Help - need tea with caffeine

[jerome1232]

John can only go to the temple if he is committed, worthy, willing to give up all his sins, but Bill can go to the temple in spite of not doing these things?

Oh come on TFP, I think we all know regardless of a bishop giving you a piece of paper, you are either worthy of the temple or you are not, slips of paper do not determine that, God does.

Just musing...

Who does that come down on in the end? Bill got his slip from the bishop, he truly thought he was good to go. I think this is partly on the Bishop, partly on Bill despite his ignorance.

I have heard of exceptions being made but was under the impression this was the stuff of 2 generations removed from me (that would be my grandparents, they are old ).

[The Folk Prophet]

Oh come on TFP, I think we all know regardless of a bishop giving you a piece of paper, you are either worthy of the temple or you are not, slips of paper do not determine that, God does.

 

I would think we would "all" know this. Apparently we "all" do not.

[The Folk Prophet]

It is not for me to judge those who have had those exemptions made. That is between their leadership, them, and the Lord.

 

This may not be what you meant, but I've noticed that it's a popular thing to accuse anyone preaching the commandments, obedience and repentance of judging.  The commandments are the commandments. I doesn't matter what a bishop says. Covenants are covenants and we are to keep them in spite of our bishop's view on them.

[classylady]

This may not be what you meant, but I've noticed that it's a popular thing to accuse anyone preaching the commandments, obedience and repentance of judging.  The commandments are the commandments. I doesn't matter what a bishop says. Covenants are covenants and we are to keep them in spite of our bishop's view on them.

 

 

Not exactly what I meant. I don't condone breaking the commandments. But, it's not my place to judge the decision of the Bishop or Stake President on these matters. I will leave it up to the Lord to judge. Only He knows the heart or intent of a person.

[Iggy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D & C 89: 1 A ^aWord of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the ^aword of wisdom, showing forth the order and ^bwill of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

Bolding, italics & underlining is by me.

 

Folk Prophet, I am NOT a liar and I take offense at you stating such. I will not ever see another of your posts as you will be blocked to me. 

[jerome1232]

You forgot verse 3

 

3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints

Clear back to 1902 I believe, is when it [WoW] was first made a temple requirement, but exemptions were liberally granted. Line by line, precept upon precept. By now I'm frankly surprised any liberties are still granted. We've moved pretty solidly into coffee and tea just aren't drank by Mormons territory now. Revelation regarding the Word of Wisdom has changed since it was penned into scripture iggy.

Edited November 22, 2014 by jerome1232

[notquiteperfect]

Bolding, italics & underlining is by me.

 

 

 

Iggy - it wasn't a commandment when it was given because the Lord knew it would be difficult for the members to give it all up over night.  Hence the mercy.  However, it was changed to be a commandment later - and is still en force now.

 

From YW manual 1, lesson 38:

 

To be sure the young women know that the Word of Wisdom is a binding commandment for us today, read the following:

“The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by ‘commandment or restraint’ was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by President Brigham Young, that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation and a command of the Lord. I desired to mention that fact, because I do not want you to feel that we are under no restraint. We do not want to come under condemnation” (Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 14).

 

Bolding, italics & underlining is by me.

Edited November 22, 2014 by notquiteperfect

[sxfritz]

I wouldn't care if it were tea or coffee or gum drops, if I felt like I couldn't control it or do without, I will treat is like an addiction. I had to overcome addictions to join the Church and again before going to the temple. The best way, in my humble opinion, is cold-turkey. Despite what appears to be a social norm, there are a lot of folks who get through the day just fine without caffeine. You body will adjust and do what is natural.

[Silhouette]

I wouldn't care if it were tea or coffee or gum drops, if I felt like I couldn't control it or do without, I will treat is like an addiction. I had to overcome addictions to join the Church and again before going to the temple. The best way, in my humble opinion, is cold-turkey. Despite what appears to be a social norm, there are a lot of folks who get through the day just fine without caffeine. You body will adjust and do what is natural.

THANK you, and amen. I haven't voiced it until now, but my thought on this whole thread is that the OP is looking for an excuse and free pass to continue a sinful activity, while trumpeting that "The Bishop said I could still go..." as justification for entering the temple unworthily.

And yes, I know what it's like to have an addiction and then suffer side-effects when stopping. It just requires some determination and self-control, and not making excuses for why you "need" it still.

