Is it a sin to go against the cousel of the Prophet?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

If the counsel we are receiving is counsel from the prophet acting in his stewardship (watchman on the tower), then the real question we should ask ourselves, "Is it sin to disregard counsel from the Lord; although it is not a commandment"

What you are saying is similar to:  Did Israel sin when they told Samuel that they wanted a king even though they were told that wasn't such a good idea?  And the answer to that question is:

I don't know.  But it still wasn't a good idea regardless.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Guest

[BJ64]

33 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The problem with these types of questions (although I think this a good question) is that it may create an either/or mentality. I assume this question's catalyst is the recent post by the Church regarding medical marijuana (I could be wrong though).

If a prophet is speaking as a prophet, then yes, we have sinned because we have chosen to disregard the counsel by the Lord's chosen servant. The Book of Mormon provides an excellent example of prophet vs. father also with Laman and Lehi. Lehi explains to Nephi that his command is not from him, but is from the Lord, and this was something Laman did not understand. If the counsel we are receiving is counsel from the prophet acting in his stewardship (watchman on the tower), then the real question we should ask ourselves, "Is it sin to disregard counsel from the Lord; although it is not a commandment"?

If the prophet is counseling from one man to another, or one human to another, and is providing his thoughts and opinions on a subject matter, then no we are not in sin when disregarding counsel.

Now, there may be times when disregarding counsel from the Lord (through his servant the prophet) may not be sin; however, we will then face the natural consequence of disobeying the counsel received.

We could ask ourselves, is a 16 year in sin if they choose not to double date? This is great counsel, and I would answer -- probably not; although, if they begin dating one-on-one earlier on they now have a higher probability of breaking the law of chastity then 16 year olds who choose to follow this counsel.

What do we learn from scripture? The wise build themselves upon the rock of the Redeemer. If the Redeemer is counseling us through his prophet, and we have testimony (spiritual witness) of this truth, then we are building ourselves even more upon the rock of the Redeemer as we head the counsel provided; otherwise in some cases (not like dating sixteen year olds) we will suffer the consequence of disobedience to important counsel.

If the question catalyst is the marijuana bill, then indeed we may be in sin by rejecting such counsel, and if we do, then rightfully so we will reap the consequences (like all other generations before us) for choosing such.

No, this has nothing to do with marijuana. In fact I don’t care one way or the other what Utah does in this regard. I don’t follow Utah politics as most members of the church probably don’t. 

You give a good response. I think that many times if we don’t follow the counsel of the prophet the result is not sin but a lack of blessing. There have been many words of counsel that have been given which members may or may not choose to follow. For example stay out of debt, have a years supply of food, have family home evening etc. where not follow the counsel may bring about its own punishment. The caffeine example, if you drink caffeine you will be subject to the ill effects of the substance. 

 

[JohnsonJones]

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

They have?  Who?

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/Cola_drinks_and_caffeine

Could make some interesting stories for you.

This was ACTUALLY pretty common advice up until the mid 90s.  Spencer W. Kimball has the greatest quote of it, but others at least back to David O' Mckay (sorry, don't have a perfect memory so can't talk about others really prior to him) advised against caffeinated drinks.

It was so prevalent that even as a young adult (which was decades ago, which some of you probably also have that pleasure of that age) friends who were non-Mormon already KNEW to try to watch out for me and help me avoid caffeinated drinks (I wouldn't have anyways, but they knew the idea and that Good Mormons supposedly didn't drink caffeine, even in colas and soft drinks).

I think the change (this is opinion) came about due to Thomas S. Monson's supposed addiction to Diet Pepsi.  Hard to counsel not to drink Caffeinated drinks when your President of the Twelve is heavily drinking it...OR...even better, when you yourself (when he was prophet) are heavily drinking it.

Thus a sharp turn from advising NOT to drink it to where we are today.

However, up until the mid-90s either at speeches at devotionals or other things this was a common item to come up.  It wasn't against the WoW directly, but their advice for those who wanted to live the Spirit of the Law was to not drink them...and it wasn't just Mormons who knew this.  The entire reason Gordon B. Hinckley was asked (and it was asked at other times) was because it was so commonly given that it was actually rather common knowledge to the General Public that Mormons (at least Good Ones) did NOT drink Caffeine.

