So*, I was out to dinner last night with some friends.
For some reason the conversation turned to Mormonism (long, involved story, concerning a law school ball and ticket prices) and one of my friends told me he had "several Mormon friends who drank (alcohol)" (on a regular basis).
He equated the position to orthodox and non-orthodox Jews, saying only the "orthodox" LDS didn't drink.
Now, to me this seemed both a really inappropriate analogy and a falsehood.
I had thought that the provision against drinking was pretty much a key tenet of the LDS faith. Could one still identify as a mainstream Mormon and drink?
When I told my friend this, he said "Well the Mormons here are different from those in Utah..".
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Don't all religions have spinoffs and adaptations and excuses, though? These people may consider themselves "not orthodox", whereas to the rest of the Mormon population they are "not Mormon."
What an outsider should call them is another thing altogether.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I consider myself Mormon and worship Satan at the same time.
I really don't see the problem.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
To go to the temple you have to believe that you follow the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom is interpreted at least as no tobacco, alcohol, coffee, illegally taken drugs. There is not any kind of organized non-orthodox Mormon movement, though whether people want to follow the commandments is up to them. The church has specifically disavowed "fundamentalist" Mormon groups, such as those that practice polygamy.
The Mormon church has an unusual degree of centralized control. There are of course splinter groups, but none are very organized with the exception of the Community of Christ (formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) but even that group shrank substantially from 1.5 million in the late 80's to about half a million last year.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Could one still identify as a mainstream Mormon and drink?
It would be like claming to be able to eat pork and keep kosher.
>>the Mormons here are different from those in Utah
Abstaining from alcohol is a key tenet of the LDS faith.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought by 'non-orthodox' you might mean, 'Mormons who didn't vote for Bush in the last election.' To which question I was ready with, "Ooooh! Oooh! Me! I'm unorthodox!"
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Actually, if a Mormon drinks, they can't attend the temple or take the sacrament. Well, they can, but it's a lie and considered a solemn mockery of God. There are many who do so, but it is in no way an acceptable thing to do.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I once heard a joke applied to Mormons: Why do you always have to invite two Mormons to go fishing with you? Because if you invite just one he'll drink all the beer.
I do know several church members who consider themselves Mormons but don't live the standards of the church (whether with regular church attendance, or alcohol, or whatever). They still self-identify as Mormons and generally they accept that what they're doing is wrong. They just don't believe they have the strength not to do it.
Generally speaking, however, I think that a drinking Mormon is a fairly uncommon thing (at least since the 1930's).
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
*hits Pat with a stick*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I'm going to have to say that the Jewish analogy is not a good one. There are organized groups of non-practicing and less-observant Jews. Not quite so with Mormons.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The LDS Church definitely has its share of split-offs. I've heard about things like "reform" Mormonism, too. Maybe this guy belonged to a splinter group that doesn't really follow the leadership in Salt Lake, or maybe he just thinks he can break the rules and still be okay. Or maybe they're just inactive members. I don't know enough to say.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
As for Spin-offs of Mormonism...Yeah. More than can be counted, I think. But none are recognized by the church and many are far more strange than even us.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The Community of Christ started out as church members who didn't go west with Brigham Young. Having leaders descended from the first prophet were their claim to superiority for a while, but then they ran out of male descendents and gave the priesthood to the women. After most of the people left over that, they voted it out again. They operate by consensus rather than revelation. At least, that's how I understood it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pat posted?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
He's done it a few times since he swore off Hatrack, never to post again.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There used to be a gay ward in Salt Lake- unofficial at the time but just kind of self-selected. Since the church issued the proclamation on the Family, such a group would probably have to distance itself further from the church. I haven't heard much about it lately. I think there is probably still a gay missionary reunion, but it's probably held at a bar.
The vast majority of breakaways from the church are people who think the church is too lax, rather than too strict.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Pat posted?
That was my reaction, twinky.
I actually looked again, to see the date of the post and thread and make sure it wasn't an old, bumped thread. Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Ela, me too.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The thing is, the guy (and this is through a friend, so who knows what's being distorted) didn't view himself as a spin-off, or even as a non-practising Mormon.
Just that it was ok if he drank, (regularly, and with no intent of stopping) and he could still be LDS.
Edit: And Yeah, I got Pat to post. I am teh coolest.
[ September 22, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Well, yeah, he can still be LDS. But unless he's willing to flat out lie to ecclesiastical leadership, he couldn't fully participate in the church (i.e. attend the temple). Living this particular law is necessary to receive that blessing/responsibility.
