this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
395 points (92.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
29632 readers
718 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The way it was always explained to me was anything containing even a small amount of caffeine was problematic. I appreciate you correcting me on this.
TBH, this is one of the many, many things about Mormonism that makes no fucking sense at all to modern sensibilities. Some Mormons do interpret it to mean zero caffeine, but that's not the official doctrine.
Honestly, the reason is very likely that, when Joe Smith Jr. was formulating his doctrine, there was a psuedo-science movement at the time that believed that hot beverages of any kind were bad for you. When you really start digging into the Mormon theology, it's clear that the doctrine JS Jr. was teaching was strongly based off of new religious movements that existed in the area, at the time.
Yeah… unfortunately, confusion about this particular subject exists because members often look for the underlying justification on things and then extrapolate from there.
(I’m going to paraphrase and shorten things a lot here so we don’t have to dive into definitions and technicalities. Bear with me.)
The doctrine brought forth about this is what’s referred to as “The Word of Wisdom,” which was a short outline of what things were deemed as “harmful” or otherwise “unsuitable” for the body. The idea being that the Lord was promising to people that if they didn’t ingest these things, they would live a healthier life as a result. “Hot drinks” was mentioned and clarified a century later to mean “tea and coffee.” Furthermore, “tea” refers to black and green tea, and not necessarily herbal tea.
People, by nature, want to understand the “why” behind things. You also have people who want to understand where the line begins and ends so they can tiptoe it. Enter the rumor that since the “hot drinks” referred to “tea and coffee,” they both have not-so-insignificant amounts of caffeine in them. Obviously that must mean drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, plus foods such as chocolate, must also be in violation of this, right?
Well, the issue with that is people think they’re applying “the spirit of the law” (meaning the larger picture behind it) when they’re actually applying “the word of the law” (taken at face value). The idea behind the Word of Wisdom is to take care of your body by having a balanced diet and not eating too much of a particular thing. Certain items were called out explicitly; if caffeine were the true issue, then it would’ve been called out instead. But it wasn’t, and there have been some clarifications to emphasize that caffeine itself is not the explicit reason behind it. (However the idea of “addiction” could extend to caffeine if someone were to consume large amounts of it regularly, but addiction or dependency can occur even to things like Tylenol when too much is consumed, so targeting it specifically is silly.)
So in short, it’s a mixture of misunderstanding and overzealous practice. Caffeine is perfectly fine. Just like anything else: make sure you’re not consuming too much of it.
I really cannot blame anyone for the confusion because a lot of this comes from the LDS Church itself and their often confusing clarifications of their positions. Like with caffeine specifically they have a long history of forbidding its use and then suddenly they reinterpreted it the way you’re suggesting. I’d say that’s fairly atypical for most religions nowadays and it’s a unique aspect of the LDS church that their interpretations are fluid like that.
The alternative for most other religions in the US is just that they never get specific and so most members hold conflicting views and interpretations. Both of the techniques I find very odd since you’d think that these differences would have faith based answers, but instead appear almost bureaucratic in nature
I had to think about this. I can’t seem to find any articles in a quick search where church leaders (a Prophet or Apostle) explicitly forbade its use. I have, however, found many excerpts where leaders who do not sit at the head (Quorum of the Seventy, BIshop, etc) have made statements warning against it or even flat out saying that members should not ingest it.
Given the structure and lack of corrective statements coming from above, I would attribute the confusion to local and regional leaders being overzealous by including caffeine explicitly in their teachings. Some have worded things in a manner I would find accurate, such as “high-dose caffeinated energy drinks” or “excessive soda consumption which results in high caffeine and sugar intake.” Others though explicitly call out caffeine as an “evil,” describing experiences with caffeine withdrawals or members deciding to not ingest alcohol, nicotine, nor caffeine. These mentions seem to have drummed up confusion primarily in the 80s (a lot of “Letter to the Editor” publications from this period seem to have been back-and-forth arguments among members, lol).
Initially I didn’t think the history is as “long” as you claimed, but then I realized that the 80s was just forty years ago, and with some results of the topic dating as far back as the 70s, it would mean it’s been an intra-member debate for almost half a century. And half a century is practically a lifetime 😖
Hey, I clearly remember that there was only caffeine-free Coke at Ricks College (apparently now re-branded as BYU-Idaho), and it was a Big Fucking Deal when they started allowing Coca-Cola in the campus stores and dining hall. So even if it wasn't "official", it was a very clear cultural issue, to the point where I don't think that most people could have drawn a line between what was official doctrine, and what was commonly accepted as doctrine.
