mg/100mls:
Java Chai 51
Coffee (Brewed) 45
Red Bull 33
McDonald’s Coffee 31
Tea (Brewed) 25
Starbucks Cappuccino 25
Coffee (Instant) 24
Jolt Cola 20
Coca-Cola Blak 19
Mountain Dew 15
Mello Yello 14
Diet Coke 13
Dr Pepper 12
Tea (Instant) 11
Pepsi-Cola 11
Tea (Green) 11
Coca-Cola Classic 10
Snapple Tea 9
A&W Cream Soda 8
Nestea Iced Tea 7
Barq’s Root Beer 6
Coffee (Decaf, Brewed) 2
Chocolate Milk 2
Hot Cocoa 2
Source: The Caffeine Database
(Next: Tannin content…)
[Poll=78]
May 14, 2007 at 4:59 am
Gee whiz, Ronan being an international kinda guy I expected to see more non-USAmerican items listed. Our ward in Brazil routinely served Guarana at church functions.
Also, note that the diet versions are not always the same–last time I checked, Diet Barq’s root beer was caffeine free.
May 14, 2007 at 7:01 am
Well, it may be caffeine-free, but diet root beer is neither for the body nor the belly. I wouldn’t make cattle drink it, either!
May 14, 2007 at 7:05 am
Naismith,
Forgot yerba mate too. Anyone know the caffeine contents of these?
May 14, 2007 at 7:11 am
My personal decision is that if there are non-caffeinated alternatives available, I tend to go for those, but I have no problems drinking Coke or Barq’s
May 14, 2007 at 7:24 am
I still am a skeptic as to whether chocolate naturally contains caffeine:
http://www.xocoatl.org/caffeine.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa090301a.htm
Do some processed chocolate makers add caffeine? I ran into a PHD plant biochemist professor at SJU years ago and he informed me in no uncertain terms does chocolate naturally contain caffeine.
Would Stapley care to weigh into the debate?
May 14, 2007 at 7:51 am
Where does Rock Star weigh in? And Vitamin Water has an energy drink now.
May 14, 2007 at 8:22 am
Susan,
Around 30mg/100ml apparently, the same as in a strong dark chocolate bar.
ED,
Yes, we all await the wisdom of Stapley.
May 14, 2007 at 8:32 am
What, exactly, are mild barley beverages?
May 14, 2007 at 8:32 am
yerba mate: 30 milligrams of caffeine in an eight ounce cup
I love caffeine, though I admit I can’t figure if it really does anything to me, so I pretend. However coffee and cola should not mix. Bad Coca-Cola.
May 14, 2007 at 8:33 am
I think the whole chocolate debates is confusing people by mixing methylxanthines. That’s the family that contains caffeine, but also includes methylbromine, which is the methylxanthine in chocolate primarily. they have the same effect.
So if you’re a wicked eager poseur, you can tell people that as a Mormon you abstain from methylxanthines.
PS, someone search BYU Studies for methylxanthines. I seem to remember an article from the 1970s in there.
May 14, 2007 at 8:37 am
Re: #4
I have a problem drinking Coke. In fact, I have a problem drinking anything that can clean motor oil off my driveway.
May 14, 2007 at 8:45 am
While waiting for Stapley, why not ask Clark?
May 14, 2007 at 8:48 am
RE #5 he informed me in no uncertain terms does chocolate naturally contain caffeine.
Sloppy typing on my part. It should say:
he informed me in no uncertain terms that chocolate DOES NOT naturally contain caffeine.
RE #11, are you serious? I can clean motor oil of my driveway with coke? Will it harm the blacktop?
May 14, 2007 at 8:50 am
Yep, the cacao plant, which produces chocolate naturally produces caffeine. The confusion, I think, comes from the fact that it also produces theobromine (a la Sam’s comment) in quantities 10x those of caffeine. So, you get something like a 41g Hershey’s Special Dark chocolate bar 18mg of caffeine and 184 mg of theobromine. Theobromine is a stimulant that has a slower burn than caffeine. It stays in the body for longer and has a milder effect. It reacts primarily with the respiratory system.
The more actual bean a chocolate has in it, the more caffeine (and theobromine it will have), so dark chocolate has more caffeine.
May 14, 2007 at 8:51 am
…oh, and btw, for those interested:
Caffeine contents of Hershey products.
Theobromine contents of Hershey products.
May 14, 2007 at 8:52 am
he informed me in no uncertain terms that chocolate DOES NOT naturally contain caffeine.
He was absolutely mistaken.
May 14, 2007 at 8:56 am
ED,
I don’t know about oil and driveways, but I have used Coke to clean the gunk off my car battery. Worked like a charm.
May 14, 2007 at 8:58 am
There is no official prohibition on caffeine as a substance in and of itself. I don’t want to be over-simplistic, but am I missing something?
Generally, I avoid substances with high caffeine content, but when I am driving late at night and still have hours to go, my caffeine-deficient body stays awake with a Mountain Dew. Coke and Pepsi aren’t an option for me, ’cause I hate the sugary sweet taste. I usually avoid carbonated drinks, period, even if they are caffeine-free. I don’t like the effect on my stamina.
May 14, 2007 at 9:19 am
Some good Sacrament meeting reading material:
The Xanthines
May 14, 2007 at 9:31 am
Well if it’s caffeine you want nothing beat Excedrin (and its knockoffs). Each pill contains 50 mg of caffeine and Excedrin Migraine pills have 65 mg each. There’s nothing like 130 mg of caffeine to help out when you feel a migraine coming on!
May 14, 2007 at 9:34 am
Tony (#8),
Beer.
May 14, 2007 at 9:39 am
Ronan, your options on the poll seemed to leave out one that said that caffeinated sodas are not specifically against the Word of Wisdom.
Also, you might be interested to know that the Lion House Pantry right next door to the Administration Building where the First Presidency has its offices serves caffeinated Coke.
But you are correct that vending machines on BYU campus do not sell caffeinated Coke or other soft drinks, although they do sell uncaffeinated versions of those drinks.
May 14, 2007 at 9:48 am
Whoever developed Excedrin Migraine has earned my eternal love. I wash those little white caplets down regularly with a nice cold Diet Coke. Ahhhhh…..
May 14, 2007 at 9:56 am
they do sell uncaffeinated versions of those drinks.
…which Ronan thinks is ridiculous. I just enjoyed a liter of thick, gooey kakao milch, which is not far short of a can of coke in terms of caffeine. BYU should be consistent and only sell caffeine-free chocolate.
In other words: ridiculous.
May 14, 2007 at 9:57 am
John,
I think “Whatever! Pass the Barq’s, man!” = “caffeinated sodas are not specifically against the Word of Wisdom.”
May 14, 2007 at 10:22 am
…vending machines on BYU campus do not sell caffeinated Coke or other soft drinks…
Amend to say: vending machines in public areas on BYU campus do not sell caffeinated Coke or other soft drinks.
May 14, 2007 at 10:24 am
“Also, you might be interested to know that the Lion House Pantry right next door to the Administration Building where the First Presidency has its offices serves caffeinated Coke.”
The Joseph Smith Building as well. I have partaken of many a glass of Coke classic in there.
“I have a problem drinking Coke. In fact, I have a problem drinking anything that can clean motor oil off my driveway.”
And I use water to wash my car and dishes.
May 14, 2007 at 10:25 am
The last time I ate at BYU in the Wilkinson Center, last year, my uncaffeinated beverage was served in a “coca-cola” cup with the trademarked symbole, red, white stripe, everything- no mention of it being caffeine free.
I chuckled over the irony of enjoying a beverage with the form of coca-cola, but denying the substance thereof…
May 14, 2007 at 10:33 am
Stapley,
How much of the good stuff is in Stapley Xylitol Cola?
All,
I love caffeine. I’m addicted to it the way I’m addicted to prayer: I don’t leave home in the morning without a shot of it.
May 14, 2007 at 10:36 am
BTW,
There are a lot of people voting for “mild barley beverages” who clearly don’t get the reference. Or maybe they do!
