Can they have chocolate and midol? I thought those both had caffeine in them.
And if Mormon ladies can't have Midol... I feel very, very sorry for them.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
It isn't caffine, I'm pretty sure many LDS drink Coke. If I remember this discussion correctly it's "hot drinks."
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Some take the part from the Doctrines and Covenants to the extreme, meaning it covers all caffeine products. In reality though it only mentions "hot beverages," which Joseph Smith later said meant coffee and tea specifically.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
What about iced tea?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Based on revelation, through their prophet, Ellen G. White, Seventh-day Adventists also discourage use of coffee and tea; but some church members do use them. I drink green tea for its antioxidant and other health benefits, even though green tea and regular tea come from the leaves of the same plant. The only difference is--now get this--regular tea is allowed to blacken with mold. This is also the same difference between black pepper and white pepper. The black pepper has been allowed to blacken with mold. Maybe you didn't want to know that.
Anyway, my belief is that there is something other than just caffeine in the regular tea that is unhealthful. (I also stay away from black pepper. White pepper is just as good.)
Also, recent studies have indicated that cola drinks promote high blood pressure much more than coffee does, even though coffee has several times as much caffeine as cola drinks. Again, it must be something besides the caffeine that is the culprit.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Coffee and Tea are what's proscribed by the rules. No iced tea either. People are encouraged to interpret that however they feel is right. Some people feel that means no caffeinated sodas either. Others think those are okay but don't drink herbal teas which aren't caffeinated. Chocolate and hot chocolate are universally accepted as okay, as far as I can tell.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I think tea of any kind is a no-no for them. Let the LDS members correct me if I'm wrong though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Chocolate and hot chocolate are universally accepted as okay, as far as I can tell.
Nope. I only drink hot chocolate when it's cold and I really need to warm up. I only drink herbal teas ditto or for medicinal reasons. But I don't condemn those who do otherwise. Nothing containing products of the tea plant for me, including ice cream, iced tea, etc.
Caffeine, for me, falls under the teaching against "addictive substances". I drink sodas with it occasionally, but limit myself because a) I don't want to become dependent, and b) I sometimes need it when my blood pressure is dangerously low, and I need it to work when I do need it. Also nothing made from coffee, including decaf, ice cream, cakes, etc. (Not that I really care, I hate the taste of coffee-- although I love the smell.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tatiana, chocolate contains some caffeine, too, though not as much as coffee.
Revelation 22:2 says that the Tree of Life in the New Earth will bear a different kind of fruit each month. I'm holding on to hope that one of the flavors will be chocolate. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
pfresh85, what about spearmint leaf tea? How could anyone be opposed to that?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:pfresh85, what about spearmint leaf tea? How could anyone be opposed to that?
Because it's a hot drink. I only drink it for medicinal purposes.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Thanks for answering that for me, kq. I'm not fully up to date as to what is and isn't permitted by LDS doctrine.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If you're going to oppose any kind of hot herbal tea, then you also have to oppose using any kind of herbal seasoning in hot soup.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I also don't eat soup that hot-- wait until it's warm. But it's not the herbs, it's the temperature.
But again, this isn't doctrine-- it's a personal choice.
(Not that I really think you have a right to tell me how I should practice my religion.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... green tea and regular tea come from the leaves of the same plant. The only difference is--now get this--regular tea is allowed to blacken with mold. This is also the same difference between black pepper and white pepper. The black pepper has been allowed to blacken with mold. Maybe you didn't want to know that.
Ron, do you have a citation for that?
Black tea leaves are permitted to oxidize for a few hours before being dried. Though this oxidation process is misleadingly called "fermentation," it has nothing to do with either yeast or mold.
The only exception is puer tea, which goes through a second "fermentation" and develops a fine layer of mold. However, that's a rare tea that is hard to come by.
Where did you get this idea? *really curious
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The answer is that people's interpretations vary, and that's how it's supposed to be.
I didn't know there were LDS who didn't drink hot chocolate. Now I know!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I also can't find any source associating black pepper with mold.
FWIW, according to Wikipedia and the McCormick spice company web pages, the black peppercorns are harvested unripe, then lightly cooked to release the browning enzymes, then dried. The white peppercorns are harvested as ripe fruit, but the outer fruit layer is removed off the inner seed by soaking in water and letting it decompose and dissolve off the hard inner seed. Essentially, it rots off.
That doesn't bother me, but if rotting and/or mold as part of a process bothers you, it might be worth looking more carefully into the production of white peppercorns.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Maybe we should have an LDS thread similar to rivka's very informative Jewish one. Either that or I just need to take a comparitive religion class since I am becoming more and more facinated by other* religious doctrine lately.
Why are hot drinks prohibited? I understand the reasons behind the Old Testement dietary restrictions so it seems to me there would be a logical reason for this as well. Thanks!
[edit: *other than my own]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Because God told us to. It's been interpreted as "tea and coffee" by later prophets, but I have my own reasons for adding to that list. A person can be a good, observant Latter-day Saint and avoid nothing but alcohol, tea, coffee, and tobacco (well, and illegal drugs, of course.) But it all comes down to "Because God told us to."
If you ask rivka, I believe she would tell you that as much as you may think you "understand the reasons behind the Old Testament dietary restrictions", the real reason they are observed is "because God told us to." Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Those are the active ingredients from Midol's website. FYI, 500 mg Acetaminophen is actually one standard extra-strength Tylenol (without the other stuff), which works for cramps. I'm also amused that Midol is marketing straight ibuprofen as something special. Also, Pamprin contains the exact same formula as the Midol PMS. I'm not sure if you can get the two diuretics on their own, but I really need to stop googling drugs on a Saturday night.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
chocolait? *steals all of it*
*runs off*
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Yeah that cramps formula really is weird. I mean that is what I take (or I take a perscription 800mg one, but only on a day that will be really bad).
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I'm like kq - I drink caffeinated cola drinks only when necessary, usually as a pain reliever, but sometimes to help with breathing. Caffeine is a nasty substance for me in particular - if I drink a can of coke after noon, it'll keep me awake until 2 or 5 am. But if I drink it when I have a headache, it doesn't. Guess it's too busy doing it's job.
But yes, the specific rule is no coffee or tea, and tea in that definition does not include drinks made from plants other than the one that produces black tea. Peppermint herbal tea is fine, for example.
And yes, different LDS members will interpret things differently for themselves.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:tea in that definition does not include drinks made from plants other than the one that produces black tea.
...and green tea. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, yeah. Same plant. Sheesh! Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote: Others think those [caffinated sodas] are okay but don't drink herbal teas which aren't caffeinated.
Now, I find that very interesting. I come from a household that was very strict about the "no caffinated soda" part, but herbal teas were perfectly fine. I'd dring pepermint tea; my dad'd drink Brigham tea.
When I got older, I did try caffinated sodas when I needed to stay awake. (This is the beauty of strict parents. You can rebel without doing anything really bad.) But apparently caffine puts me to sleep. And since cola tastes odd to me, having not been brought up on it, I haven't had caffinated soda since my "experiments" in high school
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Tea isn't bad because of the caffeine- it is the tannin. I am LDS married to an Asian man, so the no tea thing was a huge issue for him and so we did a pretty thorough investigation into what we can drink and can't. Hot is fine (though not so hot it burns cause that would be stupid). Chocolate is good. Coke is good in moderation. (Anything you get addicted to is bad). I have problems with headaches and my dr says drink more coke.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Ron, if mold is going to bother you, you probably want to avoid eating raisins as well. Raisins are still made the old fashioned way, on paper laying out on the ground in the sun in the vineyard. If it rains or gets especially dewy at night, mold can grow in among the raisins. The raisins are, of course, cleaned up before they're packed, but still.... But, as you said, maybe you didn't want to know that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Then there's veined cheese...
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
My grandfather used to drink his coffee nearly boiling, or as close to it as he could get.
He died of stomach cancer in his late 40s/early 50s.
Yeah, really really hot drinks of any kind are probably not a good idea. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Personally, I burn my tongue and throat on anything more than barely warm at all. I'm a wuss.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote: what about spearmint leaf tea? How could anyone be opposed to that?
I could, because spearmint in any form tastes gross.
Peppermint, however, is tasty.
I'm LDS, and I've researched the "green tea" issue. It seems to be a bit of a gray area. In missions in Korea, converts are told that black tea is not allowed, but green tea is OK. I've heard of the same for Germany. I told the missionaries before I was baptized that I had switched from black tea to green tea, and they didn't have a problem with it. Sure, green tea is made from the same plant as black tea -- but grape juice is made from the same plant as wine. I think that this is a case where the rule is not spelled out completely, in order to allow for common sense and personal interpretation.