So, I can see this happening, but I think the guy's completely wrong. It's not okay to drink if you're LDS. And I think 9 out of 10 Mormons would agree.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, yeah, he can still be LDS. But unless he's willing to flat out lie to ecclesiastical leadership, he couldn't fully participate in the church (i.e. attend the temple). Living this particular law is necessary to receive that blessing/responsibility.
So, I can see this happening, but I think the guy's completely wrong. It's not okay to drink if you're LDS. And I think 9 out of 10 Mormons would agree.
It's not just temple worship that he'd be excluded from; he couldn't do basic things like take the sacrament or hold a calling. And I'd hope that a lot more than 9 out of 10 Mormons would agree.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Well, I was going to say that, accept I don't know that it's true. You don't have to pass a temple recommend interview to have a calling. We have a Sunday School teacher who struggles with smoking.
Unless you mean his unrepentant attitude would proclude him from speaking/sacrament/holding callings. But generally speaking, I don't think someone can be formally disfellowshipped for drinking. Anyone know for sure?
As for 9 out of 10, you're probably right. I was just trying to say that a strong majority of Mormons would disagree. Whether it's actually 99 out of 100 or 9 out of 10 or everyone but this guy. There's not a big group of non-orthodox Mormons out there (unless you count the 5 out of 10 who don't feel they need to come to church .
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:He's done it a few times since he swore off Hatrack, never to post again.
Why make a promise you know you're just gonna break?
No true Jatraquero can stay away forever. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
If his leaders were to confront him on it, and he would state that he has no intention of repenting of his drinking, and that he doesn't believe that the scriptures that state us such, or the repeated statements of the modern (and living) prophets, are authoritative, and he will go on teaching people that you can still be a Faithful Mormon and still consume alcohol - then I would think that Church Discipline (IE, Disfellowshipping) would not be out of lne.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
**worships Satan, makes crepes, then listens to Josh Groban**
And I wouldn't be doing all this posting if that flaming cactus website was more interesting.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
What's more interesting than flaming cacti?
Not much.
Especially when they do their Bette Midler impersonations.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Crepes.
Doing Josh Groban impersonations.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pat: **worships Satan, makes crepes, then listens to Josh Groban**
And I wouldn't be doing all this posting if that flaming cactus website was more interesting.
It was plenty interesting yesterday. Not my fault you didn't take advantage of it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
One of my best friends is LDS, and considers the thing about "hot drinks" to be a warning against addiction, not caffiene. So. Is he unorthodox? I don't know enough about LDS to say.
Thing is, LDS is Christian, and Christians follow the spirit, not the letter, of the Law. We're not really about rules. "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." Do LDS people see this differently?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do LDS people see this differently?
Hoo boy. You betcha. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I doubt that all Christians fit that definition. In the LDS Church, there are some inflexible rules and some flexible ones. The restrictions in the Word of Wisdom are currently inflexible, so I would say that if your friend drinks coffee, he's unorthodox.
By the way, the Joseph Smith Translation of that verse reads, "All these things are not lawful unto me, and all these things are not expedient. All things are not lawful for me, therefore I will not be brought under the power of any." That sort of changes things. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Pat: **worships Satan, makes crepes, then listens to Josh Groban**
And I wouldn't be doing all this posting if that flaming cactus website was more interesting.
It was plenty interesting yesterday. Not my fault you didn't take advantage of it.
It was? I must've missed it. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Still not my fault.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Is too. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Hey, I'm just the proprietor. It's up to you people to keep things interesting.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Hot Drinks has been interpreted to mean coffee and tea.
Cola drinks? That's left up to the member's own discretion, though the First Presidency has said that anything that leads to unhealthy addictions is best avoided.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
*just realizes she forgot to check the cactus site all day today....*
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
But caffiene, specifically, is not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. Eating chocolate and taking Exedrin is not going to get you disfellowshipped.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Pat - "I consider myself Mormon and worship Satan at the same time.
I really don't see the problem."
Sorry, I was literally on the floor laughing!
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
<----ashamed of his at least four a day kohlrabi habit.
I can stop any time!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I agree that you cannot really be a practicing Mormon while drinking alchohol, I still disagree with the following:
quote:I had thought that the provision against drinking was pretty much a key tenet of the LDS faith.
quote:Abstaining from alcohol is a key tenet of the LDS faith.
