Was Pres Mckay confused about the wow? Decaf Coffee?
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:46 pm
In Michael Ash's article, "Up In Smoke" at FAIR, here:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... Smoke.html
He does a rather good job of confirming almost all of the Tanner's criticism and argument re the Word of Wisdom. When I first read this, I was hoping to see him actually debunk the Tanners, but in what became a pattern as I read more and more, the FAIR piece only confirmed my concerns and doubts by conceding SO much and presenting arguments that were a bit of a stretch.
Footnote 135 reads:
So, did Pres. McKay understand the prohibitions on the word of wisdom to cover all "deleterious drugs" rather than to be specific to certain substances (ie., coffee)? Since deleterious simply means harmful or injurious, did Pres. Mckay maen that the word of wisdom, for whatever reason, only intended to prohibit harmful or injurious substances contained in Coffee or Tea, but does not prohibit coffee and tea themselves? And who gets to determine what the "deleterious" elements of coffee and tea are? If it is found that caffeine is not "deleterious" in amounts found in "green tea", for example, but is healthful in many respects, does it then fall outside of the word of wisdom as far as Mckay is concerned?
And, is it the case, that to this day, one can receive a temple recommend while drinking decaf coffee regularly?
The whole word of wisdom comes into question in my mind after reading its history and evolution (as nicely presented by Ash). It seems rather clear that it was merely adoption of the "advice" of the temperance movement and then made a concrete commandment for reasons that make little sense. And it seems that the wow was never really understood (and still is not) by Church leaders.
/
/
/
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... Smoke.html
He does a rather good job of confirming almost all of the Tanner's criticism and argument re the Word of Wisdom. When I first read this, I was hoping to see him actually debunk the Tanners, but in what became a pattern as I read more and more, the FAIR piece only confirmed my concerns and doubts by conceding SO much and presenting arguments that were a bit of a stretch.
Footnote 135 reads:
Bolding mine.Joseph L. Anderson, 8 January 1965, Secretary to the First Presidency wrote to one member (as directed by President David O. McKay), "I am directed to tell you that the drinking of a beverage made from the coffee bean, from which all caffeine and deleterious drugs have been removed, is not regarded as a violation of the Word of Wisdom." ("Decaffeinated Coffee Does Not Violate Word Of Wisdom" Revelations in Addition to Those Found in the LDS Edition of the D&C [New Mormon Studies CD].)
So, did Pres. McKay understand the prohibitions on the word of wisdom to cover all "deleterious drugs" rather than to be specific to certain substances (ie., coffee)? Since deleterious simply means harmful or injurious, did Pres. Mckay maen that the word of wisdom, for whatever reason, only intended to prohibit harmful or injurious substances contained in Coffee or Tea, but does not prohibit coffee and tea themselves? And who gets to determine what the "deleterious" elements of coffee and tea are? If it is found that caffeine is not "deleterious" in amounts found in "green tea", for example, but is healthful in many respects, does it then fall outside of the word of wisdom as far as Mckay is concerned?
And, is it the case, that to this day, one can receive a temple recommend while drinking decaf coffee regularly?
The whole word of wisdom comes into question in my mind after reading its history and evolution (as nicely presented by Ash). It seems rather clear that it was merely adoption of the "advice" of the temperance movement and then made a concrete commandment for reasons that make little sense. And it seems that the wow was never really understood (and still is not) by Church leaders.
/
/
/