MarginOfError Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 I came to the same conclusion after reading that Joel Johnson quote. It's not a primary source that's for certain and neither was Hyrum.Oh and by the way Coffee and tea are *not* part of the temple recommend questions. At least not today they may have been in the past but I don't know. The script question isI'm not so sure about that. I think that a Conference talk in the 1940's stated that coffee and tea would be considered a part of adherence to the Word of Wisdom. If memory serves correctly, the reference can be found in A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by LeGrand Richards. So compliance is implicit in the question, although not explicitly asked.
Dravin Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 As far as I know, adherence to the Word of Wisdom is indeed a prerequisite for temple attendance.Yes it is. I didn't express any doubt that it was. I'm trying to see where MoE is coming from in his position. A definition of doctrine that precludes the Word of Wisdom itself being doctrine would be so strict that I doubt any doctrine would survive it. I suspect, but don't know, that he may rather have in mind the idea that adherence requirements are policy not doctrine. If that is indeed what he has in mind he needs to specify because as stated his position is the first.
Dravin Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Dietary codes aren't static through the scriptures. That makes me hesitant to call each iteration doctrine. More accurately, I'd say that each code is an interpretation and application of doctrine that is customized to the time in which it is given.Are you making a distinction then between foundational principles underlying an expression of doctrine and the expression itself? I've seen such a distinction before, usually from Ram, the doctrine remains constant but the expression of the doctrine can change over the course of time. For example sacrifice is constant, it's just the expression from animals to contrite spirits has changed.While I can see the validity of such a distinction it's going to run afoul of how most people use the word doctrine and as such it's probably a good idea to disclaim if using it in such a manner (or at least be prepared to explain). Edited March 16, 2012 by Dravin
MarginOfError Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Are you making a distinction then between foundational principles underlying an expression of doctrine and the expression itself? I've seen such a distinction before, usually from Ram, the doctrine remains constant but the expression of the doctrine can change over the course of time. For example sacrifice is constant, it's just the expression from animals to contrite spirits has changed.While I can see the validity of such a distinction it's going to run afoul of how most people use the word doctrine and as such it's probably a good idea to disclaim if using it in such a manner (or at least be prepared to explain).But disclaiming takes all the fun out of making unconventional statements!I think you should have attended my last sunday school lesson. The number of things I said weren't doctrine was astounding. It was a good time.
Maygraceabound Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 In the wake of the recent use of the word folklore by the church's PR department to describe past practices and policies (regarding blacks & priesthood). I have begun to wonder what *current* practices and policies are likely really just folkloric and not actual doctrine.Does anyone here know if the dietary restriction on Coffee/Tea comes from an actual revelation or is this just an add-on, a passed down tradition, merely folklore?Thank you.This is what Jesus says about this,Mathew 15:11. “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
Tyler90AZ Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 This is what Jesus says about this,Mathew 15:11. “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”Then around 1800 years later people proved they weren't capable of handling alcohol.
Maygraceabound Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Then around 1800 years later people proved they weren't capable of handling alcohol.No, I think they had that problem long before Jesus was born. Jesus was well aware of the problem of drinking too much alcohol and yet He still said this. His Word is truth.
HEthePrimate Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 I thought the WoW was originally just that, wise advice, and not a standard of worthiness. That obviously changed over time, and that raises curiosity as to how changes like that occur, and why.
Tyler90AZ Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 No, I think they had that problem long before Jesus was born. Jesus was well aware of the problem of drinking too much alcohol and yet He still said this. His Word is truth.He is a God of many chances
Vort Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Then around 1800 years later people proved they weren't capable of handling alcohol.Although alcoholics have been around as long as alcohol, distilled spirits are a distinctly modern (or at least medieval and later) phenomenon. Wikipedia suggests that consumption of distilled spirits increased in Europe as a supposed treatment for the Black Plague. My own understanding was that sailing ships carried distilled spirits such as rum as a more space-efficient alternative to wine and other non-distilled spirits, and sailors who acquired the taste for such spirits carried them back to landlubbers.In any case, the curse of abundant, cheap, concentrated alcoholic beverages was probably not applicable in ancient times. My understanding (which I cannot support) is that even the early Saints did not interpret the Word of Wisdom to prohibit wine, which was not considered a "strong drink", a term applied primarily to distilled spirits.
annewandering Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 I can not swear to the definition but I seem to recall my seminary teacher telling us that in the time of Jesus there were two forms of wine and one was not alcoholic or at least not as strong. New wine maybe?
Vort Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 No, I think they had that problem long before Jesus was born. Jesus was well aware of the problem of drinking too much alcohol and yet He still said this. His Word is truth.Jesus did not have distilled spirits commonly available among his people.If we accept your naive interpretation at face value, then consuming crack cocaine or dog poop or battery acid cannot be seen as problematic. After all, it's not what goes into a man, it's what comes out. Putting a lead bullet into a man? Hey, no problem.Please try to remember, Grace: Avoid criticizing LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, and members. I know it's a struggle for you, but all the same, it's what you agreed to. Especially on this forum, just keep away from it.
