Caffeine

[AFDaw]

Yes...and like I said, for every study that says it's ok, there's a study that says it's not.

Look at this...

Tannic Acid

Different grade, same stuff. You really want to put that in your body?

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Apr 14 2004, 10:00 AM

Also,

http://www.teatalk.com/science/tannin.htm

The "Tea Man" huh?

Like I said in my other post, different grade...but the same thing.

[shanstress70]

Hey, the Tea Man is a good guy ! Why you gotta go 'round messin' with him?

I can get all crazy and tell you about gross and harmful-sounding ingredients in foods you eat every day - like preservatives. The trans-fat found in margarine and thousands of other foods are MUCH more harmful than a little tannin. And again, from what I've read, looks like tannin is not harmful at all, but just the opposite.

[srm]

If everyone else can pick and choose, why can't I?  Let me drink tea, but not do Atkins, and still go to the temple.

You can. If you feel that iced tea, or meat (or anything else, I supose) is OK, then when you are asked in the interview if you obey the WofW you can honestly answer yes.

[shanstress70]

My whole point with this argument is that I think they made a mistake when the word of wisdom was interpreted. The revelation from God did not say, 'no tea, coffee, etc.'. It said 'hot drinks...' It had to be interpreted by man. I think they made the best decision they could based on the info they had at the time. But now that more info is available, I think it should be updated. I will call up Pres. Hinckley this week and see if we can't get that resolved.

SHEESH - just kidding!

I really do think there are things that are much more harmful than tea that we are allowed to have. It really does seem VERY inconsistent to me.

Heck, I think tea should be mandatory! One cup a day, minimum.

[Cal]

Originally posted by LaurelTree@Apr 13 2004, 04:02 PM

I just take it this far for my own good...My goal in this life is to get rid of my weaknesses, not make new ones.

Where you gonna get a coke in heaven when you crave for one? I prefur to lighten my load now.

Just a thought.

Laureltree

What makes you think we can't get Coke in heaven? Seriously!

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by srm@Apr 14 2004, 10:33 AM

If everyone else can pick and choose, why can't I?  Let me drink tea, but not do Atkins, and still go to the temple.

You can. If you feel that iced tea, or meat (or anything else, I supose) is OK, then when you are asked in the interview if you obey the WofW you can honestly answer yes.

Here is the doctrine... from the official website... Word of Wisdom. As you will note, it does not say that ice tea (or anything you feel is okay isn't part of the word of wisdom) is okay. The doctrine regarding coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs is clear: you can have none. It's that simple. Those are the words approved by the current Prophet, First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, who you agree to sustain in every ward and stake conference and during every temple recommend interview. The above link states it very clearly. If you sustain the Brethern, you will abstain from these substances and answer the WoW question in the temple recommend interview based on the principles found on that link, for that is the doctrine.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Apr 14 2004, 09:33 AM

Many people believe that those laws were "rescinded" when Peter had his vision in Acts 10. I personally believe that his dream was more about Gentiles being accepted into the fold, but it could also have changed dietary requirements.

You hit it on the head. Peter's vision was about bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles, who were considered unclean.

[srm]

Originally posted by Ammon+Apr 14 2004, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Apr 14 2004, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Apr 14 2004, 10:33 AM

If everyone else can pick and choose, why can't I?  Let me drink tea, but not do Atkins, and still go to the temple.

You can. If you feel that iced tea, or meat (or anything else, I supose) is OK, then when you are asked in the interview if you obey the WofW you can honestly answer yes.

Here is the doctrine... from the official website... Word of Wisdom. As you will note, it does not say that ice tea (or anything you feel is okay isn't part of the word of wisdom) is okay. The doctrine regarding coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs is clear: you can have none. It's that simple. Those are the words approved by the current Prophet, First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, who you agree to sustain in every ward and stake conference and during every temple recommend interview. The above link states it very clearly. If you sustain the Brethern, you will abstain from these substances and answer the WoW question in the temple recommend interview based on the principles found on that link, for that is the doctrine.

We are taught correct principles and then must goven ourselves. The doctrine says hot drinks...which are interpreted coffee and tea. Let's see, tea...what about,

Iced tea (not a hot drink)?

green tea?

carrot tea?

lemon tea?

cranberry tea?

mint tea?

any herbal tea?

yeow...this is tough...how does one know? by study and prayer. I agree that it seems clear what is proscribed but golly there seems to be some room for our interpretation and opinion. Is a bishop right to interpret it to include lemon tea and not issue a recommend? What happens if the Bishop does feel that Lemon tea should be proscribed? what does one do?

[Outshined]

It matters not what kind of yarn you use, too much knitting can still be detrimental to one's health.........

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Apr 14 2004, 10:33 AM

My whole point with this argument is that I think they made a mistake when the word of wisdom was interpreted. The revelation from God did not say, 'no tea, coffee, etc.'. It said 'hot drinks...' It had to be interpreted by man. I think they made the best decision they could based on the info they had at the time. But now that more info is available, I think it should be updated. I will call up Pres. Hinckley this week and see if we can't get that resolved.

SHEESH - just kidding!

