Coffee/Tea restriction actual doctrine?

[Vort]

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.

I agree with this analysis. In fact, in my mind it's even simpler: We have been asked (or commanded) not to drink wine. What may or may not have been required of Saints in former times is not relevant.

[Vort]

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.

How interesting. Please enlighten us on your knowledge and understanding of modern relevation from God to his living prophets, vis-a-vis LDS doctrine, as is discussed on this forum. Then please explain how your out-of-context quotation of Jesus' words has any bearing on that topic.

[Maygraceabound]

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.

This is a good post.

[Maygraceabound]

How interesting. Please enlighten us on your knowledge and understanding of modern relevation from God to his living prophets, vis-a-vis LDS doctrine, as is discussed on this forum. Then please explain how your out-of-context quotation of Jesus' words has any bearing on that topic.

Vort, lets stick the original subject. If you want to start a new topic I will be glad to answer you there. As long as we can be civil. Agree?

[Tyler90AZ]

I quoted Jesus. His words. Lets be clear.

May, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only church to tell its members to abstain from alcohol. I have been or heard of many different denominations that don't allow alcohol. Heck, you can go to two different churches within a mile of each other and both have differing policies on the subject. The only reason our policy gets so much attention is because we are a united church, as Jesus would want. Not to bash other churches, but we should not be punished for our unity, that is what Jesus prayed for.

21 That they all may be aone; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:21

Edited March 16, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[Kamitha]

I agree with this analysis. In fact, in my mind it's even simpler: We have been asked (or commanded) not to drink wine. What may or may not have been required of Saints in former times is not relevant.

I believe (and agree with Vort) that the real point is to follow what prophets and apostles of God state we should be doing, rather than getting hung up on the particulars. Obedience.

The scientist in me knows that it's all about treating your body correctly and with respect. Drinking soda is damaging to your body; as it over-eating, or not exercising.

[Vort]

Vort, lets stick the original subject. If you want to start a new topic I will be glad to answer you there. As long as we can be civil. Agree?

I'm trying to stick on the original topic, Grace. Quit dodging the question. The original topic dealt with what modern revelation had to say about coffee and tea. Your out-of-context quotes of Jesus' words do not respond to that. I am giving you the chance to clarify why your words might actually be relevant instead of a silly non sequitur.

[Maygraceabound]

Grace, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only church to tell its members to abstain from alcohol. I have been or heard of many different denominations that don't allow alcohol. Heck, you can go to two different churches within a mile of each other and both have differing policies on the subject. The only reason our policy gets so much attention is because we are a united church, as Jesus would want. Not to bash other churches, but we should not be punished for our unity, that is what Jesus prayed for.

21 That they all may be aone; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:21

I agree it is best not to drink alcohol. I have seen to many lives ruined because of it. It is sound advice not too drink it. So, what is Jesus telling us that it won't defile us. He too knew it would ruin lives. He is trying to tell us something else. Something deeper.

[Maygraceabound]

I'm trying to stick on the original topic, Grace. Quit dodging the question. The original topic dealt with what modern revelation had to say about coffee and tea. Your out-of-context quotes of Jesus' words do not respond to that. I am giving you the chance to clarify why your words might actually be relevant instead of a silly non sequitur.

I quoted Jesus.

[Vort]

I quoted Jesus.

So did I.

[Maygraceabound]

So did I.

Would you agree to discuss this with me on a new thread? Civil like.

[HEthePrimate]

We can. But of course, it's a false accusation here. (What a surprise.)

Implying that he would support the use of crack cocaine is a straw man argument.

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.

And is it really so terrible to question or criticize LDS doctrine and practices?

Anyway, as I recall, the original question was "Is the restriction on coffee and tea actual doctrine?" That is a question, not a criticism. I'll grant you there may be implied criticism there, but really, so what?

I'm an active LDS and follow the Word of Wisdom, but I, too, wonder if the coffee/tea restriction is actual doctrine, or if it was just a policy decision not based on doctrine. It is unquestionably the current policy not to issue temple recommends to people who drink coffee and tea, but I suspect that in the grand scheme of things, God doesn't really care if we drink coffee or tea, as long as we do things in moderation and with due consideration for our health.