Not drinking alchohol is one of the most visibly obvious beliefs we have, but it is not a key tenant of our faith -- those are things like the Atonement of Christ, the Fall of Adam, the priesthood, and divine revelation.
Specific rules like not drinking alchohol is small potatoes in comparison to those. It's important to follow, but in now way would I call it key to our faith. There could be a revelation tomorrow that says that it's OK to drink alchohol, and our faith would be unchanged.
edit: changed "agree" to "disagree"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MPH, Thanks I was just going to add the same thing.
It is true that you can not receive a temple recommend unless you agree that you are following the Word of Wisdom -- ie not drinking alcohol.
You also couldn't hold any of the key leadership positions in a Ward, such as Bishop or Elder's quorum president, but you could hold most other callings.
And when it comes to the sacrament, that is a personal issue. You can not be official disfellowshipped for violating the WofW. I have known some Bishops who would encourage members with WofW problems to come and take the sacrament and others who would discourage it, but the decision is left to the member.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: By the way, the Joseph Smith Translation of that verse reads, "All these things are not lawful unto me, and all these things are not expedient. All things are not lawful for me, therefore I will not be brought under the power of any." That sort of changes things.
As Tom might say, Hoo Boy. It sure does.
I find this *very* disturbing. That first clause "all these things are not lawful unto me," when we go from other versions to Inspired, is altered by the word "not." That, of course, reverses the meaning!
Now, if LDS people believe that the Inspired Translation is inerrant, regardless of other versions including the Greek, then it's non-negotiable, and we need not discuss it. But reading the preface by Israel Smith (http://www.centerplace.org/library/tracts/iv_IsraelASmith.htm ), I think I understood that it wasn't the Greek N.T. that was wrong, it was KJV; that is; the Greek version is ok, but King James's scholars screwed things up. So if Inspired is just a better translation, then going back to the Greek should show us.
Before going further... is Inspired Translation inerrant, to LDS? If so, never mind. If not...Greek will tell.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess you understand a bit why people are so freaked out by Mormons.
Mormons believe in living prophets who have the right to interpret scripture. We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. How can we tell for sure if it is translated correctly? We can't really. We can't know scientifically what was changed without a Pastwatch machine.
But Mormons believe that Joseph Smith had the authority to receive revelation on what the Bible is actually *supposed* to say. This is a very scary idea for a lot of Christians. Not so scary for us, who trust that the Joseph Smith Translation was inspired of God. It's a matter of faith.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Huh? Israel Smith was leader of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and anyway, he explicitly states in that article that the Greek was "marred by mistakes." But no, the LDS Church does not believe that the Greek manuscript is inerrant.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think that's all pretty clear. Thanks.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Thing is, LDS is Christian, and Christians follow the spirit, not the letter, of the Law. We're not really about rules. "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." Do LDS people see this differently?
Mormons certainly believe in following the spirit of the law. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't follow the letter of the law as well.
I believe that, rather than excusing disobedience, following the spirit of the law usually requires you go above and beyond what the law itself states. Take caffeine for example; it isn't specifically prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. But you could argue the spirit of the law is to avoid addictive substances, so to obey the spirit of the law you should avoid caffeine. It's up to individuals to decide for themselves what the spirit of the law is.
I think it goes back to Christ's teachings on murder and anger, adultery and lust. The spirit of the law usually leads to a higher level of obedience, rather than a lower.
Oh, and a note on the Joseph Smith Translation for non-LDS posters. The KJV is the LDS church's officially endorsed English version of the bible. Bibles produced by the LDS church give the KJV text with footnotes and endnotes indicating Joseph Smith's changes.
And finally, a note from the LDS version of the scriptures about the JST: "Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another." (http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents)
Sorry, in advance, for the rambling nature of the post. I just find it an interesting subject that I think is generally misunderstood.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I just wanted to add that we don't really think of our scriptures as inerrant. We believe they were written by imperfect men, so there could be inaccuracies in them, even in the Book of Mormon. We believe that current revelation always trumps older revelation.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Well... I have no opinion about Saints who drink caffiene. Even if they're addicted, it's not for me to say that they're unrighteous. I mean, I don't know the circumstances, and it isn't specifically prohibited. Moreover, I've seen members who drink decaf coffee argue that they're not breaking the WoW, and I think this happens because people take a pretty clear cut rule, no coffee or tea, and start overanalyzing. They say, "why no coffee or tea?" and then think "it must be the caffiene" then they say, "so I can drink coffee without caffiene" and they end up going against the letter of the law. I take the law to mean no coffee, and no tea, and any justifications I can think of need to contain this basic premise.