It is NOT something that just popped out of nowhere, it was legitimately given as advice to previous generations.

Edited September 3, 2018 by JohnsonJones
Grammar

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Correct, we are to follow the prophet.  

I never drink caffeinated soft drinks. However is drinking caffeine sinful behavior since several prophets have counseled against it?

I’m not suggesting that anyone not follow the prophet which is why in this example I’m suggesting that drinking caffeinated soft drinks is a sin because it is failure to follow the teachings of several prophets. Most recently President Hinckley. 

Yes and No.

In ancient Israel you have the Lower Law given to them (as we Mormons believe).  This was because they originally showed that they did not really wish to live the Higher Law when Moses came down from the Mountain.  However, we KNOW that they must have had some element of the Higher law from what we know in the Book of Mormon.  We find traces of it among the teachings of Nephi-Alma and we also believe they had the Melchizedek Priesthood (another sign of the Higher law, with the Lower Law normally having the administration done by those of the Tribe of Levi and the sons of Aaron thus being the Aaronic Priesthood).

In that same light, we have the Higher Law today (in the New Testament) which we try to follow.  Often, we do NOT follow the Higher Law (as found in the Beatitudes amongst other things), and we mock others, lack humility or meekness, and all sorts of other violations of the Higher Law (and though we try to condemn outright violations of looking upon another to lust upon them, we still have members appreciate TV shows and other things that glorify this idea, even if they are not outright ranked as pornography by our society today)...without us needing to go to see a Bishop.

That said, I think it depends on WHERE one is spiritually.  For those who are not at a certain point of spirituality, much like the Israelites, it is not expected that they will (or maybe even can) live the higher law.  As more is received and accepted, MORE is expected.  As we learn what we should really be doing, things that may have been transgressions or done out of ignorance before, become sins as we grow and learn in the gospel.

It is said (it could be a rumor, but I think the story has a basis of truth) that Spencer W. Kimball, when he was prophet, did not partake of the Sacrament one Sunday.  Now, think about that.  Spencer W. Kimball was supposedly one of the most humble General Authorities we ever had, and I feel this continued even MORESO when he was a prophet.  He felt he had sinned badly enough that he didn't partake of the sacrament one Sunday.  Something that perhaps he did would have been something none of us would have even batted an eye at.

It's all about WHAT level of spirituality we are at. 

So, for many, I do not think it is a sin for them to gloss over advice that is given from the pulpit.  For others, it may be.

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What you are saying is similar to:  Did Israel sin when they told Samuel that they wanted a king even though they were told that wasn't such a good idea?  And the answer to that question is:

I don't know.  But it still wasn't a good idea regardless.

Correct, this is why I think an either/or mentality isn't the correct method of looking at this question. In some cases, I would say if we reject counsel from prophets, we are in sin. In other cases, the counsel may indeed simply be counsel and not accepting the counsel is not sin (and we receive no consequence, or we receive a natural consequence). In other cases, the counsel may be similar to warnings and specific events (i.e. what you have given with Samuel and Israel wanting a King) we will face the consequence of rejecting counsel. In this case, I would say they rebelled (which in my mind was sin, I can see why some would say it wasn't though) and by their rebellion they will face the consequence of their decision.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, BJ64 said:

No, this has nothing to do with marijuana. In fact I don’t care one way or the other what Utah does in this regard. I don’t follow Utah politics as most members of the church probably don’t. 

You give a good response. I think that many times if we don’t follow the counsel of the prophet the result is not sin but a lack of blessing. There have been many words of counsel that have been given which members may or may not choose to follow. For example stay out of debt, have a years supply of food, have family home evening etc. where not follow the counsel may bring about its own punishment. The caffeine example, if you drink caffeine you will be subject to the ill effects of the substance. 

 

I think my response to @Carborendum here also gives response to what you have shared here.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

 

This is from Wikipedia about Coco-Cola. 