There might be some justification if one is being tapered off a major drug while under the direct care of a physician (though they would still not be temple worthy and should wait until they are to attend)....but tea?? Come on.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Silhouette

[bytebear]

I used to get really sleepy in the afternoons, and discovered that it wasn't caffene that I neede, but a better diet.  I stopped junk food, drank water during the day, and stopped eating heavy carb loaded lunches.  Salads and fruits are awesome, and I have a ton more energy. Also, get a good night's sleep, and don't skip breakfast.  But stay away from carbs.  More protein in the morning with some fruit.  Trust me, it works.

[Maureen]

Before converting, I drank black tea the way other people drink coffee. I've tried the herbal teas, but they just aren't doing it. I drink diet Pepsi, but I don't want to drink it all day long. Plus, it's getting colder and I'm craving something hot to drink during the day.

 

Cocoa puts me to sleep, so that's no good for work. I've changed jobs and am literally falling asleep at my desk and in meetings. I'm sure some of it has to do with the new schedule, but dang. This can't go on.

 

Don't suggest hot water with lemon, I do that, but I really want the drink that has soothed me since I was a kid. I want some hot tea with caffeine. I am getting enough sleep.

.

Please - anyone have a suggestion for an herbal tea that will keep me awake?  No comments about the caffeine, either. You don't wanna drink it, you don't have to.

 

THANK you, and amen. I haven't voiced it until now, but my thought on this whole thread is that the OP is looking for an excuse and free pass to continue a sinful activity, while trumpeting that "The Bishop said I could still go..." as justification for entering the temple unworthily.

And yes, I know what it's like to have an addiction and then suffer side-effects when stopping. It just requires some determination and self-control, and not making excuses for why you "need" it still.

There might be some justification if one is being tapered off a major drug while under the direct care of a physician (though they would still not be temple worthy and should wait until they are to attend)....but tea?? Come on.

 

With being non-LDS, I still have a hard time when Mormons, think that drinking tea is a sinful act. I know you have taken covenants to agree to not drink it, but it still difficult for a non-Mormon to see tea as sinful (especially if you compare it to actual things that are sinful).

 

But anyway, Dahlia did not mention anything about her Bishop, she's just asking for advice from fellow posters about what she can do with herbal tea that will benefit her like her black tea used to. That's all.

 

M.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Maureen

[The Folk Prophet]

Bolding, italics & underlining is by me.

 

Not quite perfect responded accurately to this.

 

I am hard pressed to understand how any "temple worthy" member can be unaware that not drinking coffee or tea is a commandment.

 

Folk Prophet, I am NOT a liar and I take offense at you stating such. I will not ever see another of your posts as you will be blocked to me. 

 

I did not state you were a liar. You could be confused, misinformed, or otherwise off course in your thinking. Or, as I plainly stated later, your statement could be accurate and I think your leadership is mistaken. And, either way, as I also clearly stated, a covenant to obey the commandments is a covenant to obey the commandments, regardless of what a bishop or stake president says.

 

I've never understood blocking. Doesn't bother me any. All it does is make it so others can't respond to my "offensive" posts. *shrug*

 

If you don't want to be offended by me, don't say thinks that force me to defend truth by spewing corrupt ideas like Dahlia should go ahead and just drink coffee.

[dahlia]

I've never been a coffee drinker; it didn't agree with me, so there's no worry there. I bought some Vivarin and am trying that. It's supposed to be as much caffeine as in a cup of coffee, which isn't too bad if I just have 1 a day.

 

I've never had an energy drink - I get the feeling they are just a heart attack waiting to happen for us more mature folks. 

 

As far as this being an addiction, I don't think it is. It's being sleepy. I don't crave caffeine, I haven't gotten a headache or other caffeine withdrawal symptoms, I'm just on a new schedule, the time changed, and I sleepy. I do get up and walk around and sometimes go stand outside, but I can't for long due to the weather. It's one thing to say 'take a walk' when it's 30 or 40 degrees, another when it's 7 degrees with a lot of wind. No thanks.

[Guest]

I wonder what Dr. Pepper would taste like, heated up.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW - the first three verses of D&C 89 are editorial commentary that date back to the earliest editions of the D&C, but they are absent from the manuscript form of the revelation.

The Church's enforcement of the WoW has changed over the years, but even in Joseph Smith's lifetime compliance with the WoW was (at times) expected for church leaders; and noncompliance there with was one of the grounds for David Whitmer's excommunication.

If Iggy feels her bishop has given her an exception, I'm not sure that's something anyone here is really in a position to challenge. But as a general rule, to the Church as a whole since the time of Heber J. Grant (if not earlier)--yes, it is a commandment.

[The Folk Prophet]

If Iggy feels her bishop has given her an exception, I'm not sure that's something anyone here is really in a position to challenge

 

Why not? Since when do bishop's have the right to dictate which commandments we are and are not meant to obey? I mean, sure, it's their place to sign the recommend or not. Obviously no one else can challenge that. There's no reason to not challenge the very idea however, or whether the bishop should be doing such a thing.