For that matter, the WoW says eat meat sparingly. I happen to be a vegetarian, which I think goes along great with the WoW, but I've found Saints to be a pretty carnivorous group. I usually can't eat much at ward dinners and potlucks because people put either meat or gelitan in just about everything. But I don't think that makes them unrighteous. I don't really know how meat loving Mormons read the WoW, and it's not really any of my business.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I had a bishop lecture the ward once because people were avoiding Coke but drinking decaf. He said we obviously needed a little review on the WoW. It was hilarious. I love that bishop.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:For that matter, the WoW says eat meat sparingly. I happen to be a vegetarian
If you aren't eating meat at all, you aren't eating it sparingly. Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
If it was a "time of winter", which I read to mean a time when produce and other foods are unavailable and you really can't have a healthy diet without meat, then I'd eat meat. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Different people have different nutritional needs. I'm happy you've found a diet that works for you. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't have much to add that hasn't been said. However, there is no such thing as a "non-Orthodox" Mormon in the sense of what you mean with Jews. First and foremost, a non-orthodox Jew can be a specific movement with its own notions of what it means to be a Jew in the modern world. For a Mormon there is no such equivalance, as it is more about life choices in opposition to "orthodox" Mormon practice and doctrine. With many non-orthodox Jews it can be about interpretation, while with Mormons its about not doing what you know should, or vis-versa.
As with organizing into actual movements, the only "liberal non-orthodox" Mormonism to develop was the Reorganized (now Community of Christ) LDS Church. The purpose of that organization was to become more Mainline Protestant, although with little success. Any other "offshoots and breakoffs," and there are many, have been of an even more restictive nature. Most of those have been in regards to polygamy.
The reason for this is actually easy to understand. The very specific belief in Priesthood and its Authority is not easy to throw away. In order to develop a new Mormon movement you would have to declare a new Priesthood Dispensation, the true heirs of the old one (as the polygamists usually express), or reject the religious significants altogether. That last choice doesn't give much prospect of creating a religious organization. There is, however, a name that has developed for that last one: Cultural Mormon. Your "drinking friend" would be closer to what is called a Lax-Catholic.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That makes sense, Occasional. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:... closer to what is called a Lax-Catholic.
So if you were one of these, but then later became more observant, would you be an Ex-Lax-Catholic?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My dad calls himself a "cultural Catholic."
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
That's interesting. What things would he consider culturally Catholic rather than just culturally Christian? *thoughtful*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
He means that he grew up going to church, was in the choir, was an altar boy, went to parochial school, and while he does not currently hold all beliefs of the Catholic Church as true (he's not much on organized religion; I'm not sure he'd even self-identify as "Christian"), he does value his study of the teachings of Christ, who he considers a great teacher of many truths, and occasionally attends Mass at a church where he enjoys the homilies by a particular priest, especially on holidays, more to feel the fellowship than anything. He enjoys jokes and stories that only other people who grew up Catholic would "get", and values it as part of his upbringing in general.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:As with organizing into actual movements, the only "liberal non-orthodox" Mormonism to develop was the Reorganized (now Community of Christ) LDS Church . . . Any other "offshoots and breakoffs," and there are many, have been of an even more restictive nature. Most of those have been in regards to polygamy.
There are actually four "Mormon" denominations that are large enough to be listed in the Handbook of Denominations in the United States. The smaller three all were founded in the late 1800s and rejected polygamy from the beginning, while TCoJCLDS was still practicing it.
TCoJCLDS is the only one over 500,000 members, though.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Interesting. What are they, dkw? I think the only break-offs we ever really hear about here in Utah are the little polygamist groups. Makes sense that they'd be in the news more, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1) The Church of Christ (Temple Lot), which was founded in 1867. They moved en masse to Missouri in 1867 and took posession of the land there dedicated by Joeseph Smith for a temple.
2) The Church of Jesus Christ (Bikertonites), founded in 1862. A break-off from the followers of Sidney Rigdon, a Pennsylvania Mormom who refused to go west with Brigham Young.
3) The Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, founded in 1860. They believed that Joseph Smith's son was his sucessor, rather than Brigham Young.
and of course
4) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Which you would know a lot more about than I do. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Maybe I should have stated only viable liberal religious breakoff. The other ones you mention are practically in limbo. And, as was mentioned, the RLDS isn't doing so hot either.
