On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:20:56 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> 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.

Maybe not a sin, but it seems to be a prohibition nonetheless.  Maybe 
"Utah Mormons" are different in that regard, though (I have heard that 
from various people, including those members of the church both inside 
and outside of Utah).

>> 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.

Sure, and they can make that choice.  I'm not saying that they can't or 
even that they shouldn't.  But it seems that that particular choice isn't 
one the owners of the restaurant (ie, the Church) made because it isn't 
proscribed, but rather because the leadership in the Church have 
interpreted the teachings to mean that this is a bad thing, and so are 
trying to set an example for the membership.

"Here's what we do, but you do what you like" isn't really giving people 
a choice.  I wonder if one's temple recommend would be rescinded (I don't 
know a lot about this aspect of the church) if one said "yes, I drink 
Mountain Dew regularly".

>> 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.

See, there's the problem.  "Blacks are equal, but only at some date in 
the future".  That doesn't work for me any more than "All men are created 
equal" does in the historical context of "men" being "white males who own 
property".

> 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.

1978/79 is what I've read as well.

>> 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.

No, it's not.  Recent research suggests that (a) it's more natural than 
some people want to believe, and (b) that it's genetic and not a learned 
trait.

So much for accepting people for who they are, eh? ;-)

>>> 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.

Well, certainly they would if what you were teaching or speaking about 
from the pulpit conflicted with what has already been the established 
order of things.  That's only natural.  But that also doesn't make it 
right.

Jim

Post a reply to this message