I drink one cup of green tea a day. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Tea isn't bad because of the caffeine- it is the tannin.
I'm fairly sure that this is a Mormon urban legend. There is no officially established Church doctrine identifying the "bad ingredient" in either tea or coffee.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Huh. I was told that green tea is not okay, except for health reasons, and anything containing products of the tea plant should be avoided. A friend who served a mission in Argentina said that all the local herbal teas were allowed, including mate, which contains caffiene. The only exculsion was tea from the tea plant. And a quick search on lds.org turns up stories about missionaries in Japan declining tea made from tea leaves, but not from barley:
quote:I stammered, “Excuse me, but is that ocha?” (tea).
“No. It’s mugicha.” Mugicha was made from barley kernels roasted black. It was often served in summer.
“Yokatta!” (Good!) we said in relief. I explained, “We don’t drink anything made from cha leaves. We don’t drink coffee either. It’s part of our health laws.”
I've heard that clarification from so many who had it from their mission presidents, I just accepted it as known doctrine.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm fairly sure that this is a Mormon urban legend. There is no officially established Church doctrine identifying the "bad ingredient" in either tea or coffee.
Agreed-- although I've never heard that tannin is the bad one, either!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Claudia Therese, I guess I am guilty of assuming that what was true for pepper must be true for tea. Black tea is commonly said to be processed by fermentation, but this is a misnomer (which may have helped mislead me). Actually the process is one of oxidation. The actual difference is more as you state it. Let me cite a few exceerpts from the Wickipedia article, since it is interesting:
quote:The three types of tea are distinguished by their processing. Leaves of Camellia sinensis, if not dried quickly after picking, soon begin to wilt and oxidise. This process resembles the malting of barley, in that starch is converted into sugars; the leaves turn progressively darker, as chlorophyll breaks down and tannins are released. The next step in processing is to stop the oxidation process at a predetermined stage by removing the water from the leaves via heating.
The term fermentation was used (probably by wine fanciers) to describe this process, and has stuck, even though no true fermentation happens (i.e. the process is not driven by microbes and produces no ethanol). Without careful moisture and temperature control, fungi will grow on tea. The fungi will cause fermentation which will contaminate the tea with toxic and carcinogenic substances. In fact, when real fermentation happens, the tea must be discarded.
Tea is traditionally classified based on the degree or period of fermentation (oxidation) the leaves have undergone:
....
Green tea (綠茶)
The oxidation process is stopped after a minimal amount of oxidation by application of heat; either with steam, a traditional Japanese method; or by dry cooking in hot pans, the traditional Chinese method. Tea leaves may be left to dry as separate leaves or rolled into small pellets to make gun-powder tea. The latter process is time consuming and is typically done only with pekoes of higher quality. The tea is processed within one to two days of harvesting.
....
Black tea/Red tea (紅茶)
The tea leaves are allowed to completely oxidise....The oxidation process will take around two weeks and up to one month.
It still looks to me like the green tea is more healthul, or at least less likely to be unsuited for human consumption. Note that the way the black or red tea is processed releases more tannin. If tannin is the real culprit, then that would be a reason to avoid regular tea.
As for the difference between black and white pepper, this article seems to indicate that it is a matter of mold, in addition to the black pepper being harvested while still unripe:
quote:Black Pepper is produced by harvesting the berries - in the period they are not yet ripe - from the Piper Nigrum tree, are then allowed to ferment for some days under the sun (generally, from seven to ten days), until they get the characteristic black-brown color, then are left to dry. A mushroom present in the berries is the responsible for the characteristic dark color. Black pepper is commercialized both in grains and ground. White Pepper is obtained by the same plant of black pepper and it is prepared by allowing the berries to completely ripe - that is until they get a red color - they are then plunged in water and rubbed in order to remove the skin. White pepper is considered more valuable, with a more delicate taste and it is less aromatic than black pepper, best suited for the preparation of sauces or added to fish and white meat recipes.
In my experience, white pepper actually seems to have a stronger, slightly hotter taste.
[ March 26, 2006, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So it's not a mold, it's a fungus?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
ketchupqueen, I was not trying to tell you how to practice your religion. Actually, Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons (LDS) see very much the same on many health issues. But surely you can tolerate others questioning what seems to be an obvious inconsistency. What is the difference between hot herbal tea and hot herbally seasoned soup?
I do not take either one burning hot--I even put ice cubes in my tea if it is too hot, to cool it down to comfortably warm. (I do that with soup, too, if it is too hot, and I don't want to wait for it to cool on its own.)
I submit that mushrooms are a fungus, and fungus is mold. Although I do recall one time seeing mushrooms that had gotten moldy, and I wondered aloud, "How can mold get moldy?" (Sounds like a Seinfeldism, I suppose.)
I will say though, that for several years now, I have flat out refused to use black pepper, or any seasoning mixtures that contain black pepper. White pepper is just as good, if not better. Although I admit it does not have that hint of moldy pungency you get from black pepper.
There may be a slight hint of mold in raisins, but obviously not much. That is probably true of any dried fruit. I don't eat raisins that much, but I do like dried mission figs.
Speaking of mold and such, the processing of chocolate does not bear close examination, what with the fermentation and all. Not to mention all the roach protein that gets mixed in with it. But I'm still hoping there will be a chocolate month with the Tree of Life. (Carob is all right, but it is no subsitute for chocolate.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In my experience, most Mormons aren't concerned with the temperature of drinks. We have been told that the "hot drinks" mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants refer to coffee and tea, so we won't ingest any coffee or tea.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
mr_porteiro_head, what about coffee mixed in baked goods? I had to make a cross-country road trip once, and needed something to help keep me awake, so I baked some cup cakes using flour and instant coffee powder. It actually tasted pretty good--make it taste like graham. (I hope I'm not coaching Mormons on how to cheat! )
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ron--
No one ever said that Mormons are consistent in the application of doctrine.
But herbal tea vs. herbal soup (?? what is herbal soup? Plain ol' soup, says I-- otherwise it'd be known as 'warm water)-- I imagine the tendency to avoid hebal tea stems from the idea that we're to avoid the appearance of evil.
Herbal tea being a HUGE gateway product-- hebal tea, iced tea, tea, coffee, cigarrettes, beer, wine, hard liquor, and finally, tragically, watching Big Love on HBO.
(^Just in case.)
We try to avoid coffee/alcohol products in other forms, or at least I do, and all my Mo friends do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
FYI, in most countries herbal "teas" aren't called tea at all. They are called tisanes, infusions, or a few other things. In those places, "tea" means exclusively products of Camellia sinensis.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Also nothing made from coffee, including decaf, ice cream, cakes, etc. (Not that I really care, I hate the taste of coffee-- although I love the smell.)
My mom agrees with you 100%. She loves chocolate, and loathes mocha -- even if that mocha has only the slightest bit of coffee.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: If you ask rivka, I believe she would tell you that as much as you may think you "understand the reasons behind the Old Testament dietary restrictions", the real reason they are observed is "because God told us to."
Indeed. Kashrus (the rules of keeping kosher) is a chok -- a mitzvah whose reason is not given. While explanations have been devised, IMO none are the whole truth, and many are flat-out nonsense.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
One gets the sense from some are not LDS (and a few really strict people who are) that they think there is some kind of rule book filled with deliniation of every kind of food or beverage that should be avoided in a religious diatary proscription. Let me make this as simple as I can: There is not! **The following has been said with emphasis and not emotion**
This is about as much as has been said on the issue:
quote:1 A WORD 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 word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
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.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—
5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.
6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.
7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.
16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—
17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.
18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;
19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of dknowledge, even hidden treasures;
20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.
21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the adestroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.
The first bold statement is the reason the revelation was given. Yes, its because God said so, but also it was given because of the questionable motives of people. Like a lot of other things about the Word of Wisdom there isn't a specific explanation of what those motives are in relation to health. It might have been because at the time some people were selling food laced with poison to the early Mormons. As of today some have speculated it has to do with questionable advertising and bad eating habits associated with fast food.
The second bold is the restriction in question. As has been said, it has been interpreted to mean coffee and tea. Beyond that there is NO stated restriction guidelines other than speculation and personal choice. As such Ron's line of reasoning is based more on complicating the matter than simply taking things for what they are. Sadly, I do know one or two Mormons who have done the same thing. They are more bothersome than helpful.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Kinda sorry I asked now actually. Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
The LDS missionaries have been specifically taught to teach church investigators that we should not drink coffee, tea, or alcohol, and also no illegal drugs or tobacco. Those five are specifically stated on official church documents given to missionaries. The rest is left up to individuals, as they read the revelation given in Doctrine and Covenants (posted earlier).