I really do think there are things that are much more harmful than tea that we are allowed to have. It really does seem VERY inconsistent to me.

Heck, I think tea should be mandatory! One cup a day, minimum.

Actually there was a talk given while I was growing up which stated that 'hot drinks' is exactly what the prophet meant because so many were scalding their pallatts (sp) when drinking hot cocoa, coffee, tea, etc.....

It was doing some irepreable damage....in this talk, we were advised to avoid all excessively hot drinks.....

I don't know that there was really anything else drank scolding hot back then during JS's time, but tea and coffee.

[Faerie]

i've always heard that herbal teas are fine...:) Disgusting yes, but fine...lol

what about my dexatrim?!?! it has green tea in it?!?! oh noooooooo...

[Guest Ammon]

"If a question arises about the meaning of “hot drinks,” explain that they are tea and coffee." (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Aaronic Priesthood Manual, "The Lord's Law of Health," pp. 101-104.)

[Snow]

Originally posted by srm+Apr 14 2004, 08:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Apr 14 2004, 08:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Apr 13 2004, 07:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Apr 13 2004, 06:39 PM

It was Hyrum Smith (in the 1840s) that said that hot drinks mean coffee and tea.  It is not just the Church's current interpretation.

That may be but I am reasonably certain that the Church doesn't base it's currently policies on what Hyrum said.

Yes but to infer that is a new interpretation is also inaccurate.

Okay, but I didn't say that it was a new interpretation. Without bothering to go back and check, I am sure I said "current" not "new."

"Current" is an appropriate term. As a matter of policy, the Church currently interprets "hot drinks" to be cold or hot coffee and tea. The Church also currently interprets the suggestion (word to the wise) as commandment. The Church also pretty much ignores the positive suggestions (grains, little or no meat) and focuses on the negatives (the don'ts).

I say "current" because it differs from the "earlier" interpretations.

If the Church really got serious about the Word of Wisdom, they would push, promote, and withhold temple reccomends from people who don't follow the whole WoW as a health code.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 14 2004, 10:57 AM

The doctrine regarding coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs is clear: you can have none. It's that simple. Those are the words approved by the current Prophet, First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, who you agree to sustain in every ward and stake conference and during every temple recommend interview. The above link states it very clearly. If you sustain the Brethern, you will abstain from these substances and answer the WoW question in the temple recommend interview based on the principles found on that link, for that is the doctrine.

Nonsense, utter nonsense.

Doctrine is eternal truth and does not change. Plenty of prophets and apostles drank coffee and tea and drank alcohol for quite a while. They didn't go on the verboten list till much later.

Now they are prohibited as a matter of policy not doctrine. Read the D&C if you are unclear.

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette@Apr 14 2004, 08:33 AM

Many people believe that those laws were "rescinded" when Peter had his vision in Acts 10. I personally believe that his dream was more about Gentiles being accepted into the fold, but it could also have changed dietary requirements.

Yeah,

I'm thinking that if they were recinded, they would have been recinded in a manner clear enough that you would actually know that they were recinded... unless one thinks that God is trying to trick some of us.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 14 2004, 04:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 14 2004, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 14 2004, 10:57 AM

The doctrine regarding coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs is clear: you can have none.  It's that simple.  Those are the words approved by the current Prophet, First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, who you agree to sustain in every ward and stake conference and during every temple recommend interview.  The above link states it very clearly.  If you sustain the Brethern, you will abstain from these substances and answer the WoW question in the temple recommend interview based on the principles found on that link, for that is the doctrine.

Nonsense, utter nonsense.

Doctrine is eternal truth and does not change. Plenty of prophets and apostles drank coffee and tea and drank alcohol for quite a while. They didn't go on the verboten list till much later.

Now they are prohibited as a matter of policy not doctrine. Read the D&C if you are unclear.

It was not doctrine then, but it certainly is now. Just as animal sacrifices were once a part of doctrine, but now the sacrament is the proffered doctrine in its place. Doctrine can change based on the times and peoples as God sees fit. You would limit God's power to change doctrines in order to best serve the people of a given time?

Doctrine, I would say, is, inter alia, something taught of a level that if not obeyed, a temple recommend will be withheld. The Word of Wisdom, as outlined on the Church's official website, is such a doctrine. Ask your bishop or stake president if you doubt it. Go to him and say, "I drink ice tea, because the D&C only mentions hot drinks. Can I have a recommend?" The answer will be "no."

Try it if you refuse to believe the words I proffer; go ask your bishop what specifically is included in the Word of Wisdom. He will tell you what the offiicial website tells you. The material in that link is doctrine. You cannot get around it, as much as you like to believe that only truly official doctrine is the canon. The truth is, in my opinion, that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proves far more expansive that you would like to believe.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 14 2004, 04:49 PM

It was not doctrine then, but it certainly is now. Just as animal sacrifices were once a part of doctrine, but now the sacrament is the proffered doctrine in its place. Doctrine can change based on the times and peoples as God sees fit. You would limit God's power to change doctrines in order to best serve the people of a given time?

