Jim Henderson wrote:
> Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug.  Caffeine is not wholesome nor 
> prudent for the use of our bodies.  Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It 
> is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that 
> contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used."  (Q&A, 
> New Era, Oct. 1975.)

He can write whatever he wants.  You can drink a can of cola at every 
meal without it being considered a sin.

Individual people have considered it a sin, but that's irrelevent.  As I 
said before, the LDS church tries to limit how specific it is about 
people's behavior.

> Does this apply today?  You bet.  Just go to The Roof (I have) and try 
> ordering a caffeinated beverage.  (The Roof is a Church-owned restaurant 
> in the Joseph Smith building here in Salt Lake City)

Well, that's their choice.  They don't have to serve anything they don't 
want to, and many members of the Church believe that Caffeine is a 
harmful substance that shouldn't be imbibed.

> On the issue of blacks, I agree - though it's strangely odd that the 
> civil rights movement coincided with the church's "enlightenment" on 
> people of colour being allowed into the priesthood. O_o

I wouldn't necessarily call it "the church's 'enlightenment,'" as the 
Church's position was always that people of color would one day be able 
to receive Priesthood.  There was some significant debate about when it 
would be, of course, and noone knew for certain.

According to the leaders of the Church, 1979 (oslt... I forget the exact 
date) was when God told them that it was time.  It came as quite a shock 
to some of them, too; one in particular had been quite vocal about his 
opinion that it wouldn't happen until after Armageddon.

> And no, the LDS church never said "gay people are evil and should be 
> repressed" - but they do say that homosexual or lesbian behaviour is a 
> sexual sin violating God's "law of chastity".  As a result, many people 
> in leadership roles in the church (maybe not in the First Presidency or 
> the Quorum of the 12, I don't follow it that closely) have tried to 
> "cure" those who are gay.

I remember one quoting some research where counselors reported a success 
rate of "curing" homosexuals that was approximately in line with the 
success rates for depression.  I don't think the research went anywhere, 
though (either noone wanted to try replicating it, or noone replicated 
it successfully), so it's not a commonly held position amongst mental 
health professionals.

>> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the
>> majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying
>> stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
> 
> Got an example of that?  I've not found one myself...

Not specifically, though I've seen it happen for other things.

Generally, you can say whatever you want about your own opinion, but as 
soon as you start teaching a class or speaking from the pulpit, the 
Church gets quite sensitive about doctrinal claims.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message