But if you ingest any of the above mentioned things, then you are not permitted to enter one of the LDS temples until you stop eating or drinking it.
Of course, when you are interviewed to enter the temple, you are not specifically asked if you use any of those things, you are simply asked whether or not you follow the Word of Wisdom. This reflects the idea, mentioned earlier, that the Church expects us to understand the Word of Wisdom and follow it using, well, Wisdom. And some common sense doesn't hurt, either. If you eat ice cream every day for breakfast, lunch and dinner, that's probably breaking the Word of Wisdom, also.
The point is, God created your body as a temple, and He expects you to respect it, just as man-made temples are kept clean and treated with respect. Most of the Word of Wisdom is left up to personal judgement as you listen to the Spirit when reading the Word of Wisdom in the scriptures, but a handful of things, which I included at the top, are clearly proscribed.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Wow. And I just wanted to know about chocolate.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Okay, I'm going to step in here because I see a lot of inconsistency in this discussion. I normally avoid discussion all things Mormon because it's a touchy subject here, but this discussion is just getting obsurd.
How can tea be not okay except for health reasons? What logic is that? You can't have it because God told you not to, unless a doctor said you had to drink it, then it's okay. Or, tea is unhealthy unless you need it for health reasons, then it's healthy.
What the crap? Are you listening to yourselves?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Careful, PC. That's a bit too offensive. Please try not to attack people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:How can tea be not okay except for health reasons? What logic is that? You can't have it because God told you not to, unless a doctor said you had to drink it, then it's okay. Or, tea is unhealthy unless you need it for health reasons, then it's healthy.
What the crap? Are you listening to yourselves?
That's rather rude.
If a doctor tells you to do something, an exception can be made, prayerfully and after consulting with your bishop. For example, the theofolin (sp.?) in black tea can treat an asthma attack. There are countries where someone might not have access to asthma medication. If their life was in danger, they could have tea when they had an asthma attack to try and treat it. I personally don't believe that there is enough scientific evidence to back taking green tea supplements for health. But there are some people who do, who have had it recommended by their doctors, and if they are okay with that and have made the decision prayerfully, that is their choice.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Also, "absurd" is spelled with an "a". )
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Wow, you just restated what I was pointing out to be inconsistent. Nice rebuttle!
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
PC, you're done. Stop.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How can tea be not okay except for health reasons? What logic is that? You can't have it because God told you not to, unless a doctor said you had to drink it, then it's okay.
How many things can you think of that are DEFINITELY detrimental to your health (scientifically proven things), but may be necessary for you to ingest/inject in order to get rid of something deadly,like say, cancer?
The modern intepretation of the intent of the Word of Wisdom is to keep our bodies and minds free of things that are addictive or generally unhealthful. If you want to point out hypocrisy of the Saints, you'd fare much better pointing out the average Mormon's meat consumption is far above 'sparingly.'
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
PC, are you trying to get in trouble? You're on the borderline of flaming, here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: mr_porteiro_head, what about coffee mixed in baked goods? I had to make a cross-country road trip once, and needed something to help keep me awake, so I baked some cup cakes using flour and instant coffee powder. It actually tasted pretty good--make it taste like graham. (I hope I'm not coaching Mormons on how to cheat! )
I personally would never eat anything like that. Like I said earlier, I interpret that part of the Word of Wisdom as "no coffee, no tea". Since there's coffee in those cupcakes, I wouldn't eat them.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How many things can you think of that are DEFINITELY detrimental to your health (scientifically proven things), but may be necessary for you to ingest/inject in order to get rid of something deadly,like say, cancer?
I would agree with your point if tea were actually bad for ones health. I have seen no studies showing that tea is bad, nor links in this thread to anything of that nature. All I have seen is purely anecdotal and not scientific in any way. So what is your point, exactly?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But some of us don't consume it for religious reasons. So why does it matter whether it's proven bad for your health or not? It's irrelevant whether there is proof that it is bad for us or not. It's like telling a Jewish person that there's no good reason they shouldn't eat pork. It's disrespectful to their beliefs.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Yes, but a Jewish person isn't going to eat pork if a Doctor tells them to.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How about hot chocolate?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Yes, but a Jewish person isn't going to eat pork if a Doctor tells them to.
No, but in a life-or-death situation (say, during the Holocaust when people were starving to death) saving of a life takes precedence over almost all other laws, including dietary ones. There are few exceptions, and a Jewish person would eat pork to save his life if he were starving. At least, that is my understanding (rivka or someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, we have built-in exceptions to our rules-- "except in times of famine" occurs more than once. That's not saying that we should break them whenever we see fit, but it does set a precedent for making an informed, prayerful decision as to when something else overrides the need to follow the Word of Wisdom.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
You're comparing being prescribed herbal tea for something like menstrual cramps or pregnancy pains to the Holocaust? Doesn't that break Godwin's law in some indirect fashion?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, I'm saying that there are exceptions relating to life or health. That was the first thing that came to mind, I know instances of that occurred.
If you prefer, upon more reflection, I think that medications that contain non-kosher ingredients can be taken if no alternative is available and they are necessary to preserving life or health. (Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
And I said nothing about menstrual cramps or pregnancy pains-- the only specific example I gave was tea being used to treat a life-threatening condition. Caffeine, as has already been established, is not forbidden. So it's fine to take that for your menstrual cramps.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Yes, but a Jewish person isn't going to eat pork if a Doctor tells them to.
False. That is, if there were a risk to life and/or health that a non-kosher substance were the solution to, one is obligated to eat it.
Period.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
More detailed examples:
Early penicillin was derived from bread and was therefore chametz (leaven). Generally, leaven is forbidden on Passover, but there was no question the year of the scarlet fever epidemic that overlapped with Pesach whether people would take penicillin. (I believe this was during the '50s? '40s?)
A diabetic or someone else with suddenly low blood sugar who finds themselves with no fast enough kosher food alternatives could eat whatever was necessary -- pork included.
During the 1800s, when the Russian Czar forcibly rounded up Jewish boys and drafted them (see wikipedia's entry on cantonists), the boys had the choice to eat non-kosher food or die. Most chose life -- as well they should.
And for a less dramatic example . . . I take gelcaps. Gelcaps are made with gelatin, which is rarely kosher. However, the general rule with medications is that any needed medication (and "needed" can be defined a few ways) that is not available in an equivalent kosher version may be taken in a non-kosher version -- as long as it is clearly medicinal. (Thus, tablets which are chewed are more problematic, as they are consumed like food.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Interesting. <scratches beard> I guess my lack of understanding stems from the fact that I grew up with religious beliefs without dietary restrictions with the exception of liquor, which can certainly be shown to have very few health benefits, though I've left those beliefs far behind.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
:shrug:
There are Jews that eat at different levels of kosher. Is that an inconsistency? In this particular religion (LDS) the members are left to decide for themselves how to follow "the rules." There are inconsistencies from person to person depending on what they believe the WoW is saying.
If a person believes they are to avoid those substances because of the potentially addictive effects, they might use it medicinally just as they might take any other potentially addictive substance medicinally.
I am trying to live the spirit of the WoW better by not taking in sugar in large amounts because I personally I find it to be addictive. I am trying to follow it in spirit more in other ways as well. I wouldn't expect another person to follow it in exact same ways as me.
What you find inconsistent, another person may find consistent. Comparing it to Jewish practices doesn't make sense.
Edit: I guess my response is a bit late. That's what happens when your sister calls long distance in the middle of writing a post. ^_^
[ March 27, 2006, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Personally, I've always liked the story of Joseph Smith's leg operation as a young boy. He refused alcohol to dull the pain, and that was before he was even a prophet. Sure, there may be times when it's necessary to violate the word of wisdom, but it is not something to do lightly, I believe.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He refused alcohol to dull the pain, and that was before he was even a prophet.
I've grown to dislike that story. Perhaps because of the smarmy way it's always related.
Little Joseph: No, sir, I shall not let pass even a drop of alcohol across my lips. But if my honored Father will hold me, I shall be able to withstand the agony.
The story has always seemed to me to suffer from mythical propagandizing. Sure he refused the alcohol-- but if I was Joseph Smith, Sr., I would have MADE him take the brandy and that's all there is to it.
quote:I have seen no studies showing that tea is bad, nor links in this thread to anything of that nature. All I have seen is purely anecdotal and not scientific in any way. So what is your point, exactly?
