CSA,
It might have been interesting to ask the Bishop who had been instructed to supress your mini uprising how members who eat meat stand in terms of the Word of Wisdom...
When he bumbled a non-answer (which he would have done) you could have suggested that perhaps the Stake President could do a lesson on it. You know the next fifth Sunday joint session could be about clarifying what the Word of Wisdom means in terms of meat consumption...
Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
-
_jon
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1464
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
CSA’s Post Reference
CSA,
First, let me address your last paragraph.
Even if people drink coffee, it is quite scientifically established that caffeine tends to help keep people awake. Most, who drink coffee, drink decaffeinated coffee after 3 P.M. for that reason. Hence, your drinking a caffeinated beverage in the evening is most likely to keep you awake. That is particularly the case for those who are not a regular coffee (or Dr. Pepper) drinker. Caffeine has the same general effect in beverages which contain it. Dr. Pepper, Coke, Pepsi, and other soft drinks may have caffeine unless the container so stipulates that it IS decaffeinated. (Diet drinks are usually not as flavorful as those with sugar. But, for those who are diabetic or want to reduce sugar intake, diet drinks serve a purpose.)
A little information here can be helpful.
Often people who drink caffeinated beverages do so to help them be more alert, more awake especially in the morning or early afternoon (as in 1 P.M.) for the tasks before them.
This is not to suggest that you do or do not consume a caffeinated beverage. But FACTS are relevant on anything we consume including medically prescribed drugs which almost always have some side effects.
For example, people who are prone to stomach ulcers are generally advised to AVOID aspirin products. Why? It’s because aspirin tends to be an irritant to stomach lining. Most people can tolerate aspirin, and it is a widely used product for numerous problems. But, it’s important to know one’s own health situation even in taking over-the-counter medication.
CSA stated:
I am thinking in some other dimension we would share a pot of coffee and have a good discussion about this.
Well, I’d enjoy that, but one cup or at the most two for me, please. Or, we can even make it decaffeinated if that would make you more comfortable. Or, we could have orange juice. Are you permitted to drink orange juice?
CSA stated:
I was called on the carpet in a meeting with my Bishop tonight. The Stake President asked the Bishop to meet with me about this whole Word of Wisdom thing. First off I told him that I have been too critical of the Prophet and First Presidency for not clearing up the Word of Wisdom. I was told that while I can have a more strict definition in regards to the Word of Wisdom that I must keep this interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to myself.
First, recognize that I have little familiarity with the secrecy of Mormon religious dogma and admonitions. Why must you “…keep this interpretation…” to yourself? Such secrecy is not intended to benefit you. It is intended to control you. It is intended to benefit the “establishment,” the Mormon organization. A major factor in organized religion is power to control members. Another major factor in many groups is to control the flow of wealth. Some religious groups make great use of this control.
Freedom to think, to explore, to ask relevant questions, to discuss with others ideas is central to honest intellectual inquiry. You have my sympathies in that your last sentence here appears a strong attempt to stifle engagement with others and appears an effort to stifle THINKING, your thinking.
Second, “the Word of Wisdom” is clearly a code for hiding something. It’s vague, nebulous, and obscure.
Just what is “this whole Word of Wisdom thing”? (as you describe) And just WHY must you “keep this interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to myself” (yourself)?
You can hardly engage the intellectual integrity of your own mentality that way. Clearly, someone (“my Bishop”) does not want you to use your intelligence to think outside the prescribed box which your “Bishop” seeks to protect from open examination, inspection, and scrutiny.
What you described first appears to be some kind of confessional to your “Bishop.” Is that required of you (Mormon doctrine)? If so, it corrupts personal integrity and candor.
It also appears that you are subjected to multiple layers of bureaucracy designed to stifle thinking. Perhaps you can clarify. You mention “The Stake President” and “the Bishop.”
CSA stated:
I asked the Bishop how he would respond in a temple recommend interview if a member stated that they drink green tea or iced coffee. He said all forms of coffee and tea are forbidden, regardless of what color it is, or how cold it is. I asked if a person took a green tea capsule for health purposes would he refuse a temple recommend to that person. He said he would have to abide by what is found in the Church Handbook. He was not sure if there was anything specific in the handbook.