HEthePrimate Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Jesus did not have distilled spirits commonly available among his people.If we accept your naive interpretation at face value, then consuming crack cocaine or dog poop or battery acid cannot be seen as problematic. After all, it's not what goes into a man, it's what comes out. Putting a lead bullet into a man? Hey, no problem.Please try to remember, Grace: Avoid criticizing LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, and members. I know it's a struggle for you, but all the same, it's what you agreed to. Especially on this forum, just keep away from it.Oh lighten up, Vort! What Maygraceabound said is hardly scathing criticism of LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, or members. It was just his interpretion of the scripture, and IMO, a pretty valid one. He is not necessarily saying that it's a good idea to drink too much alcohol, or take crack, or whatever, just that what a person eats or drinks is not a primary criterion by which God judges us, or by which we should judge each other. A person can drink wine (or even distilled spirits) and still be a good, moral person.Can we say "Straw man?" Edited March 16, 2012 by HEthePrimate
Maygraceabound Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Jesus did not have distilled spirits commonly available among his people.If we accept your naive interpretation at face value, then consuming crack cocaine or dog poop or battery acid cannot be seen as problematic. After all, it's not what goes into a man, it's what comes out. Putting a lead bullet into a man? Hey, no problem.Please try to remember, Grace: Avoid criticizing LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, and members. I know it's a struggle for you, but all the same, it's what you agreed to. Especially on this forum, just keep away from it.I only posted what Jesus said. His word upsets you? Good, because His word is powerful.His word is ment to teach us all. I think we all need to listen more to His word.
HEthePrimate Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Matthew 15:11 fits very nicely with Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10, too. Keeping the Word of Wisdom is, in my opinion, not about moral cleanliness, but about living a wise, healthy lifestyle, and avoiding the problems that come with, for example, alcoholism.
annewandering Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 I only posted what Jesus said. His word upsets you? Good, because His word is powerful.His word is ment to teach us all. I think we all need to listen more to His word.We need to listen to ALL His words including the ones to prophets in this current time. He is telling us to not drink alcoholic beverages, or coffee, or tea, or smoke. Why do we need to question what He says? We know they are not good for us even if we didnt have the Word of Wisdom. If we add the counsel to not partake of them from our prophets isnt that enough to tell us if we should/should not partake?
Vort Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Oh lighten up, Vort! What Maygraceabound said is hardly scathing criticism of LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, or members. It was just his interpretion of the scripture, and IMO, a pretty valid one. He is not necessarily saying that it's a good idea to drink too much alcohol, or take crack, or whatever, just that what a person eats or drinks is not a primary criterion by which God judges us, or by which we should judge each other. A person can drink wine (or even distilled spirits) and still be a good, moral person.Can we say "Straw man?"We can. But of course, it's a false accusation here. (What a surprise.)Please consider Grace's words in the context of the discussion rather than as an isolated event in a remote corner of the universe. Then recall Grace's propensity to criticize LDS doctrine and practices.It's really not that hard, primate.
Maygraceabound Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 If a person were to drink coffee or tea, what is the consequence from the LDS perspective? Maybe if I knew that I would better understand the conversation.
Vort Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 I only posted what Jesus said. His word upsets you? Good, because His word is powerful.His word is ment to teach us all. I think we all need to listen more to His word.Grace: Wo unto you, hypocrites! You strain out gnats and swallow whole camels!
Maygraceabound Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 We can. But of course, it's a false accusation here. (What a surprise.)Please consider Grace's words in the context of the discussion rather than as an isolated event in a remote corner of the universe. Then recall Grace's propensity to criticize LDS doctrine and practices.It's really not that hard, primate.I quoted Jesus. His words. Lets be clear.
Vort Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 I quoted Jesus. His words. Lets be clear.Wo unto you, hypocrites! You strain out gnats and swallow whole camels!
Tyler90AZ Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 We can. But of course, it's a false accusation here. (What a surprise.)Please consider Grace's words in the context of the discussion rather than as an isolated event in a remote corner of the universe. Then recall Grace's propensity to criticize LDS doctrine and practices.It's really not that hard, primate.Soften hearts and change minds, mate!
Kamitha Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Over the years, I've heard the "two forms of wine" story. My best friend tried telling me that the wine Christ drank was not real "wine"- i.e. non alcoholic. This does not hold up well to questioning, unfortunately. Obviously, fresh grape juice isn't alcoholic, but grape juice eventually ferments after being stored for so long. Given that the ancient Middle Eastern environment was hot and dry, that there was no modern refrigeration/bottling practices, and that traditional living practices had a season for harvest (eating fresh food) and a season of storage (eating stored food), the more realistic and practical idea is Christ drank fresh grape juice during grape harvest; wine during the off-season. I believe the reason the "Jesus didn't drink alcohol" story gets around is because there doesn't seem to be a way to covey the grays without people taking it too far. In this case, a seminary teacher telling teenagers "Well, it wasn't the same wine we have now." That's much easier than conveying that they drank in moderation, or just small amounts for celebratory reasons, or for whatever. How many people would take "Drink in moderation" and hear "You can drink! Get drunk!"? "Moderation" is defined differently by each of us, anyway. Give an inch, take a mile. It's human nature. Wine is wine is wine. Fermented grape juice is alcoholic today, and it was alcoholic then. Jesus Christ, his apostles- they drank wine. The key is they didn't drink amounts of it for the purpose of compromising their minds and bodies with the alcoholic content.
Vort Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 Soften hearts and change minds, mate!Good idea. I've decided to follow Grace's lead in quoting the words of Jesus.
Maygraceabound Posted March 16, 2012 Report Posted March 16, 2012 In the wake of the recent use of the word folklore by the church's PR department to describe past practices and policies (regarding blacks & priesthood). I have begun to wonder what *current* practices and policies are likely really just folkloric and not actual doctrine.Does anyone here know if the dietary restriction on Coffee/Tea comes from an actual revelation or is this just an add-on, a passed down tradition, merely folklore?Thank you.This is the original post. Lets get back to it. The question is "does anyone know here if the dietary restriction on coffee/Tea comes from... I quoted from Jesus. His word that relates to this post. Does anyone else have something to add.
Recommended Posts