That it's a fairly common occurence to take something bad (or perceived as bad) in order to get rid of something worse. Nothing untoward about it.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:He refused alcohol to dull the pain, and that was before he was even a prophet.
I agree with ScottR on this issue. I don't think the Word of Wisdom is the issue here; it was decades away from being revealed at the time, and Joseph Smith was known to drink socially on occasion as an adult.
I think that the story is more indicative of the boy Joseph's need to know things for HIMSELF, rather than just going along with what other people told him. (This is one of the qualities that later led him to ask the Lord directly which church was true.) The only way for him to know, for himself, that they weren't going to cut off his leg (which was the recommended treatment) was for him to stay conscious and alert during the operation.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:A diabetic or someone else with suddenly low blood sugar who finds themselves with no fast enough kosher food alternatives could eat whatever was necessary -- pork included.
Rivka, I'm curious--after eating something non-kosher in these circumstances, is any kind of purification necessary? Does the concept of purification even exist in modern Judaism? I seem to remember that it did back when the Temple was still intact, but I don't know if the need for it continued after the Temple's destruction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Noemon, "purification" (and I use the word simply because there does not exist an adequate word in English for the concept of taharah) was never about sin. It was (still is) about contact with death.
Eating non-kosher in such circumstances would be b'oneis, a sin that was forced upon you (lit. compelled). While one still must repent (especially if perhaps any negligence on his part led to the situation in the first place -- perhaps he should have had crackers and glucose tablets with him? ), it is far less serious a "sin" (and again, I don't like the implications of this word, but don't know a better one in English) than an intentional act would be; however, the spiritual affects of eating unkosher food would still occur.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The inconsistancy you see in Mormonism, and it can go beyond the WofW, is based on an even MORE fundimental LDS teaching: Personal Revelation. It is the idea that you shouldn't be commanded in all things before you decide to do something good. What that good is, within some guideline limits, is up to the individual through thought and prayer.
One of the most famous sayings of Joseph Smith relates to this discussion when he says "I teach correct principles and the people govern themselves." True, some take the idea too far and become rebellious of authority or over-zealous. I think, Primal Curve, you are conflating two loved and related stereotypes of religion in general. First, that it is draconian and restrictive and second that it is hypocritical. These two create a vicious cycle and an easy target. Because religion is seen as "restrictive and draconian" any deviance from exact proscription is seen as hypocritical. Since religion is "hypocritical" the teachings are seen as restrictive and draconian or people would follow them exactly. Religion, even those less open to interpretation than Mormonism, always has accepted elbow room for personal ideas of theology and behavior.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's interesting how many times I've seen Rivka explain some concept of Judaism and have to say that there isn't an English word that really captures what she's trying to say.
On the other hand, I've seen a lot of misunderstanding because of the English words that Mormons use for a concept that isn't the same concept as people normally associate with that word.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's interesting how many times I've seen Rivka explain some concept of Judaism and have to say that there isn't an English word that really captures what she's trying to say.
*grin* Too true. Then again, why should there be? The majority of discussions on such topics has occurred in Hebrew, or maybe Yiddish (with the relevant Hebrew words used anyway). Even when discussed among English speakers, we use the Hebrew terms -- like pivotal terms from many languages, they are untranslatable because the concept does not necessarily exist in the second culture. (Which is I think what you mean when you talk about using an English word in a uniquely Mormon context.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
No. After further thought, I think I am more annoyed that people are looking for reasons to make tea and coffee seem bad in order to justify their beliefs. There's no scientific basis for these justifications, there's just a lot of bull ****ting going on.
I think that's why rivka's explanation seemed so right to me. Just do it because God told you not to, not because of some poorly thought-out rationalization. Your beliefs are not justifyable in a humanistic way, so just stick with the spiritual one.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Eating pork if your life is in danger otherwise and drinking a coke because it makes your head feel better doesn't seem like a good comparison.
Morphine supposedly works good on headaches, but I'd rather just have the headache than ingest something that I have a moral or spiritual objection to, especially in the case where there's no serious health risk to leave it untreated. Obviously, if it's life or death it's a different story.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's very interesting, rivka. I'll have to dig through my religious studies textbooks and see if I can find the information on "purification" that I'm dimly recalling; it's possible that I'm misremembering or misinterpreting something, but I thought that there were "purification" rites that didn't have to do with contact with death that had to be performed under certain circumstances before entering the Temple. If I can find the information I'll post about it. My guess is that the connection with death just wasn't clear to me when I read about this, years ago, and wasn't made explicit by either my textbooks or my professors.
Out of curiosity, what are the spiritual implications of eating unkosher food?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
JT, please note that I specifically included examples (well, at least one) that were not life and death as well.
quote: 1. Someone who is ill and whose life may be in danger is required by Jewish law to take even a non-kosher medication if a kosher one is not readily available. 2. One who is bedridden or noticeably not functioning due to pain or illness may take any tablet or bitter-tasting medicine. 3. One may take a medication that contains non-kosher ingredients if it is less than one-60th of the medication. If it is a liquid medication that contains glycerin (may be non-kosher), one may mix one teaspoon into two ounces of any beverage. 4. Generally, any liquid medicine that does not contain glycerin or alcohol may be used.
Note that guideline #2 would include a bad headache.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:After further thought, I think I am more annoyed that people are looking for reasons to make tea and coffee seem bad in order to justify their beliefs. There's no scientific basis for these justifications, there's just a lot of bull ****ting going on.
You may have a point about tea; I don't recall ever seeing anything that convinced me that it's dangerous to health.
I've seen reports that deal with the degradatory effects of coffee, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Out of curiosity, what are the spiritual implications of eating unkosher food?
As far as your texts, source and interpretation by the source will matter a lot.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
How was rivka's explanation any different? She pretty much said the same thing. Kosher does not always mean kosher at all times and in all circumstances. I am amused that non-mormons on this post have been more hard lined about the Word of Wisdom than most Mormons are.
"There's no scientific basis for these justifications, there's just a lot of bull ****ting going on."
Statements like this seem to indicate to me that you are not listening. I think that is pretty much what most of the Mormons on this post have been saying. The teachings on the Word of Wisdom are pretty clear, but the interpretation is ambiguous. I could go with your implied idea that if it says no tea and coffee to stay away from those things without asking what is in them that would be unhealthy. In fact, I pretty much do.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The argument that gets me, kq, is where you said back on the first page that no, hot chocolate was not considered okay by everyone, and you only drink it when it's cold and you need to warm up. I understand that it's a personal choice, and that you probably have reasons that are hard to articulate. But to say that, and then to say later in the thread that you only drink hot drinks for medicinal reasons, seems kinda off. Particularly when I've heard you brag about your hot chocolate recipe many times on this forum.
I know hot chocolate makes you feel warm and cozy a lot faster than, say, putting on a sweater, and may be more economical than turning up the heat. But if you, personally, include hot chocolate in the hot drinks category then did you make the exception for when you're cold prayerfully after consulting with your bishop? I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to practice your religion, but I am saying that if you're going to put your own practices out as examples you should be aware that they look inconsistant.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I've seen reports that deal with the degradatory effects of coffee, though.
Interesting. Do you have any links? I'm not a huge coffee drinker, so I'm not worried about it destroying my body or anything, but I'm curious.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
There isn't a specific rule against caffiene or coke products. This has been stated repeatedly.
Personally, when I was eight out of the blue I decided I didn't like soda anymore, and I've consumed very little by way of carbonated beverages (with or without caffiene) since then.
I always confuse people who ask me about the Church, because I always end up saying something like "I don't drink soda because I don't like it, not because it's a commandment, dangit!"
edit: holy cow, new posts. This is nowhere near timely anymore. Sorry about that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting--thanks for the links.
Oh, absolutely. If I'm able to find the relevant passages (a fair number of my religious studies books are inaccessible due to storage reasons, so I may or may not be able to find what I'm looking for) I'll be sure to include that information when I post about them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: She pretty much said the same thing.
Pretty much.
quote:Kosher does not always mean kosher at all times and in all circumstances.
But not that. The definition of kosher never changes; preserving life and health simply trump kashrus.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, yes -- that. The difinition of the Word of Wisdom does not change, but there are times when health and safety trump it, as has been said. True, the Word of Wisdom comes nowhere near the seriousness of kosher (probably a point the non-mormons are getting confused by), but what you have said about kosher can be applied to the Word of Wisdom just as easily.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I admit my statement you quoted was unintentionally false. I should have said what you said.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:2. One who is bedridden or noticeably not functioning due to pain or illness may take any tablet or bitter-tasting medicine.
