tea was included because of the tradition of having it as a prohibited substance from the early interpretations of the WoW but I am certainly not an expert in this arena.
Roy wrote:. These substances and behaviors diminish a person’s ability to feel the Spirit. They harm physical and mental health and social, emotional, and spiritual well-being.
Well…to be fair….many church callings fit this description of addiction.
I believe I was addicted to some of my church callings in the past and the need for a “fix” from approval of others in the ward over true spirituality.
Those addictions were worse than tea.
All things in moderation. All things. Even church responsibilities.
Roy wrote:
I was discussing with a friend about the definition of addiction (he was using the term addiction very broadly to include things that we might do as coping mechanisms and strategies like comfort eating, video games, or Netflix) and he referred me to the church manual on addiction.I was surprised to find the following:
Quote:Addictions can include the use of substances such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and drugs (both prescription and illegal), and behaviors such as gambling, codependency, viewing pornography, inappropriate sexual behavior, and disorders associated with eating. These substances and behaviors diminish a person’s ability to feel the Spirit. They harm physical and mental health and social, emotional, and spiritual well-being.
I was quite surprised that the consumption of tea was included in this definition. After some preliminary research it appears that tea can/does contain caffeine. Still, it seems strange to single it out when there are energy drinks and other substances with greater addictive power. I surmise that tea was included because of the tradition of having it as a prohibited substance from the early interpretations of the WoW but I am certainly not an expert in this arena.
I love bringing up this “problem” to my believing friends. You’re telling me that the one true church in 2020 will refuse to issue me a temple recommend and allow me to enter the temple even to view my friend’s wedding because I drank tea or had coffee that calms my anxiety, but meanwhile the rest of you can guzzle down energy drinks, McDonalds and bing watch Netflix the night before and be “qualified” to enter? They always say the lord’s ways are higher, or we don’t understand all things.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Frankly it’s shocking that in the year 2020 the church still considers consumption of tea or coffee as something that has any bearing whatsoever on people’s worthiness.
I thought that matter was settled in the New Testament like 2000 years ago. “Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man…”
But it’s long been my opinion that, in our zeal to restore the fullness of the gospel, we inadvertently restored some Old Testament stuff that was meant to go away.
nibbler wrote:
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.Frankly it’s shocking that in the year 2020 the church still considers consumption of tea or coffee as something that has any bearing whatsoever on people’s worthiness.
I thought that matter was settled in the New Testament like 2000 years ago. “Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man…”
But it’s long been my opinion that, in our zeal to restore the fullness of the gospel, we inadvertently restored some Old Testament stuff that was meant to go away.
If you convince enough people to trust in their feelings more than their minds, you can convince them to believe a lot of things. I truly believed as a former missionary, that the word of wisdom was inspired from god and that satan was using the world to challenge the truth of the commandment. I was convinced that we as members needed to stay strong during the difficult and challenging last days. I was sure that coffee and tea were invented by the devil to tempt us to stray off the straight and narrow.
Yet… a few years later and you probably wouldn’t even call me a mormon anymore. I’ve “lost” so much “faith” that one could call me “fallen”. It’s certainly not how I feel about myself, but the old me would view the current me as such.
I think as humans we strive off of rules, a leader to follow and a cause to be proud of. For mormons, it’s their prophet and commandments. If nelson did one day adjust the word of wisdom, everyone would praise him for revelation even if the adjustments were in line with science and medicine. But for now, they defend him as a prophet of god, the word of wisdom as inspired for our day and will continue to enjoy their sugary factory produced beverages because god still finds those drinks ok enough.
I have said this previously, but I do believe the principle of the Word of Wisdom (being aware of conniving people who use addiction for personal profit and then us using that wisdom properly) was and is inspired. I believe it goes WAY beyond the narrow constraints of how we have interpreted and applied it – both by ignoring other addiction gravy trains and by making it an entrance requirement into the church. I work with a LOT of people whose core problems stem from or were magnified by substance abuse – many of whom didn’t have much of a chance due to starting so young. One of the greatest blessings of my life was being raised in a family and culture that allowed me to avoid classic substance use completely – so I never had to cross a line to realize where it was and, perhaps, not be able to cross back. There is an extremely fine line between many people we see as “addicts” and many “normal people” who actually have serious addictions. There is a fine line between those who are jailed for substance abuse and many who are not. “Adapted to the weakest of the weak” is an amazing concept when you see the impact daily on the weakest of the weak when it comes to substance use.
Seriously, I see the blessing every day with so many of the people with whom I work. It is heartbreaking.
Giving up some things I don’t need (truly don’t need) to avoid potential dire consequences AND provide a safe community for others who are prone to addiction is not a sacrifice to me – but, if it was, it would be one I am willing to make.
I have issues with the way we have interpreted and applied the WofW, but I have come to love and honor the core principle in it.
Old-Timer wrote:
I have said this previously, but I do believe the principle of the Word of Wisdom (being aware of conniving people who use addiction for personal profit and then us using that wisdom properly) was and is inspired. I believe it goes WAY beyond the narrow constraints of how we have interpreted and applied it – both by ignoring other addiction gravy trains and by making it an entrance requirement into the church.I work with a LOT of people whose core problems stem from or were magnified by substance abuse – many of whom didn’t have much of a chance due to starting so young. One of the greatest blessings of my life was being raised in a family and culture that allowed me to avoid classic substance use completely – so I never had to cross a line to realize where it was and, perhaps, not be able to cross back. There is an extremely fine line between many people we see as “addicts” and many “normal people” who actually have serious addictions. There is a fine line between those who are jailed for substance abuse and many who are not. “Adapted to the weakest of the weak” is an amazing concept when you see the impact daily on the weakest of the weak when it comes to substance use.
Seriously, I see the blessing every day with so many of the people with whom I work. It is heartbreaking.
Giving up some things I don’t need (truly don’t need) to avoid potential dire consequences AND provide a safe community for others who are prone to addiction is not a sacrifice to me – but, if it was, it would be one I am willing to make.
I have issues with the way we have interpreted and applied the WofW, but I have come to love and honor the core principle in it.
I’m with you. the principle is genius. It’s smart. It’s responsible. It’s the interpretation and thus excuse to police others over silly things like coffee and tea vs energy drink and donuts that makes it look bad. Essentially, the word of wisdom’s principle gets overshadowed by cultural interpretation and thus justification for abuse and neglect toward others over choices.
I grew up with my dad teaching me how the word of wisdom was NOT about coffee and tea but about medicine, addiction and caring for our bodies. If this was the main teaching point at church and conference, then I’d give the church much more respect. It’s actually critical to realize how addictive things can be for our bodies, how overdependent we can be over substances and how easily we can forget how miraculous our bodies are.
So yeah, you’re right. Take away the policing cultures and the word of wisdom has a lot of wisdom. Enough to justify as pseudo-commandment to prohibit membership into temple? Maybe not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.