May 14, 2007 at 10:47 am
Malta…mmmmm, delicious
May 14, 2007 at 10:50 am
Oh yes! I’m so glad I’m not the only one enjoying Malta. How’s about some matte?
May 14, 2007 at 10:54 am
There’s that great anecdote from the McKay book that has the prophet at a public event in hot weather and a staffer apologizing that the only cup they can find had the Coke logo on it. Pres. McKay’s reply: I don’t care if there’s Coke on it as long as there’s Coke in it!
Is it me or is the caffeine debate kind of retro. Seems like it was a source of much pontificating in the 70′s, maybe the 80′s but not really a source of sermons since then. This might just be that when I was a teenager I got preached at a lot more.
May 14, 2007 at 11:08 am
RE #14-16, in The Biochemist Apr/May 1993, page 15, the researchers indicate they find no detectable caffeine (see here, which article cites the “Caffeine ND” but still talks about there being caffeine in chocolate). Unfortunately, the magazine in question does not have online archives of articles or precis, and I have not been able to find it online.
So, is this research dubious? Has someone else debunked it with something more than popular opinion and general consensus? Has someone come up with a definitive and unequivocal assay capable of differentiating between theobromine and caffeine? Or is it a grey area? I am no chemist, but when I see scientists disagreeing over things, there is something afoot.
#21, 30 as far as mild drinks made with barley being the equivalent of modern “beer”, you guys need to play fair. If you are going to use old, vague historical references, you need to put them in context. Contemporary beer is definitely not a “mild drink made from barley” in the D&C 89 parlance and shares little in common with its historical predecessor. And the “drank a glass of beer at Moesers” does not license us to drink the contemporary barley-hops derivative of the same name.
May 14, 2007 at 11:45 am
HP: Really?! That’s the coolest thing ever! I’m totally going to go home and try this. My Battery terminals are so corroded it’s not funny.
May 14, 2007 at 11:48 am
Ronan, the point I was trying to make is that, if I am not mistaken, the Lion House Pantry and the Joseph Smith Memorial Building both in downtown SLC are owned by the Church just like BYU is. The two former locations offer caffeinated beverages even though BYU campus does not (in public areas, as JNS points out). That BYU does not offer them might be ridiculous but only in the same way that other locations that do not offer uncaffeinated beverages are also ridiculous. In other words, the real solution would be for BYU campus to offer both the caffeinated and uncaffeinated versions in tehir vending machines, thus giving people a choice between which kind they want. This is the only way to overcome any inconsistency, as you point out. To the extent that other university campuses only offer the caffeinated version of soft drinks, that would be ridiculous in the same way as BYU only offering uncaffeinated versions, wouldn’t it?
May 14, 2007 at 11:55 am
Dorito, fear not. There is no lack of consensus among scholars. Cacoa actually has caffeine in it and the only people that don’t think so are ignorant or confused. Anybody can run the beans through HPLC and find it. I did a quick search for peer reviewed literature: See here, here, here, etc..
May 14, 2007 at 11:56 am
To the extent that other university campuses only offer the caffeinated version of soft drinks, that would be ridiculous in the same way as BYU only offering uncaffeinated versions, wouldn’t it?
No. Decaf Coke is vile, vile, vile and no normal human being would choose to drink it.
May 14, 2007 at 11:56 am
“And the “drank a glass of beer at Moesers†does not license us to drink the contemporary barley-hops derivative of the same name.”
Nobody said it did, ED. We’ll tell you when we want to see you tilt at windmills.
May 14, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Ronan, I have never seen a comparison chart like this, but I have observed the personal variances in I.F. I despise coffee, but I thoroughly enjoy a cold Mountain Dew.
May 14, 2007 at 12:11 pm
@21 and 34:
When I was on my mission in Brazil, breakfast was bread and butter and a hot drink called cevada that smelled and tasted vaguely like coffee.
Cevada literally translates as “barley”.
May 14, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Kris,
Those kinds of insinuations are de rigeur for a discussion of mild drinks and barley. Remember our early discussion of the topic at T&S? We mentioned mild drinks, and a commenter showed up with “I am apalled at what seems to be a large number of church members rationalizing the drinking of beer. . .”
May 14, 2007 at 12:16 pm
So, you have church owned/run places that won’t sell coca- cola, and others that do (right?) Why the difference? Why isn’t it ok for BYU students, but ok for Mormons who visit the JSM bulding or the Lion House? Really – I don’t get it – other than it says that caffeine has nothing to do with the WoW.
johnf – regular vending machines stock what they can sell – that doesn’t include caffeine free coke – it’s not ridiculous – just smart business.
May 14, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Yes, yes, it’s all been done before at T&S. You guys are better than the Greeks!
May 14, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Re #37, thanks for the clarification. I guess that professor was old school.
RE #39, wow, Kristine, thanks for that. Now, would you care to substantiate your insinuation that mild drinks from barley = beer without providing me any windmills to tilt at? I am just dying for some real giant(esses) to lance over here.
May 14, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Aww, Steve — you give your blog far too little credit, I think. There are many things BCC hasn’t poached from T&S. You fellows are the undisputed pioneers, for instance, when it comes to new-header-graphic contests.
May 14, 2007 at 12:39 pm
ED–while 1830s beer may have been lower in alcohol content, it was still more closely related to what we call “beer” than to anything else we’ve got around today; hence the quickest way to explain what section 89 is talking about is to say it’s beer. Our current practice is a more recent official interpretation of section 89, which by rights supercedes whatever the practice was when Joseph had a beer at the Moesers. We’re all teetotalers here–and if I ever stop being one, it definitely won’t be to drink beer, and I won’t be touting my WofW observance.
May 14, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hey, Be Nice! Yes, I mean you!
May 14, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Careful, Kaimi. You’re on thin ice.
May 14, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Just to second the info, since I have a ton of cocoa beans sitting here beside me. They do have caffeine although not as much as what people normally drink. The husks, which are removed in good chocolate, have much more caffeine. In fact for a while we were thinking of removing caffeine from the husks. (You pour liquid CO2 over it to “decaffeinate” them — we’d then use the caffeine for other things)
I suppose one could make a decaffeinated chocolate. But I’m sure it’d taste horrible. I can’t imagine doing such a thing just because chocolate is all about the developing of natural flavors.
May 14, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Kristine,
1830s era barley and hops-based beer was not only lower in alcohol content, it was frequently absent of alcohol content given the lack of temperature control and complete ignorance of that little thingy called yeast.
Steam engines were pivotal, but it wasnt until Carl Linde (Karl von Linde) in 1876 introduced artificially controlled (i.e., non-seasonal) brewing that mass production became reliable. And around that same time Emil Christian Handsen discovered what a yeast cell was and how it worked, and then cultured and propegated it.
Prior to that, beer was a hit or miss endeavor that only occasionally resulted in something fermented. When people wanted to get sloshed back then in back country colonial america, it was via apple jack, not beer. Easy to reliably ferment in a root cellar, and could be jacked in the winter by letting it freeze and skimming off the ice.
May 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Stephen Robinson was fond of restating the WoW as prohibiting (in its current interpretation) tabacco, tea, coffee, and recreational drugs (instead of “harmful” as it is often stated). I always got a kick of out of that.
To the point of chocolate, he told a story in class about one of his associates who was very strict about caffeine to the point that he would not eat chocolate. Then, this associate learned that the 12 have a tradition of taking a piece of chocolate in the temple during their weekly meeting. I’ve never been to the weekly meeting so I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the story, but apparently it had a profound effect on the “no caffeine” guy. I thought it was funny.
May 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Dorito, do you have sources for your perspective on nineteenth century beer making?
May 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Really – I don’t get it – other than it says that caffeine has nothing to do with the WoW.
i suspect it might have to do with the fact that we know the majority of folks at byu are members; lots of folks in downtown slc aren’t. different audiences.