“Forbidden” in this context is a clear attempt to preclude any personal application of intelligence (which I think you likely have).
To discourage the use of genuinely dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and tobacco seems a mentally healthy approach to influencing behavior. While it might be connected with religion, it is well established by medical science.
You may know that in the very earliest use of tobacco, no one really knew about the dangers of it. The tobacco industry quickly learned (although they denied it) that nicotine was addictive and that tobacco was an effective way to deliver nicotine to people. The tobacco industry is still a most profitable one. While in the USA warning labels are increasingly more graphic, in foreign countries where much profit is made, such warning labels are frequently not required. There, people become addicted and don’t know it’s happening. It’s a serious world health problem.
Caffeine, on the other hand, is not comparable to tobacco. People do not contract lung cancer or heart disease (and other diseases) as a result of having a cup or two of coffee daily. As others and I have pointed out, caffeine has some benefits in specific situations.
(It does not have benefit in a Dr. Pepper in the evening if you plan to sleep soon. HOWEVER, CSA, if you had a long drive to make which you could not begin until 11 P.M. when you might usually be going to sleep, that Dr. Pepper {caffeine} might very well SAVE YOUR LIFE.) Going to sleep while driving is bad news!
If you plan to drive a car and know you are sleepy but MUST drive for reasons inherent in your situation, caffeine may be a significant benefit (despite what your Bishop commands).
Another aspect of the paragraph above is the lack of academic truthfulness. To place “green tea,” “iced coffee,” and “all forms of coffee and tea” into the same category is irrational prohibition. It’s particularly irrational when these are all “forbidden” equally.
It begs the question: WHY? Exactly what is the case made against all these equally? That’s a question for you to ask your “Bishop.” Given the hierarchy structure which your wording conveys, it appears that you cannot have an intelligent conversation with a bishop. Doctrine and dogma precludes rational analysis. If that is the case, there is no benefit in attempting a rational conversation there.
However, an intelligent person open to inquiry outside the box of dogma, you, CSA, have the FREEDOM to ask questions and to research with open mind various ideas or prohibitions.
I am suggesting that you have choices which you have yet to exercise.
Here is something a bit curious from your post:
CSA stated:
He said he would have to abide by what is found in the Church Handbook. He was not sure if there was anything specific in the handbook.
If “he” is “the bishop,” he should know precisely what is said “in the handbook.”
Of course, you are free to “…abide by…” or not. You are a person in your own right with a brain and a capacity to evaluate and scrutinize religious dogma. Whether you are emotionally up to that, only you know. As I observed previously, if you are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you can no longer, ever, escape in the box thought, then you cannot do it.
My optimism was encouraged by your opening sentence. It led me to consider that you just might be able to use your own intelligence, unbridled by rigid, unreasoned command. That would apply to any “forbidden” or required directive by religion.
(Just don’t “enjoy” that Dr. Pepper right before trying to sleep.)
JAK
CSA,
First, let me address your last paragraph.
Even if people drink coffee, it is quite scientifically established that caffeine tends to help keep people awake. Most, who drink coffee, drink decaffeinated coffee after 3 P.M. for that reason. Hence, your drinking a caffeinated beverage in the evening is most likely to keep you awake. That is particularly the case for those who are not a regular coffee (or Dr. Pepper) drinker. Caffeine has the same general effect in beverages which contain it. Dr. Pepper, Coke, Pepsi, and other soft drinks may have caffeine unless the container so stipulates that it IS decaffeinated. (Diet drinks are usually not as flavorful as those with sugar. But, for those who are diabetic or want to reduce sugar intake, diet drinks serve a purpose.)
A little information here can be helpful.
Often people who drink caffeinated beverages do so to help them be more alert, more awake especially in the morning or early afternoon (as in 1 P.M.) for the tasks before them.
This is not to suggest that you do or do not consume a caffeinated beverage. But FACTS are relevant on anything we consume including medically prescribed drugs which almost always have some side effects.
For example, people who are prone to stomach ulcers are generally advised to AVOID aspirin products. Why? It’s because aspirin tends to be an irritant to stomach lining. Most people can tolerate aspirin, and it is a widely used product for numerous problems. But, it’s important to know one’s own health situation even in taking over-the-counter medication.