  Quote

 

When launched,[[ in1886]] Coca-Cola's two key ingredients were cocaine and caffeine. The cocaine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-Cola (the "K" in Kola was replaced with a "C" for marketing purposes).^[62][63]

Coca – cocaine

Pemberton called for five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose; in 1891, Candler claimed his formula (altered extensively from Pemberton's original) contained only a tenth of this amount. Coca-Cola once contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass. (For comparison, a typical dose or "line" of cocaine is 50–75 mg.^[64]) In 1903, it was removed.^[65]

After 1904, instead of using fresh leaves, Coca-Cola started using "spent" leaves – the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process with trace levels of cocaine.^[66] Since then, Coca-Cola uses a cocaine-free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.^[67]

 

I believe that is why the early Prophets cautioned against drinking Cola's.

 

Maybe not.  

It is usually the latter prophets rather than the early ones who counseled against drinking caffeinated drinks.

As far as cocaine goes, the counsel against that didn't come until later.  Most early church members, as well as most frontier settlers had and used cocaine for medicinal purposes.  

[Blackmarch]

On 9/2/2018 at 2:08 PM, BJ64 said:

Is it a sin to go against the counsel of the prophet even if that which he counsels against is not a commandment?

For example caffeinated soft drinks are not against the word of wisdom  but several prophets have counseled against their use.

Therefore are you sinning by drinking caffeinated soft drinks even if they aren’t against the word of wisdom since you are disobeying the prophet’s counsel?

counsel as in advice? technically no. however real life tends to make their counsel wise when looking back after having gotten pounded into the ground by life after having ignored the counsel.

also when one gets into the habit of going against the counsel it becomes a lot easier to fall into sin.
 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Blackmarch

[BJ64]

14 minutes ago, Scott said:

Maybe not.  

It is usually the latter prophets rather than the early ones who counseled against drinking caffeinated drinks.

As far as cocaine goes, the counsel against that didn't come until later.  Most early church members, as well as most frontier settlers had and used cocaine for medicinal purposes.  

Since it seems that nobody bothered to read the article I linked  to on what prophets have said about caffeine, here is part of the article. 

“

When it comes to the Word of Wisdom, without fail there is always one topic that creates a stir of controversy: caffeine. Even as early as 1918, an article in the Church's magazine the Improvement Era debated the effects of drinking caffeine and whether or not coca-cola was a suitable drink for Church members, stating, "The coca-cola habit has made rapid inroads into the lives of an unsuspecting people" (Improvement Era, vol. 21, March 1918). 

Church members and even leaders vary on their views of caffeine, generating personal convictions that can sometimes cause conflict between Latter-day Saints.

In 1937, Elder John A. Widtsoe and his wife, Leah, wrote the first major book on the Word of Wisdom, speaking strongly against caffeine, saying, “Whenever a drink is advertised to 'give you a lift,' the 'lift' is likely to be caused by the drug which it contains. Such soft drinks are decidedly harmful and habit-forming, even though sold by the millions. Such caffeine-containing drinks, offered by every soda fountain and most eating places, and consumed in large quantities, should be known and avoided.”

[Laniston]

For me I consider the experiences of the Nephites at the beginning of Mosiah as well as my own experience with conversion.  After King Benjamin addresses the Nephites they tell him that they have all felt a conversion to Christ which manifests as a desire to do good continually instead of evil.

 

To me this shows that they would stop asking questions about commandments like where the lines were.  Or how far can they can go with a behaviour before it is considered a sin.  They weren't looking for some minimum level of righteousness to achieve which would allow them to have their sin cake and eat it too.  No, they wanted to be as good as possible because of a deep love and gratitude for Christ.

 

Additionally we know that God doesn't want to command us in everything, because that would make us slothful servants.  So we don't get commaments on every little thing.  I think if you are trying to find lines of where sin is or not, maybe a better question is if you truly have faith in and love for Heavenly Father and the Saviour.  That is what can convert a person and make you feel like following them for the purest reasons.  Then, you don't NEED a commandment to say, not drink caffeine for example.  You aren't concerned with if it is a sin or not to drink cola and more concerned with the admonition to treat your body like a temple.  And not because you are afraid of punishment but because you love God and are trying to do your best.  