If you are going to invent your own definitions for things, then yes, I have to agree with you. In your opinion whatever we happen to believe and teach at the moment is doctrine. I agree, that what you think doctrine it. The rest of us believe that that what we believe and teach at the moment is simply what we happen to believe and teach at the moment and that doctrine is something that is eternal and unchanging not subject to trends and interpretation, but hey, your the one making the definition so you're welcome to it.

Contrary to your claim that I would limit God by deny Him the chance to change his mind and hence his doctrine, my position is that God's truth doesn't change - it's man's opinion and understanding that change.

...btw, I don't have to ask my Bishop what his opinion is, I already know it and I know exactly what the scriptures say. I don't need a website or 3rd person to interpret them for me. I surprize that you can't do the same.

[Guest Starsky]

was over in England a while back and a bishop asked me, “What is the Church’s stand on cola drinks?” I said, “Well, I can’t remember the exact wording of the bulletin, but I remember seeing the bulletin when I was a stake president. The Church, of course, advises against them.”

He said, “Well, I have read the Priesthood Bulletin, but that isn’t what it says to me.”

And I said, “Would you get your Priesthood Bulletin? Let’s read it together.” And so we found under the heading “Cola Drinks”: “… the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs. …” (The Priesthood Bulletin, Feb. 1972, p. 4.)

He said, “Well, you see, that doesn’t mean cola.”

I said, “Well, I guess you will have to come to your own grips with that, but to me, there is no question.” You see, there can’t be the slightest particle of rebellion, and in him there is. We can find loopholes in a lot of things if we want to bend the rules of the Church.

A Self-Inflicted Purging; Vaughn J. Featherstone; Ensign May 1975 66

[Snow]

What's your point Starksy.

Know what, you can drink a gallon of cola a day and still get a Temple reccomend. If it's good enough that it don't kep ya out er the "Lord's House," it oughtta be good enough fer ta kep ya'll offen my back.

...and as much as I liked Brother Featherstone, he talking nonsense if he says cola is rebellion. Drinking cola may be light and refreshing, but it ain't rebellion.

[AFDaw]

The WOW was written as a minimum for the weak. To what extreme one wants to take it is up to them. Some want to take "hot drinks" to a higher level and include soft drinks...sobeit. Some don't, but at least they abide by the minimum, which is no hot drinks. Neither one is "more correct" than the other.

It says no hot drinks was meant tea and coffee. It doesn't say no meat, it says to use is sparingly. Your definition of sparingly and mine may be 2 different things. It's all between you and the Lord.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow@Apr 14 2004, 07:50 PM

What's your point Starksy.

Know what, you can drink a gallon of cola a day and still get a Temple reccomend. If it's good enough that it don't kep ya out er the "Lord's House," it oughtta be good enough fer ta kep ya'll offen my back.

...and as much as I liked Brother Featherstone, he talking nonsense if he says cola is rebellion. Drinking cola may be light and refreshing, but it ain't rebellion.

LOL....

[srm]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 14 2004, 03:19 PM

"If a question arises about the meaning of “hot drinks,” explain that they are tea and coffee." (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Aaronic Priesthood Manual, "The Lord's Law of Health," pp. 101-104.)

herbal tea?

wheat coffee?

lemon tea?

green tea?

carrot tea?

coca tea?

[srm]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 14 2004, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 14 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -srm@Apr 14 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Apr 13 2004, 07:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--srm@Apr 13 2004, 06:39 PM

It was Hyrum Smith (in the 1840s) that said that hot drinks mean coffee and tea.  It is not just the Church's current interpretation.

That may be but I am reasonably certain that the Church doesn't base it's currently policies on what Hyrum said.

Yes but to infer that is a new interpretation is also inaccurate.

Okay, but I didn't say that it was a new interpretation. Without bothering to go back and check, I am sure I said "current" not "new."

"Current" is an appropriate term. As a matter of policy, the Church currently interprets "hot drinks" to be cold or hot coffee and tea. The Church also currently interprets the suggestion (word to the wise) as commandment. The Church also pretty much ignores the positive suggestions (grains, little or no meat) and focuses on the negatives (the don'ts).

I say "current" because it differs from the "earlier" interpretations.

If the Church really got serious about the Word of Wisdom, they would push, promote, and withhold temple reccomends from people who don't follow the whole WoW as a health code.

I say "current" because it differs from the "earlier" interpretations.

Ok, my friend when did earlier interpretations include other drinks or not include coffee or tea?

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by srm+Apr 15 2004, 09:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Apr 15 2004, 09:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 14 2004, 03:19 PM

"If a question arises about the meaning of “hot drinks,” explain that they are tea and coffee."  (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Aaronic Priesthood Manual, "The Lord's Law of Health," pp. 101-104.)

herbal tea?

wheat coffee?

lemon tea?

green tea?

carrot tea?

coca tea?

"Herb tea," isn't really "tea." Tea is a plant, like tobacco. "Herb tea" is comprised of flowers, spices, herbs, etc., not "tea." Who knows why they call it "tea," because it isn't. The same principle applies to "wheat coffee," and "carrot tea." Green tea is from a tea plant... no green tea allowed. Regarding "lemon tea" and "coca tea," I've never seen the ingredients in those two. If they don't contain black or green tea plant products, they aren't really "tea."