May 14, 2007 at 1:32 pm
This might be slightly off-topic, but does anyone know when “hot drinks” came to mean “coffee and tea”? Also, have there been any authoritative statements defining “tea”? (I know some members who drink herbal tea, claiming that it’s not really tea, and some who eschew herbal tea on principle. I haven’t found anything on either interpretation.)
May 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Any idea how coffee and tea, at least some kinds of tea anyway, ended up on the WOW blacklist? (no pun intended) As I understand it, and I could be way off, the current WOW standard evolved in both practice and enforcement from its genesis in Joseph Smith/Brigham Young days. Was there a discussion among the Q of 12 or 1st Presidency about what to exlcude/include and why before the current WOW was incorporated into the temple recommend process and general practice among the church? In other words, how did “hot drinks” morph into coffee and some kinds of tea and why did it take so long to clarify, at least with respect to coffee and tea? And, the final question, were the Brethren even aware of caffeine when they decided to make coffee and tea verboten?
Coke Zero is far superior to Diet Coke. Coke Zero is an answer to prayer, regardless of caffeine content.
May 14, 2007 at 1:44 pm
anonon – come on – sure the majority of visitors to the places I mentioned are going to be Mormon – and if it was really a WoW issue, surely it wouldn’t be served by a church owned place even if there are non-member visitors. I bet they don’t serve alcohol to them, so why would they something else if it really was against the WoW?
May 14, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Keri, there are references during Joseph Smith’s lifetime to “hot drinks” meaning coffee and tea. The one that comes to mind is a sermon of Hyrum Smith in the Times and Seasons. Also, the July, 1838 Elders’ Journal accuses a tea and coffee drinker. I think it has always been considered coffee and tea.
The only tea that is currently prohibited are those coming from the actual tea plant (Thea chinensis). Though, there may be some minor cultural variation. Missionaries in Asia are quite specific about any drinks made from the tea plant, whereas, if I am not mistaken, the German-speaking missionaries only refer to “black tea.”
It is also important to understand that the Word of Wisdom wasn’t considered a test of fellowship until well into the 20th century.
May 14, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Widtsoe was a caffeine Nazi, and there was flexibility well up into the seventies that decaf coffee was not verbotten. The caffeine crusades seem to have ended in the 1970′s when the few executors either died or realized it was a bit silly. For the establishment of the WoW as a test of fellowship see:
Thomas G. Alexander, “Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement,” in Dialogue 14, no. 3 (1980): 78–87.
Alexander’s Mormonism in Transition is a good source. Kimball’s JMH paper on the history of the Temple Recommend is a good resource as well.
May 14, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Those who are unafraid of the wacky-and-evil electronic formatting of Dialogue archives can check out the Alexander article at http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,6589 .
May 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I think of Karamalz as a mild barley beverage … :)
May 14, 2007 at 2:35 pm
#24 Can we please have a discussion on the merits of European chocolate milk? It’s perhaps the best thing ever… I will forever praise my mother for sending me packages of ultra-pastuerized contraband from Deutschland…
May 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm
There are two things, at least, at work in Section 89: the health pronouncements and the introductory warning – avoiding the wiles of conspiring men who intentionally pedal addiction. I think my grandfather ignored the introductory principle of the WofW, since he couldn’t make it through a normal day without consuming at least a twelve-pack of Pepsi, even though he was worthy of a temple recommend and was a deeply faithful member. Having said that, I don’t care, because I can’t imagine the Celestial Kingdom without him in it.
How about a discussion of the warning – How is it manifest in practical reality today? Are there things that might not keep you from the temple but perhaps should be avoided anyway?
May 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Re #52, there’s this story:
“The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve ordinarily meet in the Salt Lake Temple each week to conduct the business of the Church and often have lunch together. For years it was the practice to pass a box of Cummings chocolates around after lunch, beginning with the First Presidency. By the time the box got to the newest member of the Twelve, at the end of the line, the pieces of candy with light chocolate were always gone. On one occasion–after President Kimball asked, ‘Is there any further business?’–the junior member said, ‘Is there any chance to reverse the usual order of choosing Chocolates? I don’t care for dark chocolate and that is all there is left by the time the box gets to me.’ President Kimball replied, ‘If you live long enough, you’ll move up into the light chocolates’” (Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball: A Man of Good Humor,” BYU Studies 25/4 (Fall 1985): 65).
The widely circulated notes on Elder L. Tom Perry’s March 2004 talk at the Kuna Idaho stake conference had him relating a similar story (i.e., Elder Eyring has never had a light chocolate).
May 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Justin,
If the Brethren don’t like dark chocolate then it’s official: the Church is not true.
May 14, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I bet Elder Uchtdorf likes that yummy chocolate milk.
Still true.
May 14, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Seriously, Ronan. Milk chocolate, esp american milk, is like plastic or cardboard. But dark chocolate is true. The Spirit bears witness of it. I’d rather be at the bottom of the 12 than at the top. If I got to the top, I’d choose dark to feign a generous nature for those at the bottom who want milk so badly.
May 14, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Amri: You clearly have the spirit and are neither sinful nor fat.
May 14, 2007 at 7:49 pm
There’s not a poll answer for me. (Not surprising, I’m always the odd man out.) I personally avoid caffeine and think it’s a wise thing to do, but I don’t consider it part of the WoW. I do eat chocolate in small amounts. It does keep me awake if I eat any more. I’m very sensitive to caffeine. If I were to drink a 12 oz. diet coke, I would be awake all night.
Caffeine free diet coke is the nectar of the gods, however, it’s best if you fill the glass completely full with ice first, so that a 12 oz can would fill a 32 oz. glass around the ice. Then let it melt for a couple of hours to give that perfect thirst quenching flavor.
May 14, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I think the potential for addiction to anything is an important consideration. I know lots of folks who struggled with headaches, etc. when they came “off” of cola drinks or coffee.
We don’t drink caffeinated beverages on a regular basis, but perhaps ironically the most common time for us to consume them is on the way home from the temple (2 hour drive in the dark–one needs something to stay awake).
May 14, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Re 41,
You mean members and missionaries, right? The rest of country would drink fresh ground Brazilian coffee so potent they’d only use small shot glasses to drink it.
May 14, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I didn’t vote in the poll because there wasn’t anything that explicitly endorses Steve’s Supernatural Brownies, which addicted me on first bite (well, before that maybe, since I licked the bowl). I double the recipe now, even — gotta love mixing a doubled recipe that calls for a full pound of chocolate and a full pound of butter and eight eggs! — and plague the neighbors with what I can’t eat in the first three days. If chocolate is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
Somebody in our discussion of PBS’s “The Mormons” said they knew the polygamists shown at the dinner table weren’t really Mormons because everybody knows Mormons don’t drink wine. Apparently the Word of Wisdom isn’t always so well known — I’m occasionally amused by little old ladies who come to the church cafeteria from the Family History Library, who wander around asking each other where the tea and coffee table is.
May 14, 2007 at 10:46 pm
When I was a missionary in Belgium, one of my companions wrote to the MP worried that I was addicted to chocolate and it affected my ability to feel the Spirit.
May 15, 2007 at 5:32 am
RE #53,
Sure, take a look at _Drink: A Social History of America_ by Andrew Barr. And for frontier America’s fondness of apple jack, see _Botany of Desire_ by Michael Pollan.
Online, see the chronology at:
http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/chronology.shtml
And especially note the following entries:
1829 David G. Yuengling opens a brewery in the Pennsylvania coal town of Pottsville. It continues in 1995 as the oldest operating brewery in the United States, still owned by the Yuengling family. [Yuengling achieved some measure of temperature control by carving his cellars directly into the rocky hillside]
1860 1269 breweries produce over one million barrels of beer for a population of 31 million. New York and Pennsylvania account for 85% of the production. [beer production is a very localized operation, and the vast majority of it was in urban centers for local consumption]
1876 Louis Pasteur publishes “Studies on Beer” showing how yeast organisms can be controlled. [prior to this people propegated by chance from prior succesful batches]
1880-1910 Number of breweries declines. Improved methods of production and distribution mean fewer breweries can manufacture more beer. By 1910 number of breweries drops to around 1500. [this is when the discoveries of artificial refrigeration and yeast culturing revolutionize production]
A particularly instructive example is that of George Ehret, who once ran America’s largest brewery in NYC around the time period in question:
http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/ehret.shtml
Note the discussion indicates his vast production was largely for local consumption and it was impossible to ship the product.