[ September 25, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I smell something smug. Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I didn't realize Sidney Rigdon's spinoff was still in operation. Very interesting! I've always thought Sidney was an interesting fellow.
[Edit: Shoot. This is post 999. Do I do the landmark or not?]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I went to school with several Mormons in Montana, none of whom were what's been referred to as "orthodox". The catholic counterpart to what they are is called "Christmas and Easter" parishioners.
They referred to themselves as "Jack Mormons". I've never heard the term before or since, but it was pretty widespread in the Northwest. It is basically a person who's LDS in name only. Born into the faith, but doesn't adhere to all of the rules. I don't think they belonged to the local ward, or if there even was a local ward. They drank beer (although they weren't big drinkers, you could tell) and they drank soft drinks. They had some strange practices, but I don't know if they were belief driven or just personal choices.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think Sidney's spinoff is. The one I mentioned is a spinoff of his spinoff. They didn't move with him to wherever it was he moved in 86. (My Handbook is at home.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"Jack Mormon" is a common term in the LDS Church to refer to people like you just described. Drinking soft drinks isn't notable, though; they're not forbidden like alcohol, coffee, and tea are.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Why are soft drinks allowed but coffee and tea aren't?
It's the caffeine which is the problem, right? Because of its addictive nature?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why are soft drinks allowed but coffee and tea aren't?
The restriction in our scriptures is against "hot drinks", which has been clarified by our leaders to mean coffee and tea.
That it's all about the caffine is conjecture. Even though it's a pretty commonly held belief, it's not doctrine.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
If I remember correctly, Jack-Mormons were originally non-Mormons who helped the saints during the years of persecution when Joseph Smith was still alive.
Over the years it has evolved into Mormons who believe but do not attend church regularly. Jack Mormons still basically believe the church, but either feel disenfranchised or apathetic towards the church or its practices/commandments/policies.
They should not be confused with Mormons who have left the church but don't feel the motivation to go through the process to remove their name from the church records. Technically such non-believers are still a Mormon, but they don't believe. If a person like that were too drink alcohol and not go to church, I don't think they would be considered a Jack Mormon.
Those who have left the church but are still on the roster are probably called inactives or apostates.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
But you can't drink cold tea and you can drink hot chocolate. I still don't get it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: But you can't drink cold tea and you can drink hot chocolate. I still don't get it.
What's not to get? We've been told that the "hot drinks" phrase means coffee and tea.
Cold tea is still tea.
Hot chocolate is still not coffee nor tea.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
lem -- I think that the term Jack Mormon can apply equally to somebody who believes and doesn't follow or somebody who doesn't believe but hasn't had their name removed.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Cold tea is still tea, and hot chocolate is neither, but I'm also confused about the translation of the phrase "hot drinks". The church leadership decided what it meant? What did they base that translation on?
I know that for believers it isn't as important to always understand as it is to comply, but it seems a little contradictory to me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It's not a translation. Joseph Smith wrote "hot drinks" in the Doctrine & Covenants, and later Church presidents clarified that it meant coffee and tea. That's how our church works. We believe in continuing revelation, so the current leadership always trumps past statements.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The church leadership decided what it meant? What did they base that translation on?
It's not a translation -- the original revelation was given in English.
Whad did they base their interpretation on? Revelation. As a prophet, seer, and revelator, the president of the church is authorized to interpret (or receive) scripture for the entire church.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I know it was in English before; translation doesn't have to involve more than one language, although it typically does. "Clarification" would have been a more appropriate word choice.
What does the current leadership say when asked why certain drinks are alright? Is there something specific about the fundemental makeup of all coffees and teas that one should avoid? Obviously not the caffeine, as soft drinks are permitted. And not the temperature at which they are served, what with the hot chocolate and cold tea example. I don't drink coffee or tea, so I imagine I'd be fine with the LDS rules. Not that the denominations I'm more familiar with don't have lots of...strange requirements. I'm just curious if you're allowed to ask for further clarification or if you're just supposed to do as they say.
I don't mean to offend anyone, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so if I'm overstepping some boundaries just let me know. I will say that my incessant asking of the question, "Why?" is the main reason why I and organized religion don't get along. I like for things to have a reason to them, and that's not always allowed.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I honestly don't see the point in asking why other drinks are okay. They're okay because they aren't not okay. There's certainly nothing wrong with asking, but I don't believe there's really a reason other than "God said so." I think it's mostly a matter of faith.