I don't know that 'bad headache' falls in this category, unless we're using the word 'bad' very differently. I guess I'm curious about where you draw the line. (the royal you, not you-rivka).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This has all been said earlier in this thread, but some people seem to have missed parts of it:
The commandment in our scriptures refers to "hot drinks". We have been told by our prophet that this means "coffee and tea". This refers to all coffee and tea, regardless of temperature, but not herbal tea. It is a commonly held belief by that part of the reason is because of the caffeine in coffee and tea. Because of this, many Mormons avoid to one degree or another caffineted drinks such as coca-cola. This is not a rule, even though some Mormons may think it is. A very small minority of Mormons extend this to anything that has caffeine, including chocolate. A very small minority of Mormons extend it to any and all "hot drinks", that is drinks which are hot.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I know I should not ask this since my last question just stirred up a big mess but I really just don't get it.
I guess in my Christian beliefs there are fewer "commands from God" that seem irrelevant and just exist to see if you are faithful enough (although there are plenty of stories like that from Biblical history). The commandments my church follows make sense to me in a logical and moral sense (Thou shalt not kill: well, duh!)
So I guess I am just confused as to why God would command that you should abstain from consuming something as innocuous as a nice glass of iced tea, especially if the Words of Wisdom SAY "hot drinks." I compared it with keeping Kosher because that can be explained scripturally so it does not seem like it is ONLY a commandment from God. I am not saying you should question every commandment God gives and only follow it if you think it makes sense since there certainly are times in the Bible where following God without question is important. I just wanted to know if He gave a reason and if so, what that reason was. I certainly didn’t mean to start such a heated debate.
So who decided that "hot drinks" meant tea and coffee, no matter what the temperature? Why is herbal tea ok and not regular tea? The only explanation here is that the prophet said so. Who is the prophet? Why don't the Words of Wisdom just say coffee and tea? Why make it so ambiguous? I mean it seems to me that if God commanded it, He would certainly want everyone to completely understand what the command meant so we could be obedient.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I guess in my Christian beliefs there are fewer "commands from God" that seem irrelevant and just exist to see if you are faithful enough.
I can't speak to Mormon theology, but in Jewish theology there are tons of commandments that make no sense to me. Maybe they are just there as a test of my faith. Or maybe there is some other reason that I don't know, and don't need to know. "Do it 'cause I said so", is enough of a reason when the guy doing the saying so is G'd. He may have his reasons and just didn't think he needed to spell them out for me.
I'm cool with that.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I think that you are hard pressed to find two drinks that are served more commonly [i]anywhere in the world[i] than coffee and tea. It's considered hospitible just about everywhere to offer a guest/coworker/friend coffee or tea. Therefore mormons must constantly set themselves apart by saying "No thanks, I don't drink this" and inviting questions about the Church and what we believe. I've gotten plenty of stares from having cocoa at the local coffee shop or turning over my mug at a fancy dinner.
I think this is a big reason why we have the Word of Wisdom. Not only do others notice this and ask questions, but we are given a nearly daily reminder of the commitments and covenants we have made and continue to make with Heavenly Father.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Therefore mormons must constantly set themselves apart by saying "No thanks, I don't drink this" and inviting questions about the Church and what we believe.
I believe that almost all restrictions on diet and behavior in modern religions are for this purpose.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So who decided that "hot drinks" meant tea and coffee, no matter what the temperature? Why is herbal tea ok and not regular tea? The only explanation here is that the prophet said so. Who is the prophet? Why don't the Words of Wisdom just say coffee and tea? Why make it so ambiguous? I mean it seems to me that if God commanded it, He would certainly want everyone to completely understand what the command meant so we could be obedient.
The revelation was given through the Prophet Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith is the one who said that hot drinks meant coffee and tea. We (or at least I) believe that God does not usually reveal scripture word for word. He puts the ideas into the mind of the prophet, who then expresses them in his own words. Hence if Joseph Smith dictated "hot drinks" and then shortly thereafter said he meant coffee and tea -- that clarifies it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I've gotten plenty of stares from having cocoa at the local coffee shop or turning over my mug at a fancy dinner.
People STARE at that? That's bizarre. Are you sure they aren't staring because you are funny-looking? I wouldn't stare at someone drinking cocoa or refusing coffee at a diner. But if that person had two heads and a silver-green tinge to their skin, well, then I might stare.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Was Smith also the one who said it meant iced tea?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I believe that almost all restrictions on diet and behavior in modern religions are for this purpose.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was God's real reason for the word of wisdom.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So, how is Starbucks doing in Utah these days?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The Word of Wisdom was given as a specific request from Joseph Smith's wife over some concerns she had over the men's use of tobacco.
Joseph Smith received the revelation in the way that he did (and some Mormons disagree on exactly what that meant -- whether the language he received it came directly from God or whether he received impressions, phrases, images that he then turned into the written word) and he received it in response to that particular query.
How the words of Word of Wisdom have been interpreted, applied and 'enforced' has varied over the history of the Church.
As has been already stated, what it is officially been taken to mean at this time is to abstain from coffee, tea (black tea), alcohol and harmful drugs.
As with many Mormon practicies certain cultural interpretations have accreted to modern Mormons understanding of the Word of Wisdom. These have come most strongly out of the cultural mores of American middle class of the 1950s and of the organic/back-to-earth movements of the 1960 and '70s (my best friend's family when I was kid didn't eat any refined sugar or flour -- lots of carob and honey and whole grains in their house) as well as the prevailing consumer habits of the past four decades (i.e. there are quite a few Mormons who are fond of a caffeinated Big Gulp).
As Primal Curve has poiinted out, although there are demonstratable health benefits from following much of what can be found in the Word of Wisdom (whatever your interpretation of it may be), not everything that it prohibits has been proven to be harmful. Tea, alcohol in moderation, etc.
What is clear to me is that living the Word of Wisdom has spiritual benefits and that at its' most basic and pure form (and one that I don't live up to by any means), keeping your body free from any substances that significantly alter your blood sugar levels, brain chemistry, etc. aids in attuning yourself to the spirit of God.
The ambiguity is, in my opinion, intentional. It's part of the strange dynamic of Mormonism and one that I thing can be quite productive so long as members keep things in tension. It also causes some members to either hedge up the way with rules so they feel more secure or push the envelope because they want in their heart to turn away from God. I find that both paths are rather tempting.
----- Scott: I hear you, brother.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
PC, you are just so un-PC.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Wasn't Iced Tea invented at a World's Fair when someone had the bright idea to take *regular tea* and *make it colder*? It might post-date Joseph Smith. But it's no different from regular tea, except that it's cold.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm at work right now so I don't have time to do an extensive workup on the detrimental effects of coffee-- but at any rate, most of the detrimental things are related to the caffeine content.
Wiki:
quote:Risks
Many notable effects of coffee are related to its caffeine content.
Many coffee drinkers are familiar with "coffee jitters", a nervous condition that occurs when one has had too much caffeine. Coffee can also increase blood pressure among those with high blood pressure, but follow-up studies showed that coffee still decreased the risk of dying from heart disease in the aggregate. Coffee can also cause insomnia in some, while paradoxically it helps a few sleep more soundly. It can also cause anxiety and irritability, in some with excessive coffee consumption, and some as a withdrawal symptom. There are also gender-specific effects, in some PMS sufferers it increases the symptoms, and it can reduce fertility in women, also it may increase the risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, and there may be risks to a fetus if a pregnant woman drinks 8 or more cups a day (48 U.S. fl oz or 1.4 L or more).
A February 2003 Danish study of 18,478 women linked heavy coffee consumption during pregnancy to significantly increased risk of stillbirths (but no significantly increased risk of infant death in the first year). "The results seem to indicate a threshold effect around four to seven cups per day," the study reported. Those who drank eight or more cups a day (48 U.S. fl oz or 1.4 L) were at 220% increased risk compared with nondrinkers. This study has not yet been repeated, but has caused some doctors to caution against excessive coffee consumption during pregnancy.
Decaffeinated coffee is occasionally regarded as a potential health risk to pregnant women, due to the high incidence of chemical solvents used to extract the caffeine. These concerns have almost no basis, however, as the solvents in question evaporate at 80–90 °C, and coffee beans are decaffeinated before roasting, which occurs at approximately 200 °C. As such, these chemicals, namely trichloroethane and methylene chloride, are present in trace amounts at most, and neither pose a significant threat to unborn children. Women still worried about chemical solvents in decaffeinated coffee should opt for beans which use the Swiss water process, where no chemicals other than water are used, although higher amounts of caffeine remain.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study in 2004 which tried to discover why the beneficial and detrimental effects of coffee are conflicting. The study concluded that consumption of coffee is associated with significant elevations in biochemical markers of inflammation. This is a detrimental effect of coffee on the cardiovascular system, which may explain why coffee has so far only been shown to help the heart at levels of four cups (20 fl oz or 600 mL) or fewer per day.