There also wasn't an internet at the time, so members couldn't readily find some of the information about the nitty gritty.
Oh most certainly. I attended BYU Provo and there was a lot of effort from students to allow the sale of caffeinated soda on campus, but the belief was that the university was holding out only because a large number of alumni might stop donating if it were to occur.
(This was more recent though.)
The culture amongst members can and often will have items that seem to go against or misinterpret official doctrine. I don’t disagree that the church would need to reiterate the doctrine to clear that up for people. What I personally don’t know is how often is appropriate for such corrections to take place. If you correct them too often they may choose to not seek out answers themselves but instead wait for a leader to explain it to them, which runs against the teaching of proactive scripture study.
Ok, I should stop there. Starting to nitpick human nature as though I’m any better (and we know that’s not fucking true in the slightest, lol)
The church has tended to tread very, very lightly on what they're willing to declare to be doctrine, and what they aren't, because they're aware of how bad it looks when they have to walk doctrine back. The November policy, for instance, was explicitly called out as being revelation from god (via Russel Nelson, in 2016), but the church had to walk it back in 2019 because they were hemorrhaging members and getting incredibly bad press. (Plus, the whole article of faith thing about, "we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" is kind of undermined by not letting children with gay parents be baptized.)
As long as it's dogma rather than doctrine, the church has the benefits of members conforming, without the same risk of blowback. That is, if/when it's necessary to roll something back, it's much easier to say that it was never doctrine in the first place, and that the mind of god hasn't changed.
That is the apologetic version, yeah. But it begs the question: if it's okay to drink caffeine, why is it that an occasional cup of coffee will keep you out of the temple, but a case of Red Bull every day won't? If it's about avoiding addiction, then surely any addiction would make you unworthy to go to the temple. If it's hot drinks, then why isn't cold brew coffee okay? Why is yerba mate fine, and ice tea is not? One assumes that a god would be able to formulate a standard that can be applied cleanly, to everything, and communicate that clearly to his prophet.
Honestly, the when you look at the circumstances that existed contemporaneously when JS Jr. was formulating his theology, it's clear that the Word of Wisdom is essentially a slightly reformulated version of the temperance movement. It's also interesting to note that it wasn't a requirement until, IIRC, the 1920s or so; JS Jr. and Brigham Young were both pretty big drinkers of hard liquor, for instance. It's easy to point to tobacco and say, see?, it's prophetic! But there was a pretty strong temperance movement against tobacco at the time as well. (Meanwhile, the evidence we have right now seems to indicate that coffee and tea are probably good for you, and evidence regarding alcohol is leaning towards it probably not being healthy even in very moderate drinkers.)
The issue wouldn’t be the god in question, but instead the people.
Consider the fact that Moses was given the Ten Commandments for all the Israelites to follow. They’re incredibly simple and straightforward. Yet there still was a division in how these were observed, which was documented well in the New Testament.
The two most notable (outlined in the New Testament) are the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees can be summarized as a group which added man-made rules or guidelines on top of the established doctrines. Certain stories, such as Christ healing a man on the Sabbath, demonstrate that the intention of a commandment can be forgotten by people who choose to observe by the letter of the law. The Sadducees can be summarized as a group which chose to observe only doctrines that are written. Both groups, however, largely ignored the foundation behind the 10 Commandments.
Christ explains it as simply as can be. Love the Lord above all else, and love they neighbor as you do yourself. The 10 Commandments were already straightforward to begin with, but the two greater commandments set the standard you suggest such a deity should be capable of doing.
Even still, as simple as they can be, the issue often becomes that some people want to be told what exactly they can or cannot do, while others want to justify their actions on the basis of technicality.
All of this to say, the doctrine for the LDS church is based on the idea of obedience towards God. It doesn’t matter why He says to not drink coffee, just that He promises you’ll be blessed if you do. So by virtue of the two greater commandments, loving God means following His instructions. And that alone should be reason enough to do so.
(Mind you, I disagree with how this is often put into practice, as a lot of guilt-tripping occurs for those who choose not to follow these teachings. At its core, these actions are antithetical to Christ’s teachings and examples, which are to love all unconditionally as we are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord. But again, the issue lies with people, who aren’t perfect, rather than the doctrines put forth.)
Nah, if Mormons had an official drink, it'd be mountain dew