 

Are we soft on this because it's "just" coffee? Would you say the same if it was, say, adultery?

 

Moreover, and more importantly, I am very much in a position to state unequivocally that a bishop granting an exception or not is irrelevant to our responsibility to God to keep our covenants. And I will not shy away from such.

 

The fact of the matter is that if a bishop is granting a so-called exception to someone allowing them to attend the temple in spite of their unwillingness to comply with their covenants, that bishop is doing them a disservice by allowing them to believe that their obedience is not that important after all, or connected to there temple worthiness. Shame on such a bishop! If, indeed, this bishop and stake president has made such an exception look at what they've done to poor Iggy who now believe she can willy-nilly do as she wishes concerning God's commandments, wresting them according to their own interpretations, desires, and struggles, sin a little, eat drink and be merry, and if God beats me with a few stripes....etc., etc... I feel obligated to stand up against this idea, in spite of possible offense given. It may be too late for Iggy, but heaven forbid others believe the idea and start also making excuses and taking such a cavalier attitude towards their temple covenants.

 

I am, frankly, surprised that no one else seems to be willing to stand up against this. Do we really not understand the sanctity and sacred nature of the temple covenants we make. Do we really treat them so lightly?

[Silhouette]

Why not? Since when do bishop's have the right to dictate which commandments we are and are not meant to obey? I mean, sure, it's their place to sign the recommend or not. Obviously no one else can challenge that. There's no reason to not challenge the very idea however, or whether the bishop should be doing such a thing.

Are we soft on this because it's "just" coffee? Would you say the same if it was, say, adultery?

Moreover, and more importantly, I am very much in a position to state unequivocally that a bishop granting an exception or not is irrelevant to our responsibility to God to keep our covenants. And I will not shy away from such.

The fact of the matter is that if a bishop is granting a so-called exception to someone allowing them to attend the temple in spite of their unwillingness to comply with their covenants, that bishop is doing them a disservice by allowing them to believe that their obedience is not that important after all, or connected to there temple worthiness. Shame on such a bishop! If, indeed, this bishop and stake president has made such an exception look at what they've done to poor Iggy who now believe she can willy-nilly do as she wishes concerning God's commandments, wresting them according to their own interpretations, desires, and struggles, sin a little, eat drink and be merry, and if God beats me with a few stripes....etc., etc... I feel obligated to stand up against this idea, in spite of possible offense given. It may be too late for Iggy, but heaven forbid others believe the idea and start also making excuses and taking such a cavalier attitude towards their temple covenants.

I am, frankly, surprised that no one else seems to be willing to stand up against this. Do we really not understand the sanctity and sacred nature of the temple covenants we make. Do we really treat them so lightly?

I totally agree with you. No person has the power to excuse a Church member from keeping their covenants that they entered into with God. I'm pleased to stand with you on this matter. Something about this whole story just doesn't fit.

[Iggy]

I wonder what Dr. Pepper would taste like, heated up.

Tastes pretty good. Open the bottle/can the night before and let it go flat other wise it will foam all over the stove and make quite the mess. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Why not? Since when do bishop's have the right to dictate which commandments we are and are not meant to obey? I mean, sure, it's their place to sign the recommend or not. Obviously no one else can challenge that. There's no reason to not challenge the very idea however, or whether the bishop should be doing such a thing.

 

Frankly, I don't know as a matter of Church policy how much authority bishops have to deal with WoW issues, especially if/where there's a purported health concern with absolute compliance.  I prefer to assume that the bishop knows more than I do in such situations.  :)

 

Now, that said: I'm skeptical of tales like Iggy's.  Deeply skeptical.  But Iggy's also been here for a while; and I'm willing to at least (pardon the pun) assume good faith on her part.

 

Are we soft on this because it's "just" coffee? Would you say the same if it was, say, adultery?

 

Yes, and no.  I see WoW observance as a token of our covenants that is peculiar to this place and time; whereas adultery is an actual temple covenant that has always been a part of the LDS temple liturgy and moreover is an eternal principle.

 

I am, frankly, surprised that no one else seems to be willing to stand up against this. Do we really not understand the sanctity and sacred nature of the temple covenants we make. Do we really treat them so lightly?

 

There are five covenants we make in the temple endowment, and none of them directly relate to the Word of Wisdom.  The closest you get, conceptually, is the principle of obedience; and if a) she's not disobeying her bishop (which I must take her word for), and b ) her bishop is acting in righteousness (which I don't have sufficient knowledge to absolutely deny),  then I don't see how I can definitively state that someone in Iggy's situation is not honoring her temple covenants.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

[Silhouette]

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

Good point.