The health risks of decaffeinated coffee have been studied, with varying results. One variable is the type of decaffeination process used; while some involve the use of organic solvents which may leave residual traces, others rely on steam.
A study has shown that cafestol, a substance which is present in boiled coffee drinks, dramatically increases cholesterol levels, especially in women. Filtered coffee only contains trace amounts of cafestol.
I note that most of the studies point to an excessive (I imagine) consummption of coffee as a problem-- 4 or more cups a day. (I don't even drink 4 cups of WATER a day...)
There was also a study done by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, cited here that pointed toward detriment to "aortic stiffness and wave reflections."
I've personally noted a number of coworkers that literally can't function without their cuppa. For what it's worth, I stay away from most caffeinated sodas-- especially after reading Icarus' soda withdrawal stories.
:shrug:
Mormons don't believe that we'll be teetotallers forever; maybe in Heaven there'll be good coffee houses, too.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I guess in my Christian beliefs there are fewer "commands from God" that seem irrelevant and just exist to see if you are faithful enough.
I can't speak to Mormon theology, but in Jewish theology there are tons of commandments that make no sense to me. Maybe they are just there as a test of my faith. Or maybe there is some other reason that I don't know, and don't need to know. "Do it 'cause I said so", is enough of a reason when the guy doing the saying so is G'd. He may have his reasons and just didn't think he needed to spell them out for me.
I'm cool with that.
Wasn't the whole "testing the faith" thing the idea behind God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? But in the end, there were results that Abraham couldn't have predicted?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I've gotten plenty of stares from having cocoa at the local coffee shop or turning over my mug at a fancy dinner.
People STARE at that? That's bizarre. Are you sure they aren't staring because you are funny-looking? I wouldn't stare at someone drinking cocoa or refusing coffee at a diner. But if that person had two heads and a silver-green tinge to their skin, well, then I might stare.
That surprises me as well. I don't drink coffee because I don't like the taste and have only recently learned to like tea - with cream and lots of suger. I don't recall anyone ever noticing much less staring.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it's no different from regular tea, except that it's cold.
Well, given that the original restriction was on "hot drinks, by which I mean coffee and tea," I think the fact that iced tea is cold is a pretty relevant distinction. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I took a Jewish history class in college (taught by a non-Jewish prof) and he said that there is clear evidence that some elements (not all) of kosher were designed purely to seperate the Jewish people from their neighbors. This idea of creating a unifying law, a "national" identity is another reason for the dietary laws. I think that this is a fairly good reason even if the health is not a factor.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:The argument that gets me, kq, is where you said back on the first page that no, hot chocolate was not considered okay by everyone, and you only drink it when it's cold and you need to warm up. I understand that it's a personal choice, and that you probably have reasons that are hard to articulate. But to say that, and then to say later in the thread that you only drink hot drinks for medicinal reasons, seems kinda off. Particularly when I've heard you brag about your hot chocolate recipe many times on this forum.
That is not what I said. I said that I only drink herbal teas for medicinal reasons, and should have said or when it is very cold and I need to warm up. I do make darned good hot chocolate. And I drink it about twice a year.
My husband drinks more hot chocolate than I do-- and less herbal tea. That's just the way he was raised. We were, at that point, discussing personal interpretations of the WoW, to my understanding.
It's gone way far away from that at this point.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Although it may not have been what you meant, I think it is, actually, what you said, right here:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:pfresh85, what about spearmint leaf tea? How could anyone be opposed to that?
Because it's a hot drink. I only drink it for medicinal purposes.
I understand that you were replying to pfresh's question about tea, but those two sentences very much read to me that you're saying you only drink hot drinks for medicinal purposes.
Again, I'm not trying to "catch" you here or whatever, I don't care how you personally interpret the words of wisdom. I'm just trying to show why your statements on the first page looked inconsistant to me. Like you said, a lot has happened since then. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Apostle Paul in the Bible sometimes just gave advice, and did not insist that it be taken as a commandment, which would be sin to violate: "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (1 Corinthians 7:6)
Sin is defined as lawlessness in 1 John 3:4. But the Ten Commandment Law does not say anything about diet. Intemperate eating or drinking may be construed to be a possible violation of the sixth commandment, that says, "Thou shalt not kill." It might even be construed that it violates the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," in the sense that polluting the body is adulterating the body.
The motivation for Christians to live healthfully is to show respect for the creation of God in which the Holy Spirit dwells--our bodies; to maximize our strength, energy, clarity of mind, and longevity--so we can better and more effectively serve God and our fellow man; and to bring ourselves into clearer physical, mental and spiritual focus in facing times of special challenge--all the more as we see the end of all things approaching, when a final conflict between good and evil will be waged, and God needs people who will be able to serve as faithful witnesses for Him during this time.
The Bible texts most commonly quoted are 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
And also 1 Corinthians 3:16-17: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
Obviously, the second statement is a bit stronger, indicating that carelessness in regard to our stewardship of our physical body can lead to our destruction spiritually.
My church (Seventh-day Adventist) regards the dietary regulations of Leviticus 11 to be sound advice, which Christians should observe as a matter of good sense, in harmony with the above quoted statements in 1 Corinthians. Surely the Creator would know which foods are to be preferred and which to be avoided for human consumption. The idea that these regulations were something just made up to set the Jews apart, is contradicted by the fact that the distinction between clean and unclean animals was known clear back at the time of the Genesis Flood. God directed that clean animals be taken into Noah's ark by sevens, and unclean animals by twos:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (Genesis 7:2)
My church also is motivated to take Leviticus 11 to heart because Ellen G. White (whom most of us believe had the prophetic gift) told us that God wanted us to adopt these dietary restrictions because it would make us healthier to do so, and thus better able to serve in the role He intends for us to play as the present world is coming to its end. Ellen G. White also went beyond Leviticus 11, and recommended that the diet God originally prescribed for Adam and Eve in Eden--a vegetarian diet--is the ideal diet toward which we should strive. This is by no means regarded as commandment; less than half of SDAs are really vegetarians. But it is what the church officially advocates as part of its concept of "health reform."
I doubt this is really very far afield from what good Mormons practice. As I said before, my church sees a lot alike with Mormons in regard to health. And recent government-sponsored studies have shown unquestionably that there are definite health benefits from following such health practices--adding as much as 7-10 years to average life span. Link: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/feature1/index.html
The study of SDAs was especially relevant, because it compared SDA church members who are vegetarians to SDAs who are not, thus cancelling out all other factors (such as the fact that all SDAs refuse to use tobacco and alcoholic beverages, and social classes, etc.) The original study actually showed that SDAs who are vegetarians, on average live seven years longer than SDAs who are not, and SDAs who are vegans (complete vegetarians who do not even use eggs or milk or any dairy products) on average live 12 years longer than SDAs who eat meat.
God does not require anyone to be a vegetarian. But He wishes for us to be blessed with life, and have it more abundantly (see John 10:10), so He has "clued us in," if we are willing to take advantage of it.
[ March 27, 2006, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Oh boy. I think Lisa may be in here to clear up some 10 commandment errors in translation here.
From what I remember, she mentioned, "Thou shall not kill" is actually "Thou shall not murder a human being," if translated better. Also something about "Thou shall not steal" referring to stealing humans/kidnapping. I don't know as much about Judaism as I would like (although I'm learning more all the time from rivka, tante, and lisa) but are the so-called 10 commandments actually considered seperate from the rest of the rules? I thought it was all just sort of "The Law."
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think that's a key component of faith, following without an explanation of why you should. After all, if you're doing it because it makes sense then you don't really need God in the equation; you'd have done it on your own.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
Hey, if it were anyone else bossing me around without a good reason, I'd balk. But I make a special exception when the bossing around is coming from G'd. He's entitled.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I understand that you were replying to pfresh's question about tea, but those two sentences very much read to me that you're saying you only drink hot drinks for medicinal purposes.
Well, obviously, I should have worded it more clearly. Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Originally posted by Scott R
quote: maybe in Heaven there'll be good coffee houses, too
there better be...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, if you believe that God is in fact the Creator of the Universe, and yet that He has made a great Self-sacrifice for all mankind, so that you personally can have a way out and be brought into the heavenly kingdom where everything is the way it should be, you might feel a sense of awe and gratitude that would lead you to do what He says. Not only do we have confidence that God really intends the very best for us, we also believe that God is supremely wise, so He really knows what is best.