CSA stated:
I am thinking in some other dimension we would share a pot of coffee and have a good discussion about this.
Well, I’d enjoy that, but one cup or at the most two for me, please. Or, we can even make it decaffeinated if that would make you more comfortable. Or, we could have orange juice. Are you permitted to drink orange juice?
CSA stated:
I was called on the carpet in a meeting with my Bishop tonight. The Stake President asked the Bishop to meet with me about this whole Word of Wisdom thing. First off I told him that I have been too critical of the Prophet and First Presidency for not clearing up the Word of Wisdom. I was told that while I can have a more strict definition in regards to the Word of Wisdom that I must keep this interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to myself.
First, recognize that I have little familiarity with the secrecy of Mormon religious dogma and admonitions. Why must you “…keep this interpretation…” to yourself? Such secrecy is not intended to benefit you. It is intended to control you. It is intended to benefit the “establishment,” the Mormon organization. A major factor in organized religion is power to control members. Another major factor in many groups is to control the flow of wealth. Some religious groups make great use of this control.
Freedom to think, to explore, to ask relevant questions, to discuss with others ideas is central to honest intellectual inquiry. You have my sympathies in that your last sentence here appears a strong attempt to stifle engagement with others and appears an effort to stifle THINKING, your thinking.
Second, “the Word of Wisdom” is clearly a code for hiding something. It’s vague, nebulous, and obscure.
Just what is “this whole Word of Wisdom thing”? (as you describe) And just WHY must you “keep this interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to myself” (yourself)?
You can hardly engage the intellectual integrity of your own mentality that way. Clearly, someone (“my Bishop”) does not want you to use your intelligence to think outside the prescribed box which your “Bishop” seeks to protect from open examination, inspection, and scrutiny.
What you described first appears to be some kind of confessional to your “Bishop.” Is that required of you (Mormon doctrine)? If so, it corrupts personal integrity and candor.
It also appears that you are subjected to multiple layers of bureaucracy designed to stifle thinking. Perhaps you can clarify. You mention “The Stake President” and “the Bishop.”
CSA stated:
I asked the Bishop how he would respond in a temple recommend interview if a member stated that they drink green tea or iced coffee. He said all forms of coffee and tea are forbidden, regardless of what color it is, or how cold it is. I asked if a person took a green tea capsule for health purposes would he refuse a temple recommend to that person. He said he would have to abide by what is found in the Church Handbook. He was not sure if there was anything specific in the handbook.
“Forbidden” in this context is a clear attempt to preclude any personal application of intelligence (which I think you likely have).
To discourage the use of genuinely dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and tobacco seems a mentally healthy approach to influencing behavior. While it might be connected with religion, it is well established by medical science.
You may know that in the very earliest use of tobacco, no one really knew about the dangers of it. The tobacco industry quickly learned (although they denied it) that nicotine was addictive and that tobacco was an effective way to deliver nicotine to people. The tobacco industry is still a most profitable one. While in the USA warning labels are increasingly more graphic, in foreign countries where much profit is made, such warning labels are frequently not required. There, people become addicted and don’t know it’s happening. It’s a serious world health problem.
Caffeine, on the other hand, is not comparable to tobacco. People do not contract lung cancer or heart disease (and other diseases) as a result of having a cup or two of coffee daily. As others and I have pointed out, caffeine has some benefits in specific situations.
(It does not have benefit in a Dr. Pepper in the evening if you plan to sleep soon. HOWEVER, CSA, if you had a long drive to make which you could not begin until 11 P.M. when you might usually be going to sleep, that Dr. Pepper {caffeine} might very well SAVE YOUR LIFE.) Going to sleep while driving is bad news!
If you plan to drive a car and know you are sleepy but MUST drive for reasons inherent in your situation, caffeine may be a significant benefit (despite what your Bishop commands).
Another aspect of the paragraph above is the lack of academic truthfulness. To place “green tea,” “iced coffee,” and “all forms of coffee and tea” into the same category is irrational prohibition. It’s particularly irrational when these are all “forbidden” equally.