Frontier America had no access to anything like what we would consider “beer” today.
Take for example George Washington’s recipe for “small beer”:
http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/washingtonrecipe.shtml
George was a very wealthy man for that day, inheriting a large operating plantation which peaked at 184 slaves, but even setting aside the ability of a frontiersman to reproduce the efforts, what do you think the alcohol contents of such a concoction would be, under ideal circumstances (note the recipe’s dependence upon weather, forget attempting it in the heat of the summer)? I would hazard a guess at “small” to nil. The real benefit such a drink would be to the imbiber is that it would be relatively free of the pathogens that commonly inhabited water sources around farms of the time.
May 15, 2007 at 9:35 am
55 “This might be slightly off-topic, but does anyone know when “hot drinks†came to mean “coffee and teaâ€? Also, have there been any authoritative statements defining “teaâ€?”
I’ve been searching this answer for years online without satisfactory answer. Any new info is appreciated.
just sign me “convert who loved iced coffee and iced tea” :)
May 15, 2007 at 9:42 am
I like to understand my doctrine and I don’t understand the prohibition of tea and coffee or caffeinated tea and coffee or whatever one concludes it is. Obeying the WoW was easier for me before science muddied the water. The lists of healthful effects of both tea and coffee continue to grow. (In moderation, of course, but that can be said about anything we ingest.) How do you understand this doctrine? It’s apparently not caffeine, so what is it we are banning? Was it originally the real deal or just a shrewd political move to sell the alcohol and tobacco prohibitions to the men by taking away what the women loved? What of the science? Surely green tea is more healthful than zero coke, which keeps me away on many a cross-state drive. I often feel I am being asked to choose the lesser in a church that generally asks me to choose the greater.
May 15, 2007 at 9:44 am
That’s keeps me AWAKE on cross-state drives. I am convinced coke has saved my life repeatedly.
May 15, 2007 at 10:30 am
RE #75
“I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Tea and coffee are what the Lord meant when he said ‘hot drinks.’ ” [Quotation of Joseph Smith by Joel Johnson, close friend of Smith. John A. Widtsoe and Leah D. Widtsoe, The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1937), 85-87.]
“And again ‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.” [Hyrum Smith, Times and Seasons, Volume 3, Number 15, page 800, published June 1, 1842]
“Many try to excuse themselves because tea and coffee are not mentioned, arguing that it refers to hot drinks only. What did we drink hot when that Word of Wisdom was given? Tea and coffee. It definitely refers to that which we drink with our food. I said to the Saints at our last annual Conference, the Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks. ” [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 12, Page 117, August 17, 1867]
May 15, 2007 at 10:54 am
Molly (#76), Here is something I posted on another blog some time ago. (a combination of multiple posts – WofW description begins in paragraph 3) I apologize for the length, but it gives my perspective on your question directly:
I believe deeply in the need to identify and reach for the ideal in EVERYTHING we do – not just in religion. I believe it is one of the direct manifestations of what links us to the divine. When I discuss business or education or cooking or disciplining my children or how to run councils or my choice of clothing or anything else, I try ALWAYS to identify the ideal. I then decide whether or not that ideal is attainable. That answer almost always is, “No.” I then work backward incrementally until I reach what I consider to be the closest “possible” to the “ideal”. I believe such a process allows me to do more and achieve more and become more than if I never identified the ideal and considered its possibility at that moment. (I also believe that is the greatest reason why the apostate creeds of the Christian world could be labeled as abominable. They literally removed the ideal [striving to become Godlike] completely from consideration. That, perhaps, is a topic for a different discussion.)
I believe that the Church MUST serve, to some degree, as the identifier of a collective ideal. However, the collective ideal, by definition, is blurred to accommodate diverse situations and needs. It MUST include some things that seem and are trivial and even irrelevant to some. As the Church expands and becomes more diverse in its membership, the articulated ideal begins to lose its distinctive cultural flavor and become even more generic – which I believe is a wonderful thing.
I am fascinated by the wording of Section 89, particularly where it says that the revelation has been “adapted to the weakest of the weak”. The implication seems to be that the revelation we received is not the actual ideal, but rather the adapted ideal that best fit the situation and time for and in which it was revealed. In a nutshell, I interpret that to mean: The point at which any individual member will succumb to the addicting nature of these things and, therefore, be enslaved by the efforts of conspiring men, varies from individual to individual; ideally, each and every person would be able to understand and exercise moderation in such a way as to avoid addiction and take care of his/her own body properly; unfortunately, not everyone is capable of this level of understanding and exercise; given this discrepancy and the desire to keep every single person from being thus enslaved, the practical ideal given by way of council as wisdom is abstinence from usage; it since has been expanded in theory by some (not canonized formally) to include other addictive substances not included in the original interpretation; whether or not it is changed canonically is up to the general leadership through revelation/inspiration.
I interpret the “weakest of the weak” to mean that those who might otherwise succumb are protected, while those who truly are strong in this area won’t have a problem abstaining. In other words, strong members otherwise still might be among the weakest in this area. Frankly, that’s how I view the prohibition on pornography that is being emphasized so much now. Those like myself, who are strong members generally but are sorely tempted by such material, are completely safe ONLY if we abstain, while others who are stronger in this regard might not understand the restriction like I do but are strong enough to abstain simply because they are asked to abstain.
Part of accepting lesser ideals is the willingness to follow them even when they seem trivial or irrelevant to you. (There are some that I view that way for myself, but I still follow them.) As with the WofW, I believe that there are some “lesser ideals” that are reached as a direct result of an over-riding need to protect every single person from a particularly egregious danger – in this case, the intentional peddling of substance abuse and addiction. Specifically, there are so many people who think they can handle it but can’t (who end up abusing spouse and children or creating financial ruin or killing someone in a crash or getting someone pregnant or being raped at a party or any number of other things) that a comprehensive prohibition is justified and merciful and benevolent. These “weak ones” see those who drink in moderation and assume they can, as well. Those who truly are strong enough to resist it and imbibe in moderation are strong enough to choose not to do so for the greater good of the community – but they choose that path not because of the collective ideal but rather because their mature ideal teaches them to give up their own inclination for that greater good. I know that sounds circuitous, but it really means they act because they want to help others rather than because they are told to obey. They obey because they understand the principle behind the command rather than just because it is a command.
May 15, 2007 at 11:52 am
Following on #74, for those interested in the history, here is an interesting read on Thomas Jefferson’s efforts at brewing at Monticello, detailing the difficulties and successes he experienced:
http://www.beerbooks.com/cgi/ps4.cgi?ACTION=template&thispage=1175&ORDER_ID=207455055#exc
May 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Bring on the dark chocolate. It is an anti-oxidant; therefore it must now be included in the major food group and a worthy part of the WoW.
Pepsi soon to follow . . . I think (hope).
May 15, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Where’s all this non-public caffeine at BYU? I’d like to find a reliable source (besides raiding a nearby colleague’s office) for those long afternoons.
Interestingly, I was never a Coke drinker until I moved to Utah last fall, having resisted on the basis that I just didn’t like the taste, not for any WoW issues. The change is so startling that while visiting my family in the midwest recently more than one person commented on my change in beverage-of-choice.
May 15, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Ray, I appreciate your thoughts and agree with many, particularly as they apply to red wine (beneficial to most and deadly to some so we all give it up), but I’m having trouble with the lack of clarity to the rule. Blind obedience has no appeal to me. Sometimes there is no choice, but I never stop searching for the understandable reasons for a rule. And I am comfortable accepting lesser ideals only when I can understand those ideals provide a substantial benefit to some. Red wine again. Obedience purely for obedience’s sake doesn’t speak to me of a principled and loving God. There are more than enough real tests of obedience to learn that principle. He doesn’t have to manufacture silly ones, though I concede of course that some look silly to us but aren’t ultimately silly at all.