When we reach Heaven, and are allowed to peruse at our leisure all the records of Heaven, and see everything that was going on, we will agree then that God led us in exactly the way we would have chosen ourselves to be led.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a difference between having confidence and in God and having confidence in those that interpret God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: When we reach Heaven, and are allowed to peruse at our leisure all the records of Heaven, and see everything that was going on, we will agree then that God led us in exactly the way we would have chosen ourselves to be led.
I have to confess that I have this hysterical mental image of somebody getting to peruse the records of Heaven at his leisure and, after auditing the books, finding at least a dozen things that could have been done better. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Well Tom, then you will get to travel back in time and fix them.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, if you believe that God is in fact the Creator of the Universe, and yet that He has made a great Self-sacrifice for all mankind, so that you personally can have a way out and be brought into the heavenly kingdom where everything is the way it should be, you might feel a sense of awe and gratitude that would lead you to do what He says. Not only do we have confidence that God really intends the very best for us, we also believe that God is supremely wise, so He really knows what is best.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. I'm trying to put into words my objection to it, but I'm having a hard time coming up with something. The God of the Bible just feels wrong to me. I don't think a god deserves to be worshipped just because it is a god.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
RRR, I can try to explain how I feel about it. I'm very much in favor of questioning authority and thinking for myself, however, I learned to be that way from interacting with human authorities. They are quite often not very wise, and usually don't have our best interests at heart. Their rules are all too quick to make their own lives easier, and not meant for our good.
God is different, though. Not only is he vastly wiser than us, and enormously advanced spiritually, mentally, physically, intellectually, and every-other-ly above us, but he loves us totally, far more than we love ourselves. He has our best interests at heart way more than we do our own, even. I know this because I've put it to the test again and again. When I do what God asks, I always come out the winner, even when I didn't think I would up front. Even when I was sure it would be a great sacrifice.
Since I know this now, the only thing I really have to worry about is learning how to discern what is actually God's will for me from my misunderstandings, limitations, etc. Then, of course, I also have to conquer the natural me who still doesn't want to do what God says, even when I know he's right and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just too lazy or craven and weak or something, for instance. I have to marshall my will and energy to actually put things into practice that I know would be good.
But really to understand you have to do it. You have to feel that strength flowing through you, the power of it, and the joy. You can try to understand up front, but really it takes actually trying. Maybe even trying and failing a few times. But relying on God's strength to help you suceed. And then you'll know.
I hope that helps explain, in some little way. Realize that it's a joyful thing, not a negative restrictive thing. It's like letting go of a burden, when you just follow God's will, regardless of anything. It's a feeling like flying. There's no chafing or constraint; I do it because it's fun and a privilege.
Obeying human authories, on the other hand, can sometimes make you feel dragged down and burdened past your ability to carry the load.
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt 11:28-29)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I admit my statement you quoted was unintentionally false. I should have said what you said.
I figured it was unintentional. I just thought I should clarify -- there's been enough confusion in this thread, neh?
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:2. One who is bedridden or noticeably not functioning due to pain or illness may take any tablet or bitter-tasting medicine.
I don't know that 'bad headache' falls in this category, unless we're using the word 'bad' very differently. I guess I'm curious about where you draw the line. (the royal you, not you-rivka).
Perhaps you have never had a headache bad enough that it noticeably impaired your ability to function, but I have been so blessed. Defining choleh she'ein bo sakanah (which is the category #2 is referring to) -- literally, a person who is ill but whose health/life is not in danger -- is somewhat debatable. The way I learned to determine whether one falls into the category is as follows: if not taking the medication would mean you would feel the need to go to bed (whether or not that is currently possible), you qualify. I have had all too many headaches where even with the medication, I have to lie down until it kicks in.
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I compared it with keeping Kosher because that can be explained scripturally . . .
Could you please elaborate on this point?
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I took a Jewish history class in college (taught by a non-Jewish prof) and he said that there is clear evidence that some elements (not all) of kosher were designed purely to separate the Jewish people from their neighbors. This idea of creating a unifying law, a "national" identity is another reason for the dietary laws. I think that this is a fairly good reason even if the health is not a factor.
No question that this is a big benefit. Rates of intermarriage are MUCH higher among those groups of Jews who do not keep kosher.
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
We're even, because I do not understand why anyone would not. And He is not a god; He is the God. Creator of all, omniscient and omnipotent.
Doing what He tells us is Right. And on good days, I feel that rightness. (On bad days, nothing feels right, but I hang on and hope for a good day -- and if I do what I know to be right, one usually comes sooner than later.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I agree with rivka - I don't understand why someone wouldn't if they believed in Deity. He is God. As such, getting him P.O.ed is going to make your Eternity an endless misery. If you believe in Him than what He commands better be obeyed for your own good, if you care about your soul in any way. Believers follow God for two reasons simaltaniously. They Love Him and they Fear Him.
That isn't to say you aren't free to both believe and not do what He says. Plenty of people (too many I think) do this constantly. But, you better be prepared for the consiquences. In the end, those who deliberately rebel against God almost always end up athiest.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
To me it's not (at least not primarily) a question of "getting Him P.O.ed"; rather it's a question of Him knowing what is best for me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So, how is Starbucks doing in Utah these days?
They recently built one in American Fork which is the second one in the state, IIRC.
quote:Well, given that the original restriction was on "hot drinks, by which I mean coffee and tea," I think the fact that iced tea is cold is a pretty relevant distinction.
I disagree. And since you don't believe in any of it, I'm at a loss to see why you care.
quote:I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
I think the reason is sometimes "I know that God understands what I do not, and I know he loves me, so if he tells me to do something, I know it's what's best for me."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well put. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hadn't even read your posts yet when I said that.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Rivka, I was just referring to the Bible calling some animals clean and some unclean.
I am not saying any of these beliefs are less relevant and I am not trying to insult anyone. I am just want to clarify and understand more than my limited experience.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, except "clean" and "unclean" are dreadful mistranslations of tahor and lo tahor. If the meaning of those words in English is what you are basing your understanding of the reasoning upon, I finally understand where you are coming from . . . and am even more convinced that you are wrong.
Sorry if that sounds harsh; I'm not coming up with a better way to put it. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:So, how is Starbucks doing in Utah these days?
They recently built one in American Fork which is the second one in the state, IIRC.
Second one in Utah County (the first one being in the Barnes & Noble in Orem), possibly, but not second in the state. There are a couple dozen in Salt Lake County.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
As for the "doing something just 'cause God says so," seems to me that God is saying, "Try this out. If you follow it, I will bless you. See if I don't." He certainly said that about tithing in Malachi 3.
I have always loved the parent-child metaphor for God-human relations. There are times when I cannot adequately explain to my child why they should or should not do something. As they gain experience and maturity, they eventually will understand. But that takes time.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I thought it just meant that God created some animals ok for human consumption and some are not ok; not in the actual sense of needing soap and water. Many people who are trying to explain things in this thread are being a little harsh in my opinion actually. I appreciate the clarification in my misinterpretations since I am just trying to understand beliefs that are different from mine but I get the impression that some people are taking offense to my (and other people's) questions and misunderstandings.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks for the correction, JB.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am not offended; I do think your interpretation is based on a misunderstanding. Non-kosher animals are entirely edible, nor is there any reason (IMO) for non-Jews to avoid eating them. (Well, ok, maybe cholesterol, but that's true of many kosher animals as well. )
I apologize that I seem to have offended you.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I don't think it is just you or the other posters in this thread. I think I am just easily offended lately and I am just frustrated at not understanding. But thanks for the apology Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Thanks, Anne Kate, rivka, Porter, and Beverly. Your posts have helped me to understand that a bit better.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I disagree. And since you don't believe in any of it, I'm at a loss to see why you care.
I don't care particularly deeply. But it seems to me that it's an issue of defined sets. If I said "I dislike large dogs, specifically Great Danes and collies," and you brought me a tiny little Great Dane, the odds will still be 50/50 that I might like it -- because the initial criteria for my dislike was the largeness. I AM very curious as to how and why the "iced tea" part of the "coffee and tea" restriction was added, and whether this would apply to iced tea that was never actually brewed (like Crystal Light).
[ March 28, 2006, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Well Tom, then you will get to travel back in time and fix them.
Incidentally, C.S. Lewis talked about how Christ's atonement would work so that God would 'forget all our sins and remember them no more.'
