Word of Wisdom??

[Anonymous]

Ok now I have actually read through a few wikipedia articles I am less confused! Accept my head is still spinning lol 😆

Apparently other than the USA, it is illegal to use the word tea for anything other than that of Camellia sinensis plant. I looked on my redbush box (yes I do mean roobios) and indeed it doesn’t have the word “tea” on!

Thanks for the explanation!

[Anonymous]

Rooibos with peppermint = yum. A nice relaxing beverage at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

I also think trying to calcify it into an eternal law is destructive. Religious dietary restrictions change over time; there’s no reason to make the WofW and exception to that rule. I am opposed adamantly to taking it to extremes (like no caffeinated drinks, period), since the logical absurdities rise quickly, but I have no problem modifying things over time. The whole concept of on-going revelation adaptable to specific times is much stronger for me than “creedal calcification”.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

I have a personal issue with the coffee, tea and caffeine stance in our current interpretation of the WofW. Because I was raised to believe coffee and tea have some intrinsic evil quality, I avoided them in my youth. Instead, I drank enormous amounts of caffeinated sodas over a long period of time (20 years or so). The 1 calendar year I spent at BYU, I drank over 125 gallons of Mountain Dew. I added it up once. Me and my pals would go 2 or 3 times a day across the street for a $0.25 refill at the convenience store. It was cheap, and I was a poor college student. My point is that I was going to consume caffeine, but instead of drinking a small amount of coffee, I drank a larger amount of soda that had seriously unhealthy amounts of refined sugar in them. Coffee was “evil,” but soda pop was “permitted.” 20 years later, I feel like my health was damaged because of my “obedience” to our specific interpretation over that period of time. Coffee would have been a lot less damaging.

I know. I know. The first thing people are going to say is “well you were addicted to caffeine, that was the problem.” I don’t deny that. The WofW didn’t help protect me from addiction though. It helped me choose a much less healthy delivery system for my drug of choice.

Holy mackerel. Facebook like this!!

Per Heber, I’m bumping this thread as I thought there was a lot of good stuff in it.

I’m not overweight, but I put on 10-15 lbs. in a short period of time due to the massive amounts of Mountain Dew Code Red I drank just to function at work (web/automation development). I was beginning to feel really unhealthy, had to get my suit pants let out, etc. Started drinking coffee and drank more water as a result and lost all the weight in about a month and started feeling good again. So I’m no longer drinking it, but yeah, I do seem to be taking exception to that part of the WoW (but the drugs, tobacco and alcohol parts totally make sense to me).

I too realize that I’m addicted to caffeine, but like Brian said, the WoW didn’t help me with that. The Church could take a strong stance on caffeinated sodas or relax the stance on coffee/tea, but chooses not to. Why??? Are they JUST keeping the coffee/tea thing going because it’s part of the Mormon identity now?

Is anyone out there a coffee/tea drinker AND a TR holder? I’m sure that would depend on the bishop’s POV on the WoW, but I really can’t imagine how one could be open about drinking coffee while holding a TR.

[Anonymous]

Make it iced coffee, and you can say honestly that you don’t drink “hot drinks”. 😆 (kind of like Pres. McKay eating rum cake because the WofW says nothing about eating alcohol)

The temple recommend question means one thing to most members, but it asks if you obey the Word of Wisdom – and the Word of Wisdom itself says “hot drinks”. Like pretty much everything else, I see this as up to the person being interviewed to answer according to the dictates of their own conscience – so, for me, I don’t drink coffee or tea. However, I know people who drink decaffeinated coffee and hold a temple recommend – and others who drink various teas and hold a temple recommend. In the end, they answer “Yes” to the question and don’t explain what they mean by that answer. In this case, “to each his/her own”.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

… the Word of Wisdom itself says “hot drinks”

Section 89 of the D&C says “hot drinks”. The WoW they are asking about in the TR interview, while related to section 89, is not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Make it iced coffee, and you can say honestly that you don’t drink “hot drinks”. 😆 (kind of like Pres. McKay eating rum cake because the WofW says nothing about eating alcohol)

The temple recommend question means one thing to most members, but it asks if you obey the Word of Wisdom – and the Word of Wisdom itself says “hot drinks”. Like pretty much everything else, I see this as up to the person being interviewed to answer according to the dictates of their own conscience – so, for me, I don’t drink coffee or tea. However, I know people who drink decaffeinated coffee and hold a temple recommend – and others who drink various teas and hold a temple recommend. In the end, they answer “Yes” to the question and don’t explain what they mean by that answer. In this case, “to each his/her own”.

I know I haven’t been on these boards for very long, but I didn’t see that one coming from you, Ray! I believe I am more closely following the dictates of my own conscience, but I’m sure things could get messy when my kids say to their primary teacher, “But my daddy drinks coffee!”

doug wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

… the Word of Wisdom itself says “hot drinks”

Section 89 of the D&C says “hot drinks”. The WoW they are asking about in the TR interview, while related to section 89, is not the same thing.

I see it the same way. To me, it’s pretty clear what their asking because of what is taught. I think “interpretation” is generally frowned upon. But I’m going to side with Ray on this one! 😆

[Anonymous]

scooter wrote:

To me, it’s pretty clear what their asking because of what is taught. I think “interpretation” is generally frowned upon. But I’m going to side with Ray on this one!

I agree, Scooter. Years ago, they frowned upon Coke with Caffeine. It isn’t an issue anymore that I’m aware of. I think you have to weed out the “frowning” over insignificant things, with the things that really matter to you.