What is green tea’s harm to the weakest of the weak? This is a rule with the promise of physical health. I analyze it as a health rule. And science has generally proved its wisdom. But do we now know enough about the qualities of some teas (antioxidants) and perhaps coffee (ex: correlation to preventing colon cancer) to suggest there is more potential gain than risk? Perhaps you scientists out there have an answer. If I can’t see that I am helping some avoid a real danger, I do wonder why I am drinking caffeinated coke, more harmful to my body, when I could be drinking caffeinated tea? Why aren’t the caffeinated stimulants in the “to be used sparingly” column with meat? I think they belong there. Ban the Heart Disease Casserole I was asked to bring to a stake dinner this week–let’s see, a cup of mayonnaise, 2 cans of that delightfully congealed cream of chicken soup, an overcooked vegetable, lots of butter on the bread crumb topping…., but leave me choices that present little harm and much benefit.
May 15, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Negatory, negatory. Aspertame is necessary for any true diet cola. Seriously though every time I’ve tried to drink a Coke Zero or anything else with Splenda and I get headaches. My body chemistry doesn’t get along with Splenda.
May 15, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Molly, I honestly look at the word of wisdom in terms of community. What exactly is it about shrimp that makes them not kosher? But not eating them helps create a community. If we honestly took the counsel of the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, then I think it would be applied much differently. What we have instead is a set of cultural proscriptions, some of which have a tremendous health benefit (no tobacco) others of which basically set us apart.
It is obvious that many of the leaders at the forefront of the modern Word of Wisdom application were mostly concerned about addiction, regardless of any health affects.
May 15, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I agree with you, Molly, on just about everything you said. (As a missionary in Japan, we were allowed to drink wheat tea – or I should say, allowed to suffer through the ordeal of drinking wheat tea. It was not considered a forbidden tea.) I just think there are enough culinary choices out there that the very broad guidelines that the WofW establishes aren’t hard to follow – unless one is prone to addiction. I maintain that the Church cannot – must not – get to the point where it tries to dictate item by item what we consume. (I think every one of us would agree with that.) Frankly, I like the fact that caffeinated drinks have been left in the realm of inspired counsel – not canonized into the WofW. I like the fact that caffeine is NOT mentioned in the actual revelation. If the leadership feels inspired to modify the prohibitions within the WofW and canonize those modifications, fine. If not, then we are left to interpret all things not prohibited.
What am I saying? I also loath the Heart Disease Casseroles and excessive sugary desserts that clutter (clog?) every church activity food table. However, I don’t want the church to ban them. I will make my statement by not eating them and encouraging other members to provide more healthy alternatives – ones that don’t taste like cardboard, I will add. On a scale of 1-10 in the “Diet Nazi” realm, the WofW is about a 3 – right where I think it should be.
A tangent that applies, I believe: When Pres. Kimball counseled against viewing R-rated movies, I complained to a good friend. He said something truly profound to me that influences how I view the WofW. Essentially, he said, “You don’t want to accept it, because it is hard for you to follow. The concept behind it – the allure of violence, profanity and/or sexual content, is a weakness for you. If it were easy for you to follow, you would accept it in a heartbeat.” He was right. I have no desire to use addictive physical substances, so I accept the WofW in a heartbeat. However, I need to avoid pornographic material like the plague – so I struggled initially with accepting the R-rated movie counsel. The sermons about pornography now are much easier for me to accept specifically because I accepted yesterday’s “lesser ideal” – avoiding R-rated movies.
Are there R-rated movies that I think are masterful and profound? Yes. Do I watch them? No. Are there substances that, used in moderation, provide more good than harm? Yes. Do I consume them? Not if they are prohibited in the WofW. The first for me is hard, since I am one of the weakest of the weak in that area; the second is easy for me, but I follow it largely to avoid putting temptation and and opportunity for rationalization in front of my fellow weaklings.
May 15, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“Negatory, negatory. Aspertame is necessary for any true diet cola. Seriously though every time I’ve tried to drink a Coke Zero or anything else with Splenda and I get headaches. My body chemistry doesn’t get along with Splenda.”
Clark, check the label. Coke Zero has aspartame and ace-K, not Splenda (sucralose).
Coke Zero’s good stuff. Diet Coke is a weak, inferior drink that comes dangerously close to having the same (lack of) flavor as Pepsi.
May 15, 2007 at 3:57 pm
#85, Amen, J. Hot drinks is pretty clear, but the membership (including the leadership) needed specifics for the “evil designs … conspiring men” aspect of the revelation. What they felt needed to be canonized was coffee and tea – the most addictive hot drinks of their day.
Frankly, I don’t consume anything that feels hot to my tongue. I wait for it to cool just enough to not make me wince. That’s just me.
May 15, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Interesting topic, but I have a different take on this. I think Stapley is on to something here with his community statement. When we look at the WoW, it has to do with something mundane that we do every day, to remind us of our covenants and relationship with God. I’ve also started looking at the wearing of garments in the same sense, a mundane daily activity that helps us remember those greater covenants that we have taken upon us in the temple. We do the same thing with our baptism covenants every Sunday. This falls into the same category. As Molly B has indicated, it’s tougher to prove the “scientific” proofs of the Word of Wisdom than it seemed in the 60′s.
May 15, 2007 at 4:50 pm
If you want to take it in that direction, there certainly is historic precedence for a people being distinguished by the foods from which they abstain.
Having said that, I think we miss a huge motivation for the revelation if we ignore what it actually says about rampant addiction peddling in the last days. Perhaps we would like it to be updated for our time, but I think classifying it simply as a communal bond is over-simplifying it greatly. Was it a health code? Yes, but it was more than just that. Was it a warning of future danger? Yes, but it was more than just that. Was it a spiritual covenant? Yes, but it was more than just that. Was it a communal bond? Yes, but it was more than just that. Part of my testimony concerning its divine origin is that it really is incredibly complex – and SO correct in its description of our time.
May 15, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Ray,
I also believe that as well. I’m not advocating abandonment of the WoW, just exploring a part of it that has taken on new meaning for me. We are bombarded constantly in the media about coffee being an aid in prevention of colon cancer, a glass of wine helping to head off strokes and heart attacks and the like, that just saying that the Lord was way ahead of science in the 1830′s is too simplistic. It’s not just a health code, although that is a big part of it, as is the community building aspect. I agree that there are conspiratorial elements to this. The tobacco industry springs to mind.
However, in the interest of full disclosure, if you are getting your soda in cans, Diet Pepsi is far superior to Diet Coke in cans, and the non-caffeinated stuff tastes nasty. However, if it’s a fountain drink, with the proper mix of syrup to carbonated water, Diet Coke is better than fountain Diet Pepsi! However, no gas and groceries place on the planet seems to be able to set the mix right.
May 15, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I get my caffeine from the following product:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/univ/shock.html
best pre-workout formula out there.
Of course, I cycle it. (which means – three weeks on, two weeks off or something along those lines).
I can’t stand soda, so it doesn’t matter there. I hate carbonation.
May 15, 2007 at 9:18 pm
The problem, Kevin, is that few places do the proper mix of carbonation to syrup. I end up paying for the 1L bottles, even though they are more expensive, because the taste is better and more consistent.
May 15, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I grew up in a home where caffeinated soft drinks were never found. I remember this time when I was six years-old and my best friend, also LDS, admitted that she had consumed Coke at a birthday party. I was so disappointed in her. It’s comical when I think of it now. Of course, as I moved into adolescence, I began to do my own thing, which included drinking caffeinated soft drinks on occasion.