[The Folk Prophet]

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

 

I see your point, but don't entirely agree. Well...I do..."less" flack...but still some. I don't think it's proper in any degree to counsel someone to go speak to their bishops to see if they can get out of keeping the commandments.

 

There are five covenants we make in the temple endowment, and none of them directly relate to the Word of Wisdom.  The closest you get, conceptually, is the principle of obedience; and if a) she's not disobeying her bishop (which I must take her word for), and b ) her bishop is acting in righteousness (which I don't have sufficient knowledge to absolutely deny),  then I don't see how I can definitively state that someone in Iggy's situation is not honoring her temple covenants.

 

The covenant of obedience is not to obey your bishop. It is to obey the word of the Lord. Seems a pretty direct covenant related to the WoW to me.

 

Yes, and no.  I see WoW observance as a token of our covenants that is peculiar to this place and time; whereas adultery is an actual temple covenant that has always been a part of the LDS temple liturgy and moreover is an eternal principle.

 

Agreed. Many things commanded of the Lord are tokens, however. Pretty much all ordinances are. How is it that local leadership takes upon themselves to determine which tokens an individual must observe and which an individual must not.

 

I mean, really...if it was a serious medical issue that only coffee seemed to alleviate, then maybe it would make sense to me. Like attending church meetings. If someone had to work every Sunday then there's some validity to perhaps "excusing" that part of of the temple questions. But if someone is just uncomfortable attending church and so they don't bother going...

 

A bishop is going to do what a bishop is going to do. That is their prerogative. Clearly. But I do not have to agree with or support such a philosophy, or even give the bishop the benefit of the doubt -- particularly when, as I have said, I think that idea is highly damaging as a philosophical guide to be posting on a public forum.

 

We are meant to keep the commandments, not look for justification and excuses to get out of them if they're difficult, uncomfortable, or otherwise. I also maintain that a bishop allowing someone to have a temple recommend in spite of someone's disobedience will be entirely irrelevant to that persons culpability in the matter on judgement day. Unless, of course, that bishops actions lead to the persons inability to understand and choose to obey (in which case, the bishop would stand culpable). But I cannot believe that any person who is active in this church can have ANY excuse to believe that the Word of Wisdom just does not apply to them.

 

Now, that said: I'm skeptical of tales like Iggy's.  Deeply skeptical.  But Iggy's also been here for a while; and I'm willing to at least (pardon the pun) assume good faith on her part.

 

To me Iggy is nothing more than a random person making an outrageous claim on the internet. She pretends this huge offense and blocks me for not believing her -- it's a tactic to shame me into backing down. But I'm not ashamed. Random. Internet. Person. If one is going to make an outrageous claim on the internet and expect others to believe them, I say, PROVE IT.

 

Are we really meant to assume that random comments on the internet are factual rather than the other way around?    Someone on the forum said something so that's how I know it's true? This is the worst kind of logical fallacy and there is no support for her claim at all. I mean, really, where should the benefit of the doubt lie here?

 

And, frankly, even if Iggy could prove it with a scanned signed exception form from her bishop, "I solemnly swear that I have given permission....." it would still be entirely inappropriate for her to be using that on a public forum to espouse disobedience and preach it to others. IF the exception is truly legitimate...I re-emphasize IF...then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!!!

[Aggie@JSC]

Hello! I'm new at exploring and researching the LDS faith and have been reading through this thread with interest, but I'm unclear on a few things. Could someone give me a brief breakdown of specifically what drinks and whether hot or cold are not allowed to be consumed and for what reasons? Thank you! :)

[paulsifer42]

Hello! I'm new at exploring and researching the LDS faith and have been reading through this thread with interest, but I'm unclear on a few things. Could someone give me a brief breakdown of specifically what drinks and whether hot or cold are not allowed to be consumed and for what reasons? Thank you! :)

 

Hey, it's listed here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.5?lang=eng#4

5,6,7,9, and 17 talk about drinks.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hello! I'm new at exploring and researching the LDS faith and have been reading through this thread with interest, but I'm unclear on a few things. Could someone give me a brief breakdown of specifically what drinks and whether hot or cold are not allowed to be consumed and for what reasons? Thank you! :)

 

Hey, it's listed here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.5?lang=eng#4

5,6,7,9, and 17 talk about drinks.

 

That hardly clears things up.

 

Here's some easier sources.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng

 

http://www.mormon.org/faq/word-of-wisdom