It begs the question: WHY? Exactly what is the case made against all these equally? That’s a question for you to ask your “Bishop.” Given the hierarchy structure which your wording conveys, it appears that you cannot have an intelligent conversation with a bishop. Doctrine and dogma precludes rational analysis. If that is the case, there is no benefit in attempting a rational conversation there.
However, an intelligent person open to inquiry outside the box of dogma, you, CSA, have the FREEDOM to ask questions and to research with open mind various ideas or prohibitions.
I am suggesting that you have choices which you have yet to exercise.
Here is something a bit curious from your post:
CSA stated:
He said he would have to abide by what is found in the Church Handbook. He was not sure if there was anything specific in the handbook.
If “he” is “the bishop,” he should know precisely what is said “in the handbook.”
Of course, you are free to “…abide by…” or not. You are a person in your own right with a brain and a capacity to evaluate and scrutinize religious dogma. Whether you are emotionally up to that, only you know. As I observed previously, if you are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you can no longer, ever, escape in the box thought, then you cannot do it.
My optimism was encouraged by your opening sentence. It led me to consider that you just might be able to use your own intelligence, unbridled by rigid, unreasoned command. That would apply to any “forbidden” or required directive by religion.
(Just don’t “enjoy” that Dr. Pepper right before trying to sleep.)
JAK
-
_Dr. Shades
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
Blixa wrote:Woke up today and had few cups of coffee. I was immediately filled with inspiration and wrote two lectures for class this week, as well as assembling notes for a class blog on a number of dense and complicated issues.
Then I worked on some photography and art making (influenced by the work I'm doing in my classes) and switched gears easily to take up a large body of archival research and start cross-referencing it for my own use.
Mid morning yoga and pilates, lunch, and I'm now spending a few hours in random (re)reading: Joe Orton's plays, Lolita, selected sections of the Old Testament.
It's half past twelve and I've had a productive day already.
I don't drink coffee, but holy cow, that's far, far more than I get done in a week. Heck, I typically can't even wake up before 11:00 a.m., and that's only if I set my alarm.
Maybe I should start drinking it, even though I hate the taste.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
_Blixa
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
Dr. Shades wrote:I don't drink coffee, but holy cow, that's far, far more than I get done in a week. Heck, I typically can't even wake up before 11:00 a.m., and that's only if I set my alarm.
Maybe I should start drinking it, even though I hate the taste.
It was an unusually productive day. But I credit most of it to the mind clearing effect of coffee.
(Also, during the semester I get used to getting up at 5 or 6 am)
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
Dr. Shades wrote:Blixa wrote:Woke up today and had few cups of coffee. I was immediately filled with inspiration and wrote two lectures for class this week, as well as assembling notes for a class blog on a number of dense and complicated issues.
Then I worked on some photography and art making (influenced by the work I'm doing in my classes) and switched gears easily to take up a large body of archival research and start cross-referencing it for my own use.
Mid morning yoga and pilates, lunch, and I'm now spending a few hours in random (re)reading: Joe Orton's plays, Lolita, selected sections of the Old Testament.
It's half past twelve and I've had a productive day already.
I don't drink coffee, but holy cow, that's far, far more than I get done in a week. Heck, I typically can't even wake up before 11:00 a.m., and that's only if I set my alarm.
Maybe I should start drinking it, even though I hate the taste.
If you “hate the taste,” don’t drink coffee. This is not brain surgery.
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
Blixa wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:I don't drink coffee, but holy cow, that's far, far more than I get done in a week. Heck, I typically can't even wake up before 11:00 a.m., and that's only if I set my alarm.
Maybe I should start drinking it, even though I hate the taste.
It was an unusually productive day. But I credit most of it to the mind clearing effect of coffee.
(Also, during the semester I get used to getting up at 5 or 6 am)
Blixa,
If you like coffee or like the effect it produces for you, it’s beneficial for you. For those who “hate the taste” of coffee, they should avoid it. Does this not seem a reasonable conclusion?
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
jon wrote:CSA,
It might have been interesting to ask the Bishop who had been instructed to supress your mini uprising how members who eat meat stand in terms of the Word of Wisdom...
When he bumbled a non-answer (which he would have done) you could have suggested that perhaps the Stake President could do a lesson on it. You know the next fifth Sunday joint session could be about clarifying what the Word of Wisdom means in terms of meat consumption...
jon,
Exactly WHAT is “the Word of Wisdom”? CSA used the doctrinal term. It may have specific, exact meaning to some. But in these discussions, the phrase appears to be quite ambiguous.