Now, as an adult, I have conflicted feeling about the consumption of such beverages. You will often find my fridge loaded with cans of Diet Pepsi, but I do consider it a vice. All soft drinks are loaded with chemicals and are just not healthy. But if I want to drink something with few calories, water or San Pellegrino will not always cut it. So I turn to the Diet Pepsi. However, I do not drink it habitually.
It’s one of those things that I know that I will give up eventually, but am not quite ready to do yet. Plus there are more important things that I need to work on, like not being a huge critical snob about everything and everyone!
PS. For those who claim they need Coke to drive home from the temple, try rolling down the windows, loud music, sunflower seeds, or a lively companion!
May 15, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Community doesn’t explain the WoW to me. To pick up on Jonathan’s Jewish analogy, I have lived on the edge of Judaism most of my life. Close friends, all but 2 of my husband’s business partners, and our most trusted advisors are almost all Jewish. With few exceptions, only our Orthodox friends keep kosher. But the others identify just as fully with the Jewish community. They would say that shellfish were forbidden before refrigeration but that new information makes the prohibition unnecessary. To continue to shun shellfish would be superfluous to all the more rational reasons they know they belong to the group. I should be heartened to be part of a group endorsing a lessor law which may not be optimal to our health? No, I feel like a bit of a dummy and a hypocrite with no testimony of part of the WoW but good compliance.
May 16, 2007 at 12:01 am
So, Molly, let me ask you directly – and I mean it sincerely. I really do want to know.
What specific changes do you want the Church leadership to make part of the WofW canon? Right now, the only prohibitions are coffee, tea and alcohol – in the arena we are discussing. Are you saying you want the Church to dictate more prohibitions as part of the WofW – to outline exactly what we should and should not consume? Do you want the Church to look at the list in this thread and create a checklist of what we can and cannot use? Do you want the canonical WofW to include restrictions on fat or saturated fat or sugar or sodium or cholesterol or any number of other “harmful” substances? Do you want them to dictate a body mass index that allows for variance among members? How far do you want it to go? (or do you want no prohibitions whatsoever?)
What would your exact recommendations be?
May 16, 2007 at 12:54 am
I find caffeine utterly worthless in terms of keeping me awake. It just makes me feel a little sick and makes it harder for me to concentrate. I once downed two Red Bulls before lecture after pulling an all-nighter, and I still fell asleep. I’ve pretty much given up caffeine (although I did drink a Diet Coke tonight) because I just don’t like it anymore…
As for coffee and tea, maybe I’d worry more about the ban on them if I really cared, but I think coffee smells like vomit (apparently this is weird) and tea tastes like dirty water.
May 16, 2007 at 2:23 am
I sympathise with both Molly and Stapley’s views. From a religious sociology POV, the Word of Wisdom is a genius bit of people-making, an effective exercise in boundary maintenance. If Mormons were a mountain tribe in Papua New Guinea we’d be nodding knowingly at these cultural markers. The Word of Wisdom as a test of loyalty for a peculiar people is rather clever.
That said, when you’re in the middle of it all, arbitrary rules and regulations designed to test one’s own fellowship can come across as petty. The tea-eschewing but transfat chomping Mormon is not displaying “wisdom” by any stretch of the imagination, and it is difficult for me to imagine that this is the kind of life God has in mind for us. The WoW seems very Old Testament to me, which is a little jarring in a religion that claims to teach the higher law. The modern WoW is a policy and not everyone likes to think that their salvation depends on policies. It is also unequal in its effect on Mormons internationally: an American who doesn’t drink, smoke, or use caffeine would be seen by most as simply “health-conscious,” whereas in India or Japan, not drinking tea with your family could cause real familial and cultural pain. Which is not to say that the Gospel should not challenge us, but I just hope Americans remember that in this, as in so many other things in Mormonism, the challenges of international Saints are much greater.
Ray, D&C 89′s “not by commandment or constraint” is probably the kind of higher-law WoW that some people might consider useful. No need for a list of do’s and don’ts.
To be clear: no-one’s suggesting that Mormons not live the modern WoW. It is what it is. But, like Molly perhaps, I do not feel secure in my righteousness just because I don’t drink coffee. In fact I find my coffee-avoiding but Coke-partaking habits faintly silly. If the WoW is about health then I ought to stay off the carbonated sugar; if it’s about obedience then I wish I could find something more worthwhile to expend my spiritual energy on. Most of us are strictly obedient when it comes to the WoW, but are much more lax in the weightier matters. If I confess to struggling with my home teaching, loving my neighbour, or finding time to work at the cannery, I would get a sympathetic nod from most Mormons; if I confess to sampling the hot black elixir, there would be an uncomfortable and awkward silence.
Have we got this all out of balance, or is the modern WoW a useful first step in approaching our bodies with respect? In general terms, we are better off with the WoW (for all its imperfections) than without it.
(BTW Molly, email me and I’ll give you the straight dope on the German Mormon grüner Tee approach… :) )
May 16, 2007 at 3:14 am
I agree with your conclusion Ronan, but as the previous paragraph in your comment shows, we do in fact have it all out of balance.
May 16, 2007 at 3:52 am
MCQ,
I guess it’s something about not looking a gift horse in the mouth, even if the horse is a bit funny looking. Or something. Which is to say, I think the WoW has been a blessing in my life, but I’m sometimes frustrated that it’s a comfort blanket. Mostly, it’s the tea/coffee/caffeine horse that I think is not particularly “wise”: that’s the test of fellowship as it makes no sense whatsoever. I sympathise with Molly that the commandments should make sense. But yeah, no warm caffeine I guess. As I said, for the time being, it is what it is.
May 16, 2007 at 4:02 am
Amen, Ronan. It is the people-defining aspect that makes it a tricky question.
May 16, 2007 at 4:48 am
You know, it dawns on me that our current approach to the Word of Wisdom is a case study in how Mormons view scripture.
I have one example: D&C 89 is written in the voice of the Lord. He says, “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; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”
Read this carefully. About meat, God says that in general “it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used.”
Yet Mormons eat a lot of meat. How do we explain our cavalier disregard of what is “pleasing” to God? Simply put, Mormon cultural tradition has surpressed the impact of this verse in our ears. Instead, we have replaced it with a policy that entirely ignores this particular word of wisdom. D&C 89 is canonised scripture. Given the latest lds.org reminder of the importance of canonised scripture, what should we make of this?
That modern leaders can reinterpret scripture is a given in Mormonism. It’s interesting to me, however, to wonder why God found excessive meat-eating in 1833 to be displeasing, but now — in the era of factory farming — this is a wish that we can safely ignore. Surely, if we are to overturn revelation, some official explanation would be useful: “Here’s why ‘hot drinks’ equals tea and coffee and why you should obey, and here’s why you can now eat as much meat as you want.” The current approach seems to be simply to ignore it and offer no explanation. Which is funny, because D&C 89 is all about reasoned persuasion and explanation rather than just a list of do’s and don’ts.
For me, I find this rather gentle desire of God for us to eat meat sparingly in D&C 89 much more compelling than “thou shalt not drink tea” printed in dark letters on the missionary flipcharts. And yet, I utterly ignore it. Why?
(P.S. I find little in D&C 89 to suggest that God intended the WoW to be a “test of fellowship,” although I think this is the only sensible way of currently seeing the WoW Verbot. This is also a Strange Thing. At the very least it’s Exhibit A in “Why The Scriptures Don’t Matter So Much.”)
May 16, 2007 at 5:07 am
With respect to the cultural discussion (#85, 95, 98), please recall that verse 4 says:
which was verse 1 in the original. In other words, the proscriptions are cultural, but from a reactionary standpoint. The Lord is warning the Saints away from things conspiring people will try to foist upon them, which things are not good for us. Please note, the intent of the revelation is not primarily a medical one, although there are clear and obvious medical implications. The primary intent is to address socio-cultural practices which should be eschewed for your own benefit as a result of conspiring men. If one is to see it as “people-defining”, one must look at it as a reactionary response and not an intentional off-setting. The primary intent is not to present a set of faith-promoting miraculous medical predictions or to create a people culturally distinct from their neighbors. It is to protect the faithful who have ears.