He stated that (and I apologize, I can't find a link for the actual text) when a person who falls within the power of Christ's atonement is judged, Christ's sacrifice will work backwards in time, and everything that was sin will be changed into an act of righteousness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I believe that almost all restrictions on diet and behavior in modern religions are for this purpose.
The Word of Wisdom became more strict right around the time that polygamy was banned. I don't think it is coincidence - I think that in both cases some, if not most, of the reason for both commandments was to make us a "peculiar" people and set us apart.
---
Anecdotal: Katie's practice: No coffee, no tea (including herbal), no drugs, no tobacco, wary about Atkins. Fine with caffeinated sodas as long as it isn't an addiction.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I don't get religious dietary prohibitions. Of course God knows what's best for us, but I just can't conceive of a food being so bad for us that God has to give us a specific rule not to eat it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I don't get religious dietary prohibitions. Of course God knows what's best for us, but I just can't conceive of a food being so bad for us that God has to give us a specific rule not to eat it.
I can conceive of lots of foods being so bad that we shouldn't eat them, and we might not know better unless God said so.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: As for the "doing something just 'cause God says so," seems to me that God is saying, "Try this out. If you follow it, I will bless you. See if I don't."
Yes. I believe that one of the reasons God asks for our obedience is that it is a means to build trust and deepen our relationship with Him. When we obey "just because God said so," we are blessed. Our obedience then becomes something more freely and joyfully given, because we have learned to trust God's laws.
There is an understanding that goes deeper than reason. It only comes from application of a principle; having lived a law for a lifetime, we understand it in our very marrow.
Posted by Maria (Member # 9209) on :
Chocolate doesn't have cafienne in it. It's a slightly different chemical that does almost the same thing metabolically.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Chocolate doesn't have cafienne in it. It's a slightly different chemical that does almost the same thing metabolically.
Really? I thought that was a myth. Can you back that up?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:There is a persistent urban legend that Chocolate contains caffeine. It would seem that this rumor is based primarily on a confusion between two similar alkaloids: caffeine and Theobromine. Theobromine is the active ingredient in Chocolate and it occurs only in Cacao. The two stimulants are related and have a similar structures, but are very different chemicals with different properties, effects and origins. There are of course, some Chocolate products that have added caffeine, but it does not occur naturally in Chocolate.
Note that last sentence. Caffeine may be added to some chocolate products.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It is, in fact, in many commercial chocolate products (although in small amounts). Moreover, theobromine and caffeine are very closely related. (Caffeine has three methyl groups; theobromine has hydrogens in the equivalent three spots.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Wikipedia says, "Chocolate also contains caffeine in significant amounts, though less than tea or coffee, according to careful scientific studies and despite a few websites which claim otherwise. Some chocolate products contain synthetic caffeine as an additive," but then, of course, it doesn't provide a source. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ron, I can't find "mushroom" associated with "black pepper" anywhere else online. I was wondering if you saw it elsewhere, too, or if that was the only site that associated it with "mushroom," "mold," or "fungus?"
I still keep finding discussion of the "oxidation/fermentation" process, just like for tea. I think I might email the webmaster of that page, just out of curiosity. Maybe they have a cite.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
When you get to this page, search on "black pepper"
Here is a pertinent excerpt:
quote:Christensen (1972), over a period of several years, examined 100 different samples of black pepper from all over the world. In dilution cultures of these samples, the number of fungus colonies in whole or ground black pepper averaged 52,000 per gram/black pepper and the upper range was over half a million per gram. These colonies were mostly of A. flavus, A. ochraceus and A. versicolor. All three species are known to be aflatoxin producers. Some samples of ground pepper were caked lightly with fungus mycelium when first opened in the laboratory and with time, a number of these became solidly caked with mycelium.
How heavily contaminated is 52,000 to 500,000 colonies of fungi, per gram? Lets make a comparison for what is acceptable levels of fungal colonies isolated in other food products at the time Christensen published his results. Wheat, for example, that is intended for milling into flour seldom contains no more than a few thousand colonies of fungi per gram of grain. If barley has as many as 10,000 colonies of the same kind of fungi per gram as in black pepper, it would be rejected for malting in beer making. If breakfast cereals or bread were as contaminated as black peppers, they would have so musty an odor and taste that they would be too revolting to eat. Apparently, the natural spicy odor and flavor of black, as well as white pepper are potent enough to conceal the taste and odor of these fungi. This is also true with many other spices.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Chocolate doesn't have cafienne in it. It's a slightly different chemical that does almost the same thing metabolically.
Chocolate contains theobromine which is a close analog of caffeine as well as much lower levels of caffeine. An average cup of hot Cocoa contains 62 mg of theobromine and 4 mg of caffeine. For comparison, a cup of coffee contains between 50 to 150 mg of caffeine, a can of cola contains 55 - 65 mg of caffeine, and black tea contains 28 - 46 mg of caffeine. The ranges are wide because of different preparation techniques and varieties.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That is fascinating! I never ran across this before.
*off to read
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If barley has as many as 10,000 colonies of the same kind of fungi per gram as in black pepper, it would be rejected for malting in beer making. If breakfast cereals or bread were as contaminated as black peppers, they would have so musty an odor and taste that they would be too revolting to eat..
This doesn't seem to be a fair comparison since black pepper is consumed in much much smaller quantities than breakfast cereal.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I am quite sceptical of Christian's results on fungal content of pepper seeing that the work is quite dated (1972) and has not been reproduced since then.
Below, for example, is the abstract from a 1984 which finds quite different results for the growth of aflatoxin producing fungi in black and white pepper.
quote:Appl Environ Microbiol. 1984 August; 48(2): 376–379. Aspergillus parasiticus growth and aflatoxin production on black and white pepper and the inhibitory action of their chemical constituents. M S Madhyastha and R V Bhat
Abstract Aspergillus parasiticus Speare NRRL 2999 growth and aflatoxin production in black and white pepper and the penetration of the fungus in black pepper corn over various incubation periods were studied. Also, the effects of piperine and pepper oil on growth and aflatoxin production were studied. Under laboratory conditions, black and white pepper supported aflatoxin production (62.5 and 44 ppb (ng/g), respectively) over 30 days of incubation. Fungal growth measured in terms of chitin was considerably less in white pepper than in black pepper. A histological study of black pepper corn showed the fungus penetrating up to the inner mesocarp and establishing itself in the middle mesocarp. Piperine and pepper oil were found to inhibit fungal growth and toxin production in a dose-dependent manner. Thus, both black and white pepper could be considered as poor substrates for fungal growth and aflatoxin production.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Br'er Rabbit, the statement you quoted does not significantly contradict the one I quoted. The figures may be different, because of which particular samples the test was limited to, but the basic fact remains that black pepper is moldy. I also noted the clear statement that white pepper is less moldy than black pepper.
I have to comment on your apparent attempt to find fault with the report I quoted merely because the study was done in 1972. That may have been before you were born, but that does not mean 1972 was prehistoric times! For crying out loud, we landed on the Moon in 1969! Scientists were certainly competent in 1972 to make valid measurements such as those given in the quote I gave.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, the basic fact is that your initial statement about the source of black pepper is highly unlikely to be true.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Ron, I think you have our Dr. Rabbit confused with someone else. She's a professor and a scientist, and she's female.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron, Yes I know we landed on the moon in 1969, I watched it live. Do you do science yourself? There are several reasons to question the validity of the report and none of them have to do with whether or not people did competent science in 1972. Since the work was done 34 years ago, there has been substantial time for follow up work. I was curious to see what subsequent researchers found, so I did a search to see find people who had referenced the 1972 paper or had done follow up studies of any kind.
I didn't find anyone who has been able to reproduce those result, which suggests that those results are highly unlikely to be widely applicable. This isn't just because the work was done in 1972, it's because no one since then has made similar findings. What's more, the work I quoted found that both white and black pepper are poor substrates for fungal growth, which does indeed contradict the 1972 papers conclusions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You mean there is a Br'er Rabbit in addition to The Rabbit? Sorry for any confusion.
So black pepper is not a suitable substitute for agar. That does not prove it is not moldy. Remember that black pepper is processed in such a way that mold growth is encouraged.
Measuring the amount of mold on black pepper is not exactly rocket science! Come on, already!
In addition to a higher incidence of mold in black pepper, there are carcinogenic substances in it as well:
quote:Other chemicals in food found to be carcinogenic are: piperine, safrole, and terpenes (in black pepper), solanine (in the green skin of potatoes), and safrole (in some spices).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I've heard that clarification from so many who had it from their mission presidents, I just accepted it as known doctrine.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
there better be...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)