Word of Wisdom has such a big element of obedience to it, not a lot of rationality to it, IMO. But I will say, there is value in living it with a pure heart for the right reasons. Like many other things in religion…we can make it good…even if it may not inherently be good and pure in and of itself. I like to go for the win/win by making it work so I fit into the tribe, while giving it meaning to me so I am doing it for more reasons than blind obedience, or peer pressure.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Section 89 of the D&C says “hot drinks”. The WoW they are asking about in the TR interview, while related to section 89, is not the same thing.

I understand that – but the Word of Wisdom is Section 89 until it’s superceded officially by other scripture. The interview asks if you obey the Word of Wisdom – and there is no other qualifying wording.

Look, I follow the current, dominant communal interpretation strictly – for much the same reason Heber articulated. I abstain from what is emphasized. I answer the question the interviewer generally is asking, not the question literally as explained in the D&C. (Nearly all members would have to answer, “No,” if they took it literally as written in the D&C.) I understand the tension, but I don’t care about it. I answer it as I understand and interpret it – and I have no problem with others doing the same thing but using different understandings and interpretations.

“According to the dictates of their own conscience” is a bedrock principle to me – obviously with some legal exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Section 89 of the D&C says “hot drinks”. The WoW they are asking about in the TR interview, while related to section 89, is not the same thing.

I understand that – but the Word of Wisdom is Section 89 until it’s superceded officially by other scripture. The interview asks if you obey the Word of Wisdom – and there is no other qualifying wording.

Look, I follow the current, dominant communal interpretation strictly – for much the same reason Heber articulated. I abstain from what is emphasized. I answer the question the interviewer generally is asking, not the question literally as explained in the D&C. (Nearly all members would have to answer, “No,” if they took it literally as written in the D&C.) I understand the tension, but I don’t care about it. I answer it as I understand and interpret it – and I have no problem with others doing the same thing but using different understandings and interpretations.

“According to the dictates of their own conscience” is a bedrock principle to me – obviously with some legal exceptions.

My head is spinning just a little bit, but I guess that should just serve as a reminder to me that we all see things a little differently. Ray, I really admire your “follow your own conscience” way of seeing things, but as scooter pointed out above, interpretation is frowned upon, so you live a rarified existence within the larger LDS culture.

It annoys me that the church has two “word of wisdom”s that it uses for its own purposes while maintaining the pretense that there is only one. For instance, try showing up at a temple recommend interview with a “mild barley drink” (good in one WoW, not so good in the other) and let me know how that goes. Maybe I get too hung up on words and their meaning, but that’s how I process the world around me. The “word of wisdom” that really counts is whatever the church wants it to be, regradless of what it may or may not say in the other “word of wisdom” that can be found in section 89, and, apparently without the need for any new scripture. To say that it doesn’t matter is to say that words have no intrinsic meaning, and I can’t accept that.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

To say that it doesn’t matter is to say that words have no intrinsic meaning, and I can’t accept that.

that’s because you are a good man with an honest conscience. So you don’t accept what it means to you, even if others hold a different meaning for them. Right? That isn’t to say others are not honest to their conscience, only that people’s consciences vary.

I know you would agree that showing up to the bishop’s office with mild barley drink in hand is not humbly following your conscience…it’s forcing the issue to be addressed, and is not going to help the situation. Right?

I like how you put it…there are two WoWs the church goes with, interpretation and literal scripture. The TR question is a yes/no question. We don’t have to force the issue, we just need to be at peace we answer according to our conscience.

Personally, I think the WoW is a juvenile law for the weakest of the saints, it’s just not a big deal to me. And since it isn’t a big deal, I live it and haven’t found any evidence it is a bad thing to live by. But I honestly don’t care if my neighbor lives it or not.

I am more interested in the substance of ideas that come out of people’s mouths, than any substance they put in their mouths.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Personally, I think the WoW is a juvenile law for the weakest of the saints, it’s just not a big deal to me. And since it isn’t a big deal, I live it and haven’t found any evidence it is a bad thing to live by. But I honestly don’t care if my neighbor lives it or not.

That’s exactly what I meant to write.

I shoot for understanding, of myself and others – not as a step, but as the ultimate goal.

(That might take some thought and processing, but it’s part of why I am at peace internally.)

[Anonymous]

I hear you doug.

This stuff use to really bother me (see multiple WoW threads from 15 months ago). Now —- I don’t care…about TRs or WoW commandment interpretations. I like to think that I have migrated into the Brian type of thought camp on this issue. ???

[Anonymous]

Thanks Heber, Ray, cwald for your insights. I really do appreciate hearing your different perspectives. Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, I don’t have a problem living WoW #2, and never really have. That in itself has never really been an issue for me (though if I were not LDS I might change a few habits). The playing fast and loose with words and their meaning is an issue for me and probably always will be.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Make it iced coffee, and you can say honestly that you don’t drink “hot drinks”.

Ha! Yes, growing up I used to follow the WoW in this way – iced teas were in, iced coffees weren’t in vogue yet, but would have been in under my thinking. Even when I was first married I drank iced teas because they are not “hot drinks,” and my favorite ice cream was always coffee ice cream with pretzels (I also like that coffee heath toffee crunch – yum!). Most Mormons wouldn’t bat an eye at eating a tiramisu or rum cake, although they may not have an acquired taste for espresso. I don’t drink iced teas any more because I decided not to, and they weren’t that good when I moved to SLC, so it was no big loss. I also would probably not drink an iced coffee either, but mostly because it’s like a milkshake! Have you seen the calories in these things?? I mean, sure, if you took it black with equal or something, but sheesh! These whipped creamy frappucinos will set you diet back a week!

[Author]

Posts