Also, please recall that v. 1-3 of the current text was not part of the original, but was added later as an offset italicized preface, which, for a reason nobody presently knows, was incorporated into the 1867 edition as though it part of the original. The present verse 4 was the original effective verse 1.
May 16, 2007 at 5:19 am
ED,
Very good point. v. 4 does indeed give the raison d’etre of the WoW as constituted in the D&C.
Apropos the meat question, I can fully understand how excessive meat consumption is driven by “conspiring men,” whose cheap burgers are giving us heart disease, cause animals to be treated abominably, and provide us such pleasures as CJD.
What’s your opinion on why this one has not been made into a test of fellowship? Sure, “the prophet said so,” but how is it we can so easily leave aside what is “pleasing” to God?
May 16, 2007 at 5:27 am
#59
They aren’t all gone yet. When I served my mission in Nevada, 11-9 years ago (has it been that long?) I had at least 3 occasions when the members I went out with when we were teachng the 4th discussion (i.e. WOW and chastity) said that it was okay to drink Decaf Coffee, I would gently correct and hope they wouldn’t push the issue. If they did, I would carefully move us to another topic before they got too worked up in front of the investigator
May 16, 2007 at 5:53 am
Ronan (re 104), verses 4-9 are explicit prohibitions where from verses 10 on are admonitions. The meat avoidance falls under the admonitions, not the prohibitions.
Making strict vegetarianism a requirement would contradict Gen. 9:1-4, and D&C 49:18-19 and possibly 1 Tim 4:3, although the latter may be a repudiation of the Law of Moses per Acts 10. Although Isa 11:7 does seem to suggest that vegetarianism will be the way to go in a Millennial setting.
It isnt just Mormons who love their meat, Americans (and Western culture in general) chow down on the flesh of beasts to their own present harm. But, back when this revelation was originally written, seriously, how many people died of artheriosclerosis? Cholera was a major killer back then, not cholesterol.
May 16, 2007 at 6:21 am
ED,
I am not advocating strict vegetarianism, nor do I see how “they are to be used sparingly” should not be taken as a commandment.
I seriously think that “eat meat sparingly” touches all the bases for the “Word of Wisdom”:
1. It’s in a modern, canonised revelation.
2. It’s healthy.
3. It would stick it to the “conspiring” excesses of agribusiness and fast food.
4. It would be a cool Mormon signifier: “Mormons: almost vegetarian.”
So, with that in mind, I’m wondering what the hermeneutic is that allows to ignore the meat part of the WoW.
Also, your point about meat in Western culture is significant. I won’t press it, but let’s just say that if the church was headquartered in Calcutta, Camellia sinensis would not be a malum prohibitum.
May 16, 2007 at 6:32 am
ED,
Another thing (I’m intrigued by your framing of D&C 89 with v.4): if it’s all about “conspiring men” is it possible that the prohibitions refer to products that the Saints would have had difficulty making themselves (tea, coffee, wine, tobacco, spirits)? Is this a case (as suggested later by Brigham Young’s vineyards) of avoiding gentile imports?
May 16, 2007 at 6:42 am
I think that as a principle, we, as Saints, should be vegetarians based upon D&C 89′s admonition (disclosure: I am a lactovo vegetarian with leather belts and shoes). However, nobody else in my family is, and if we were in lean times and it was me or the deer in the backyard, that doe would be on my plate.
The presently observed hermeneutics would be based upon D&C 49:18-19, and the cultural mores of the society we live in choosing to emphasize that over the D&C 89 statement. We, as less-than-perfect Saints, love to make excuses for having our oxes in mires, do we not? In the face of two superfically contradictory passages of Scriptures, we are going to pick the convenient one that suits us, not the one that doesnt. How many times does the story about Smith shooting the squirrel and Orson Hyde cooking it during Zion’s Camp have to be told before it is plain people are looking for excuses to eat meat?
May 16, 2007 at 6:48 am
I think it is indeed a superficial contradiction. D&C 49 says do not “forbid” eating meat*; D&C 89 simply suggests that we eat said meat “sparingly.”
________
*Am I thick, or is there a curious double negative in D&C 49:18:
“whose forbiddeth to abstain from meats” = “whoever forbids someone from abstaining from meat” = “don’t tell someone they can’t be a vegetarian”!
(I know that’s not what it’s saying.)
May 16, 2007 at 7:07 am
No, no, I dont think it is a case of avoiding Gentile imports and therefore a license for Brigham’s vineyards, as that would be setting up the revelation for something that was decades later and only occurred because the Saints werent faithful in the command to establish Zion at Independence.
May 16, 2007 at 7:10 am
Even though I whole-heartedly agree that the WoW acts as a cultural marker, group maker, and that is stands as a test of fellowship that seems to cheapen JS in my mind. He wasn’t thinking, this WoW will make my people MY people. Or Mormon people. Was God letting JS believe something else about the revelation while all the time He just wanted to make His people peculiar? That seems weird too.
I guess everyone knows I have a hard time with the WoW and partially because I want my cultural markers to be the time and love I give to the community, our Church services, our temple worship, our eternal families doctrine (we have a million markers that we don’t share with other groups) rather than the fact that all of us don’t drink coffee.
Saying that the WoW serves the purpose of defining us as a people seems like a cop-out to the problems we face when science doesn’t prove what we thought our revelation did and in the face of understanding other cultures(like Ronan pointed out, no tea in Japan or India or most places really is a big deal)
I think I’m grouchy because I’m in the middle of finals and surprisingly my Diet Coke isn’t making me feel better.
May 16, 2007 at 7:14 am
ED,
I dunno. D&C 27′s prohibition on buying wine from your enemies seems to belong to this milieu. It at least puts wine and conspiracy in the same breath and seems to be a precursor to the notion in 89:4.
Amri,
Try Red Bull. They sell it in bottles here.
May 16, 2007 at 7:44 am
Related, but not really addressing the same issue. D&C 27 is saying “Hi there, these people in town are deliberately trying to poison you” whereas D&C 89 is saying “Yeah, well, people are generally selfish and will do anything they can to exploit you, so be deliberate about what you consume, and totally avoid X, Y, Z because they really arent all that great for you in the first place, despite popular opinion.” I dont see them all that connected.
May 16, 2007 at 9:30 am
(this seems to have been caught in the filter yesterday. Trying again)
Extreme Dorito (78)
thanks for the quotes. I just don’t read them as crystal-clear, because I’m not sure if coffee and tea were the only hot drinks around in those days. Was there hot chocolate? hot apple cider? Herbal teas? If they existed in JS’s world and were left out of the clarification, I can chew on that.
But instead I read the quotes wondering if “coffee and tea” represent the only available drinks-of-high-temperature at the time.
May 16, 2007 at 9:35 am
Big Coke Classic drinker here. I’m trying to clear the oil from my…driveway.
:)
May 16, 2007 at 9:37 am
Ronan: What’s your opinion on why this one has not been made into a test of fellowship? Sure, “the prophet said so,†but how is it we can so easily leave aside what is “pleasing†to God?
You’ve said that Mormons eat a lot of meat. But how much is a lot. How much can we eat and still eat “sparingly.” It’s a subjective judgment.
I think one reason it’s not a test of fellowship is that it’s not unambiguously prohibited in the scriptures and judging how much is too much and excluding people who overeat is not practical.
An interesting point: the few Seventh Day Adventists I’ve known are vegetarians. I don’t think it’s a “test of fellowship” for them, but I gathered that their vegetarianism at least in part was based on their religious values. From what I understand their health practices are kind of derived from the WoW. Or maybe that’s just old missionary folklore?
May 16, 2007 at 9:49 am
Aren’t they derived from Ellen White? I seem to recall that there were quite a few religious health movements in the 19th century, of which the WoW was just one.