JAK
-
_jon
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1464
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:15 am
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
JAK wrote:jon wrote:CSA,
It might have been interesting to ask the Bishop who had been instructed to supress your mini uprising how members who eat meat stand in terms of the Word of Wisdom...
When he bumbled a non-answer (which he would have done) you could have suggested that perhaps the Stake President could do a lesson on it. You know the next fifth Sunday joint session could be about clarifying what the Word of Wisdom means in terms of meat consumption...
jon,
Exactly WHAT is “the Word of Wisdom”? CSA used the doctrinal term. It may have specific, exact meaning to some. But in these discussions, the phrase appears to be quite ambiguous.
JAK
Jak,
Technically you could say that the whole of Doctrine & Covenants section 89 is the 'Word of Wisdom'. However, this includes the principle that you should only eat meat in times of Winter or Cold or Famine. On that basis, every single Mormon I know/have ever known should not have passed their temple interview - because they all eat meat, every week, of every month, of every year.
The problem with understanding it is that the modern leaders have muddied the waters. Instead of reiterating exactly what it says, they've interpreted and tried to explain.
For example, it says that hot drinks are not for the belly. Modern leaders have said that means Tea and Coffee - which leads to the follow up questions 'is cold Tea okay?' 'is Hot Chocolate okay'. Then local leaders try and help and add their interpretation. GBH came out publicly saying no caffeine - which causes all sorts of other questions which don't get answered.
Before you know it, what is a relatively simple set of instructions becomes something that has a multitude of different interpretations.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
jon’s Post Reference
jon,
As I previously observed in something to CSA, all this is vague, ambiguous, equivocal, and quite perplexing. (I didn’t use all those predicate adjectives, but that was the thrust of the analysis.)
Thanks for your review here. I understand why you asked the specific question which you did. Of course, I feel confident that you know that religious language is fraught with cloudy language. In colligate (legitimate) debate, we call these “weasel words.” They mean whatever the one using them wants them to mean. Individuals can make it up to suit themselves. That “multitude of different interpretations” is the historical evolution of religious doctrines and dogmas. However, individuals who are subjected to a particular religious indoctrination generally don’t recognize it. If or when they do, they press for specifics and accuracy.
That poses problems for those who attempt to “sell” their doctrines as superior to all other doctrines.
JAK
jon,
As I previously observed in something to CSA, all this is vague, ambiguous, equivocal, and quite perplexing. (I didn’t use all those predicate adjectives, but that was the thrust of the analysis.)
Thanks for your review here. I understand why you asked the specific question which you did. Of course, I feel confident that you know that religious language is fraught with cloudy language. In colligate (legitimate) debate, we call these “weasel words.” They mean whatever the one using them wants them to mean. Individuals can make it up to suit themselves. That “multitude of different interpretations” is the historical evolution of religious doctrines and dogmas. However, individuals who are subjected to a particular religious indoctrination generally don’t recognize it. If or when they do, they press for specifics and accuracy.
That poses problems for those who attempt to “sell” their doctrines as superior to all other doctrines.
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Caffeine is bad for you spiritually
jon,
I don’t know about “hot chocolate.” When two Mormon guys called at my house, in addition to giving them a very difficult time about their religious pronouncements, I asked them if they would like a cup of hot chocolate.
While I was giving them quite a rough time, it was not personal against them. They quickly accepted the hot chocolate. They drank all of it. It was a cold night, and I had the impression they were just happy to get in out of the cold. I also think they were surprised at the hospitality given my challenging interrogatives. The subject of caffeine never came up.
JAK
I don’t know about “hot chocolate.” When two Mormon guys called at my house, in addition to giving them a very difficult time about their religious pronouncements, I asked them if they would like a cup of hot chocolate.
While I was giving them quite a rough time, it was not personal against them. They quickly accepted the hot chocolate. They drank all of it. It was a cold night, and I had the impression they were just happy to get in out of the cold. I also think they were surprised at the hospitality given my challenging interrogatives. The subject of caffeine never came up.
JAK