 

Me for example I am trying to drastically reduce the amount of sugary drinks and foods I consume.  Nobody commanded me to do it, and there isn't anything in the word of wisdom which says I can't drink soda.  However I do feel like I need to treat my body better, and it is nice to see the positive results.

[Anddenex]

11 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Since it seems that nobody bothered to read the article I linked  to on what prophets have said about caffeine, here is part of the article. 

“

When it comes to the Word of Wisdom, without fail there is always one topic that creates a stir of controversy: caffeine. Even as early as 1918, an article in the Church's magazine the Improvement Era debated the effects of drinking caffeine and whether or not coca-cola was a suitable drink for Church members, stating, "The coca-cola habit has made rapid inroads into the lives of an unsuspecting people" (Improvement Era, vol. 21, March 1918). 

Church members and even leaders vary on their views of caffeine, generating personal convictions that can sometimes cause conflict between Latter-day Saints.

In 1937, Elder John A. Widtsoe and his wife, Leah, wrote the first major book on the Word of Wisdom, speaking strongly against caffeine, saying, “Whenever a drink is advertised to 'give you a lift,' the 'lift' is likely to be caused by the drug which it contains. Such soft drinks are decidedly harmful and habit-forming, even though sold by the millions. Such caffeine-containing drinks, offered by every soda fountain and most eating places, and consumed in large quantities, should be known and avoided.”

Just as a side note, I read the first half of the article.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Since it seems that nobody bothered to read the article I linked  to on what prophets have said about caffeine, here is part of the article. 

I read it, but it seems that you didn't read mine:

As far as cocaine goes, the counsel against that didn't come until later.  Most early church members, as well as most frontier settlers had and used cocaine for medicinal purposes.  

My comment was to Iggy about the early prophets/members in our Church and I mentioned the frontier settlers (or pioneers as members of our Church are usually referred to as).   Your article is from a much later time period.  I certainly wouldn't call 1918 and 1937 the era of early prophets/members in our Church.   Coca Cola wasn't even invented until 56 years after the Church was organized.  

As far as I know, by the time the Church counseled against it, cocaine was already illegal, except for registers companies for a few restricted purposes.  

[BJ64]

@ScottSorry. The term later prophets made me think of the last half century. 

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

@ScottSorry. The term later prophets made me think of the last half century. 

It's cool.  I should have been more specific.

[unixknight]

There's a distinction drawn between commandments and counsel for a reason.  We have to be careful to avoid acting likeva Pharisee and puffing ourselves up as 'better than you' because of treating every piece of counsel as an absolute rule.

[VelvetShadow]

On 9/3/2018 at 6:43 AM, zil said:

If I still had that VCR > DVD recorder thing, I could rip a copy of my VHS that has President Hinckley on 60 Minutes saying that Mormons don't drink caffeinated soda.  If you really need it, I could record that portion with my cell phone pointed at the TV.  (Assuming the tape will still play - it was recorded when I was in Moscow and shipped to me - I think.)

I actually 100% agree with President Hinckley on this, soda is bad enough for you but caffeinated soda is even worse.  If the Word of wisdom is against coffee and tea I don't think it gives people a free pass to drink coke or Pepsi.  

I thought the prophets were supposed to give us guidance and understanding of the Scriptures, if a prophet said don't drink caffeinated soda on national television, and you believe you are part of the true church, then seriously people, don't drink it.  I found it on youtube if anyone wants to see it, its just a 30 second clip where he confirms no caffeinated soda I'm sure you could find the whole interview if you wanted to.

 

 

[zil]

8 hours ago, VelvetShadow said:

I actually 100% agree with President Hinckley on this, soda is bad enough for you but caffeinated soda is even worse.  If the Word of wisdom is against coffee and tea I don't think it gives people a free pass to drink coke or Pepsi.   

I thought the prophets were supposed to give us guidance and understanding of the Scriptures, if a prophet said don't drink caffeinated soda on national television, and you believe you are part of the true church, then seriously people, don't drink it.  I found it on youtube if anyone wants to see it, its just a 30 second clip where he confirms no caffeinated soda I'm sure you could find the whole interview if you wanted to. 

The difference is that coffee and tea are the official interpretation, and therefore are one part of the Word of Wisdom which is "required" (e.g. in order to have a temple recommend).

