On 5 Jul 2009 22:44:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.)

Out of interest and to my relief ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:55:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>>protect us from the stupidity of others, no?
> 
> And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the
> stupidity of our governments?

We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who 
"wow" us.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:58:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Jul 2009 22:44:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.)
> 
> Out of interest and to my relief ;)
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm

Interesting, though it didn't do anything for my dad (though arguably he 
drank decaf....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:46:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing
> tobacco?

Yes, this is true as well.

I have a friend who did some consulting work for the Church, in fact - 
apparently to get to the server room, he had to go through a part of the 
facility that is restricted to church members only.  When they discovered 
he wasn't a member, he was quickly escorted out, but not before they 
grilled him on how to fix the problems they were having with their 
systems...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:47:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church
>> itself is credited for donating just over $55,000.  That's in the
>> Church's name.
> 
> They revised it later to about 4x as much, by the way. Once they were
> called out on it.

That doesn't surprise me.  I just was going by the numbers reported 
through sfgate.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Jul 2009 00:12:41 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:55:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>>>protect us from the stupidity of others, no?
>> 
>> And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the
>> stupidity of our governments?
>
>We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who 
>"wow" us.
>

Doesn't seem to work. If only God could do something ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Jul 2009 00:13:57 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:58:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Out of interest and to my relief ;)
>> 
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8132122.stm
>
>Interesting, though it didn't do anything for my dad (though arguably he 
>drank decaf....)
>

Since it is the caffine that does the protecting ... :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are 
>> much more restrictive.  All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.
> 
> It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious 
> conversations.   "Your religion is broken."  "Well, theirs is broken 
> worse, so that's OK."

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was certainly pointing out that 
Jewish dietary restrictions are more strict, but I was not claiming the 
final "so that's OK."

>> Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.
> 
> The jewish dietary restrictions were pretty common sense for their time 
> too. But that's utterly irrelevant.

You're absolutely right.  Whether or not they're common sense has no 
bearing on whether or not God asked His people to follow those laws.

It's worth noting, however, that I was not offering the "common sense" 
statement as a justification, but as an explanation.  Most of the Mormon 
dietary law (known as the "Word of Wisdom") is, indeed, common sense 
about health.  That makes the majority easier to remember.

> You contended the church doesn't 
> tell people what to do.

No, I don't.  Here's what I said:

"Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what 
to specifically do (ie, how to vote), but rather how they should live 
their lives, and letting members apply those teachings appropriately.

"One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need 
to be told what to do, anyway.  An intelligent member, who is familiar 
with the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring 
out how to live a moral life. "

I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I 
should have been more clear.

Because of our natural weakness, God pretty much has to be pretty 
specific at times.  Whenever possible, however, He avoids it, letting us 
choose for ourselves how to live appropriately.

If enough people start nitpicking commandments, looking for loopholes 
and ways to get around them, then God gets specific.  But He also gets 
annoyed by the necessity.

> Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing 
> tobacco? (And doesn't that rule hold from even before it was common 
> sense?)

Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time, as did the 
injunction against alcohol.  Members at the time had to take it on faith 
that God had their best interests at heart when He asked them to abstain 
from those substances.  It was only later medical research that backed 
up their beliefs.

> Isn't (or at least wasn't) it very bad for a white to marry a 
> black?

Was it a sin?  No.
But you would be excluded from certain rites if your spouse were unable 
to participate.

The understanding was always that Blacks would, at some point, be able 
to participate, but noone knew when the change would be made.

> To masturbate? To be homosexual?

Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.

> Isn't this telling people specifically what to do in many circumstances?

Yes, it is.  As I explained above, God gets specific when He needs to, 
but He'd rather not have to.

>> 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.
> 
> So none of these quotes are actually accurate?
> http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm

I recognize some of those statements, but not all of them.  Bruce R 
McConkie, in particular, was well known for being quite opinionated... 
and later being shown to be wrong (for instance, he was quite vocal 
about his idea that the Blacks wouldn't receive the Priesthood until 
after Armageddon).  In fact, he wrote a series of books titled "Mormon 
Doctrine," which are really just his opinions on a variety of topics.

Because of things like that, the Church has had to specify: When the 
Prophet stands at the podium, and says "Thus saith the Lord," then his 
words are doctrine.  Everything else is personal opinion, no matter who 
it comes from or when you hear it (including if you hear it from an 
Apostle or Prophet).  Every member is encouraged to pray and ask God His 
opinion of the teachings they've heard, and if what they've heard is 
correct.

> How about these? Who comes down hard on the LDS president

Well, you'd have to go up the chain of command.

Once you get to the President, the next level of the chain is God.  He's 
the one chastises the President.

> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?

What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy?  Whether or not 
you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the 
LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That it's not direct direction doesn't mean they're not saying "do what 
> we say" - "this is what is good", and then "do what you think is right" 
> is pushing a particular social agenda.

True, but in most (not all) cases there's enough room for interpretation 
that members can (and do) take different sides in debates.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message