Of course, just because soft drinks aren't forbidden doesn't mean we should drink them with reckless abandon. Our leaders encourage moderation and common sense. Caffeinated soda might not be forbidden, but I do think it's often a good idea to avoid it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What does the current leadership say when asked why certain drinks are alright? Is there something specific about the fundemental makeup of all coffees and teas that one should avoid?
AFAIK, we have not been given further clarification.
quote:Obviously not the caffeine, as soft drinks are permitted.
No, it's not obvious. Many members don't drink caffinated drinks because they believe that it is the caffine.
quote:I don't mean to offend anyone, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so if I'm overstepping some boundaries just let me know. I will say that my incessant asking of the question, "Why?" is the main reason why I and organized religion don't get along. I like for things to have a reason to them, and that's not always allowed.
Feel free to ask "Why". It's certainly allowed.
Just as long as you don't mind when we say "I don't know" a lot. Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
First I would like to note that I know very little about the Mormons or LDS and I am just telling you what I have heard.
Anyway, I heard the no soda rule was lifted when the Mormon Church bought Pepsi.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's fair.
I wouldn't accept that, but I understand taking things on faith.
And of course just because something is allowed doesn't mean you can gorge yourself on it. I never implied that, nor do I believe it. I don't drink soft drinks, but that's purely for health reasons.
And if soft drinks are permitted (as Jon Boy indicated they were) then caffeine is obviously not forbidden. Not a great idea to take in a lot of it, but allowed. Or is that a judgement call?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Anyway, I heard the no soda rule was lifted when the Mormon Church bought Pepsi.
You heard wrong.
quote:I wouldn't accept that, but I understand taking things on faith.
I wouldn't expect anybody to believe any revelation from our prophets unless they already believed that they were prophets.
If you believed that our leaders were prophets, I doubt you'd have much problem with it.
quote:And if soft drinks are permitted (as Jon Boy indicated they were) then caffeine is obviously not forbidden. Not a great idea to take in a lot of it, but allowed. Or is that a judgement call?
It's up to each member to decided on their own what they think about that. Many members believe that caffinated drinks are against the Word of Wisdom (the revelation that the prohibition agasint coffee and tea comes from), many others don't.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone:
Shoot. This is post 999. Do I do the landmark or not?
I didn't at my 1000th. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There was never a no-soda rule, and the LDS Church does not own Pepsi. Linky.
I'll second what Porter said about caffeine: it's a judgment call.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
Ok, thanks for setting me straight.
Posted by Diosmel Duda (Member # 2180) on :
You also didn't take over four years to get to that first thousand.
(This is Brinestone until I post the landmark or decide not to.)
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:What does the current leadership say when asked why certain drinks are alright? Is there something specific about the fundemental makeup of all coffees and teas that one should avoid?
I don't think they say anything about the "whys." I have heard from Mormons (so this is just interpretation) that the reason is because of the concentration of caffeine and other chemicals like tar in coffee and tea.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, as I understand it, didn't Joseph Smith himself later clarify that the Word of Wisdom revelation referred to Coffee and Tea?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not sure who it was that clarified it. To us, it doen't really matter matter, since Brigham Young and all the other presidents of the church down to the present day are all just as much prophets as Joseph Smith was.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, JB.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So, out of interest, does a person become president of the LDS church because he is a prophet, or does he aquire the powers of prophecy when chosen as president?
Or is it a kind of predesitination, "we don't percieve time like God does" thang?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Diosmel Duda: You also didn't take over four years to get to that first thousand.
(This is Brinestone until I post the landmark or decide not to.)
True. Maybe I'll landmark at my four year anniversary.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
*does some quick math*
Yikes! That'll be around 40,000 posts at the current rate. Hatrack could collapse under the weight of all those posts!
--Mel
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: So, out of interest, does a person become president of the LDS church because he is a prophet, or does he aquire the powers of prophecy when chosen as president?
Or is it a kind of predesitination, "we don't percieve time like God does" thang?
Well, sort of. Unlike with the Papacy, the President of the Church is voted and elected in conclave. The Senior Apostle (the Apostle who has been an apostle the longest, not the oldest), who, along with the rest of the Apostles, already holds all of the 'preisthood keys' in a sort of dormancy, when sustained as President of the Church, has those Preisthood Keys of Authority come into activity.
This individual becomes The Prophet, and becomes the authorized individual to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church. It's all very, very orderly.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)