Tom, we already have “ambiguous tests”: Are you honest in all your dealings (even when I lie to spare hurt feelings)? Do you pay a full tithe (net, gross, “interest” or income)? Do you magnify your callings (does 30% home teaching count)? Do you keep all your temple covenants (I haven’t consecrated everything to the kingdom lately)?
It seems to me that “do you eat meat sparingly?” would also be valid.
May 16, 2007 at 10:18 am
Amri, re # 112, I think I was suggesting that the “reminder” aspect of the WoW was an internal reference and practice, not necessarily one that is intended to make us appear different than the rest of society. That’s why I likened it to the wearing of garments. It’s mostly visible to us, and not so much intended to make us a peculiar people, although it has had that effect.
Second, I really do think about my pepsi habit in negative terms. At some point, I probably will discard it.
Finally, has anyone ever heard the explanation about meat as referring to the fact that refrigeration was not available, and meat in warm weather was suspect for salmonella and other related issues? I’ve heard people explain (or rationalize) using meat sparingly based on this argument.
May 16, 2007 at 10:18 am
And the missionary rumor was that Ellen White got them from Joseph Smith.
Google just told me that it’s not just a missionary rumor. There are a lot of accusations that she plagiarized from Joseph Smith. Of course, we all know that we can’t trust everything we read on the internet.
All of which is beside the point.
It seems to me that “do you eat meat sparingly?†would also be valid.
I suppose so.
May 16, 2007 at 11:27 am
Ray, I want no more rules. Following Lowell Bennion, I am in the “Principles, not Rules” camp. As Ronan says, the goal is to “approach our bodies with respect.” In my ideal rule, that would be the stated principle and we would use the best medical information of the moment to do just that. The granddaughter of an alcoholic and daughter of dear parents who have paid for smoking with cancers and heart disease, I am comfortable with the alcohol and tobacco prohibitions, but adding the destructive substance of the moment to the list doesn’t make much sense. But the overriding principle of cherishing the temple of the Spirit by intelligent care is beautiful and much more difficult than avoiding a few substances or even eating more veggies and less meat.
May 16, 2007 at 11:35 am
Kevinf “It’s mostly visible to us, and not so much intended to make us a peculiar people, although it has had that effect.” I think it’s pretty visible to everyone else. And they think we’re pretty weird for it too. Or else they just can’t understand it.
I was just grouchy this morning, though I still think we’re always making reasons for commandments, revelations, cultural habits when it turns out our old understanding doesn’t work so well. We’re just bumbling humans. Sometimes that makes me grouchy. Sometimes it don’t.
May 16, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Fascinating discussion.
My only addition is that I think the church has it 100% right – ironically, because I agree with both Molly and ED. Let me try to explain.
As I said, I would love to have the absolute ideal – “take care of your own body in the best way possible for you.” When I read the revelation, that’s what I see. However, due to the “evil designs that DO [at that time] and WILL [in our time] exist in the hearts of conspiring men,” I am fine with both counsel [as it was given originally] and command [as it became later].
The issue seems to be the fact that some counsel was changed to command. Has anyone thought of why PART of the counsel became command? The writings of the time are clear that it was because many of the members chose to ignore the most urgent counsel to avoid addictive substances – that they would not follow the Lord’s counsel but needed to be “commanded in [these] things.” The rest of the counsel was left up to the members to “govern themselves”; only the most addictive and harmful substances being exploited by conspiring men were prohibited by command. (How many times have I asked my children to do something important only to have to demand it when they ignored me? Frankly, not often, but I have done so more than once.)
Frankly, I’m having a hard time understanding what the fuss is all about. If you want to live the entire counsel to its fullest, I applaud you for that desire – that I share. The temple recommend question does not ask, “Do you abstain from coffee, tea and alcohol?” It asks, “Do you obey the Word of Wisdom?” (If a local leader is asking more than that, he is imposing his own standard.) Why spend emotional capital worrying about where the communal line should be drawn – when it is drawn quite loosely and the cultural issues are being addressed locally all around the world? (wheat tea in Japan, et.al.) Just as with the other questions, “Yes [to the best of my ability and understanding],” is perfectly appropriate.
I don’t mean the following conclusion to be condescending, but I repeat: I don’t tend to argue about issues that are easy for me to understand, accept and follow. I only argue about issues that are difficult for me to understand, accept and follow. Given the overwhelmingly positive effects of the WofW – in its entirety, I accept the communal prohibition on specific addictive substances. Instead of spending time and effort “nit-picking” details (in the purest linguistic sense of the word) of what “ought to be changed for our time”, I prefer to attempt to live the full counsel and command as I understand it. It’s not worth the effort to me to kick against this particular prick.
May 18, 2007 at 3:47 am
Having said what I did in my previous comment: :-)
110, Ronan, I think a better translation of the obvious intent of D&C 49:18 would be something like: “Whoso forbiddeth (with the effect) to (make people) abstain from meats…” There are lots of examples in the Bible and Book of Mormon where things get shortened and condensed when put in writing and potential meanings multiply. The wording probably was chosen to echo the statement in v.15 condemning prohibitions on marriage. However, given the wording of D&C 89, it would be consistent to apply the literal meaning you highlighted – namely, “Don’t forbid someone from being a vegetarian if they choose to abstain from meat altogether, especially, with modern heating and refrigeration systems, if they do not experience what then would have constituted cold or famine.”
Interesting and ironic possibilities.
May 18, 2007 at 7:57 pm
So, Green Tea is ok, then? =)
(Ronan: I’ve really enjoyed reading your reasoned comments and wonderings.)
May 18, 2007 at 9:43 pm
When did the Word of Wisdom make the transition from being “not by commandment” to being a test of fellowship? Does anyone know the history behind this?
May 18, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Amanda, see the the references in comments 59 and 60.
May 19, 2007 at 9:56 am
Clark @ 84:
I don’t know about where you are, but here in NC Coke Zero is made with aspartame. Lovin’ it. I’m not a big Splenda fan either.
May 19, 2007 at 10:16 am
I think Barq’s (like orange Fanta) is sometimes caffeinated and sometimes not. Usually, Barq’s is not in Utah. Usually, it is outside of Utah. Fanta seems to be a time thing, for years they’ll include it, then take it out, then put it back in. I’ve watched it carefully because caffeine makes me ill.
As a great anecdote: A Full Throttle-drinking coworker of mine recently had to take off work because of kidney stones. He’d drink a minimum of three per day. Coincidence? I think not!
May 20, 2007 at 9:31 pm
On D&C 49:18, keep in mind that whatever justification one provides for reversing the clear meaning of this scripture (especially in the context of the v. 19-21) must be applied to D&C 49:15. The 1981 edition hides this parellel with pagination, but grammatically “whoso forbiddeth to marry” = “whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats.” The footnote for 49:18 suggests that “forbiddeth” = “biddeth.” Where’s the matching footnote on v. 15? Whoops. In other words, Shakers should be getting married, but if they don’t want to eat meat, leave well enough alone.
Gen. 9:1-4 demonstrates that Noah was the first human to move from vegetarianism (Gen. 1:29), but Noah also drank wine, etc. The WoW is the law for today and it is clear in it’s prohibition of unnecessary meat eating (D&C 89:14-15) There’s not even an exeption for winter or cold here, so the refrigeration explanation is insufficient.
May 20, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Ujlapanana, you’re dealing with the “floating comma” issue between the 1921 and 1980 versions with that one.
May 21, 2007 at 12:42 pm
David, you’ll have to expand on that. The floating comma only affected the first vegetarian restriction in 89, not the MORE restrictive second reference. Without the correctly placed comma (and it is obviously correct, now that it is canonized), 89 becomes internally inconsistent.
May 22, 2007 at 1:44 pm
J. Stapley,
Thank you for pointing out those references. I now understand why an entire article was needed to answer my simple questions. Alexander did state what I’ve long suspected.
“There is, however, no known contemporary evidence of which I am aware that a separate new revelation changed the Word of Wisdom from a “principle with promise” to “a commandment” necessary for full participation in all the blessing of church membership.”