[Maygraceabound]

Implying that he would support the use of crack cocaine is a straw man argument.

And is it really so terrible to question or criticize LDS doctrine and practices?

Anyway, as I recall, the original question was "Is the restriction on coffee and tea actual doctrine?" That is a question, not a criticism. I'll grant you there may be implied criticism there, but really, so what?

I'm an active LDS and follow the Word of Wisdom, but I, too, wonder if the coffee/tea restriction is actual doctrine, or if it was just a policy decision not based on doctrine. It is unquestionably the current policy not to issue temple recommends to people who drink coffee and tea, but I suspect that in the grand scheme of things, God doesn't really care if we drink coffee or tea, as long as we do things in moderation and with due consideration for our health.

Thank You

[pam]

I actually have to agree with Vort's comments. This particular forum is LDS Gospel Discussion. It's all about what we, as LDS, believe. It's not really a forum to debate whether what we believe is right or not. That's the point that Vort is trying to make.

[Maygraceabound]

I actually have to agree with Vort's comments. This particular forum is LDS Gospel Discussion. It's all about what we, as LDS, believe. It's not really a forum to debate whether what we believe is right or not. That's the point that Vort is trying to make.

I quoted Jesus.

[mnn727]

I quoted Jesus.

You can quote anyone you want to, however we LDS believe in continuing revelation which trumps anything a 2000 year old book says. Do you also not eat lobster and pork due to the dietary restrictions in the O.T. or did continuing revelation trump that commandment for you?

To get back to the OP's question, what do you think hot drinks are if not coffee or tea? Even were you to drink them cold, they both have to be brewed which is hot.

Edited March 16, 2012 by mnn727

[annewandering]

I suspect that in the grand scheme of things, God doesn't really care if we drink coffee or tea, as long as we do things in moderation and with due consideration for our health.

I beg to disagree. We can not take this bit of church teachings and that piece and decide that some of it is for us to follow and some is for others to follow. God does care if we do anything He has told us not to do. We are to be obedient to all the law not just the parts that we find easy or convenient to follow.

Even the most liberal of LDS rarely, if ever, question whether we are supposed to abstain from coffee, tea, alcoholic drinks or tobacco. The Word of Wisdom does not say to be moderate in these things. It says to not use except for medicinal purposes.

[pam]

I quoted Jesus.

I also believe that one particular scripture can be taken out of context in an attempt to make a point. My understanding of Matthew 15:11 was that it was made because of the criticism towards Christ for abandoning the traditions of the elders for not washing hands before eating.

[Vort]

Implying that he would support the use of crack cocaine is a straw man argument.

Seriously, primate? Do you honestly fail to see the difference between constructing a strawman argument and using an extreme example to demonstrate the weakness of a position? Because legality issues aside, using Jesus' words to justify consumption of coffee, tea, or distilled spirits is no different from using Jesus' words to justify consumption of crack cocaine.

So either you are intentionally ignoring my obvious point -- which is dishonest -- or else you are actually too stupid to figure it out yourself. Which of these is the case? Or am I failing to see a third alternative?

And is it really so terrible to question or criticize LDS doctrine and practices?

On a discussion list where you have agreed not to engage in such behavior, in a forum specifically dedicated to non-critical discussion of LDS doctrine, and after you have explicitly been instructed not to engage in such criticism?

Yes, primate, it really is so terrible. If you have an ounce of integrity and honor, that is.

Anyway, as I recall, the original question was "Is the restriction on coffee and tea actual doctrine?" That is a question, not a criticism. I'll grant you there may be implied criticism there, but really, so what?

I never suggested that the OP was engaging in any such thing. Why are you intentionally lying about what I wrote, primate? Or will you characterize this as simply an innocent mistake (perhaps like your other "innocent mistakes" I have pointed out)?

[pam]

Thread is now closed.