The caffeinated soda (or really, any soda) part is counsel from various prophets.  Since it won't keep you from a temple recommend (neither will cursing at Utah drivers, for example), individuals choose for themselves whether / to what degree to heed a prophet's counsel.  Many things in the Word of Wisdom are left to the individual to interpret and decide.  Either way - whether it's prophetic counsel or interpretation of scripture, Word of Wisdom or Sermon on the Mount, each person has a great deal of leeway to progress at their own pace and choose which blessings they wish to enjoy sooner and which blessings to forgo - at the end of the day, that's what our choices amount to - choosing the blessings we want (or don't want).

I don't comprehend habitual soda pop drinkers, but I'm not going to harass them about it - I've got more than enough weaknesses of my own to worry about.

[Guest MormonGator]

I think part of the reason caffeinated soda is so "controversial" for LDS is because other substances are clearly banned. So some (key word, some) expect the prophets to issue black and white revelation/rules on every substance from milk to energy drinks to soda. 

[unixknight]

Yeah when I want to seek guidance from Church Authorities I listen to Conference talks, not 60 Minutes.

[Fether]

9 hours ago, VelvetShadow said:

I actually 100% agree with President Hinckley on this, soda is bad enough for you but caffeinated soda is even worse.  If the Word of wisdom is against coffee and tea I don't think it gives people a free pass to drink coke or Pepsi.  

I thought the prophets were supposed to give us guidance and understanding of the Scriptures, if a prophet said don't drink caffeinated soda on national television, and you believe you are part of the true church, then seriously people, don't drink it.  I found it on youtube if anyone wants to see it, its just a 30 second clip where he confirms no caffeinated soda I'm sure you could find the whole interview if you wanted to.

 

 

I also want to point out the exercise, eating healthy foods and not over eating is also par of the word of wisdom. I agree that a prophets suggest not to drink soda, and I agree with them. But for those people that think soda drinkers are sinners and should be barred from the temple, then you must also include to that list of sinners people that don’t exercise every day, people who’ve over eat on thanksgiving, and people who don’t eat veggies and fruits every day.

[BJ64]

What’s interesting to me is how people pick and choose which teachings of the prophet they are going to follow and which they are going to reject. 

In other words it seems that people follow the prophet so long as it doesn’t affect how they want to live. 

Some people also seem to criticize others for rejecting certain counsel while they themselves are rejecting other counsel as though they are the ones who decide what is important and what is not. 

[BJ64]

A couple other bits of counsel that come to mind are no tattoos and no multiple piercings. 

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

What’s interesting to me is how people pick and choose which teachings of the prophet they are going to follow and which they are going to reject. 

In other words it seems that people follow the prophet so long as it doesn’t affect how they want to live. 

Some people also seem to criticize others for rejecting certain counsel while they themselves are rejecting other counsel as though they are the ones who decide what is important and what is not. 

In regards to Catholics doing the same thing (being cafeteria catholics) my devoutly Catholic friend said it best. "They are sorry excuses for Catholics, but at least they are Catholics." Do you think most devout LDS view Jack Mormons the same way? 

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In regards to Catholics doing the same thing (being cafeteria catholics) my devoutly Catholic friend said it best. "They are sorry excuses for Catholics, but at least they are Catholics." Do you think most devout LDS view Jack Mormons the same way? 

Yes

[Fether]

19 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

What’s interesting to me is how people pick and choose which teachings of the prophet they are going to follow and which they are going to reject. 

In other words it seems that people follow the prophet so long as it doesn’t affect how they want to live. 

Some people also seem to criticize others for rejecting certain counsel while they themselves are rejecting other counsel as though they are the ones who decide what is important and what is not. 

And I want to add that we ALL do this. Do you exercise every day, have fruits and vegetables every day, never drink soda, read the Book of Mormon every day, keep abstudy journal, keep a personal journal, perfect in your ministering to your assignments and friends, attend all your meetings, never swear, attend the temple regularly, have ancestors names you are actively doing work for, not watching or listening to media with any amount of profanity or immorality, only speak kind things to everyone, go to bed early and wake up early, etc.

No one can say that we don’t pick and choose.