correcting church doctrine w/o getting squashed
			Archive

Posted by: bob noxious ® 09/06/2002, 04:50:23 Author Profile Mail author

When the church teaches, or allows something to be continually taught as doctrine that is not doctrine, how does someone as non-significant as myself instigate reform? I am specifically referring to the Word of Wisdom being taught as a commandment. It is referred to as a commandment in the missionary discussions and church curriculum. However, the curriculum refers to it as a principle and a law and a commandment. Talk about confusing! If it is not a commandment, is it acceptable for the church leadership to deny temple blessings to those who are not following it? And, by the way, how can the church justify only parts of it as a commandment?

| Recommend | Alert

Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message

A request bob
Re: correcting church doctrine w/o getting squashed -- bob noxious		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/06/2002, 06:38:52 Author Profile Mail author

bob, Could you, if it's not too lengthy, post the Word of Wisdom here on this thread? Following that, I have questions. Thanks. Victoria

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: A request bob
Re: A request bob -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: rpcman ® 09/06/2002, 08:43:14 Author Profile Mail author

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Comments, Questions and Thanks...
Re: Re: A request bob -- rpcman		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/06/2002, 09:23:30 Author Profile Mail author

Thank you rpcman, I would like to intersperse my comments/questions in parentheses between this scripture:THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS SECTION 89 Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327—329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet. 1—9, Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed; 10—17, Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals; 18—21, Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings. 1 A aWORD OF WISDOM, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion— 2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the aword• of wisdom, showing forth the order and bwill• of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days— (not by commandment or constraint...so, this isn't a requirement?) 3 Given for a principle with apromise•, adapted to the capacity of the bweak• and the weakest of all csaints, who are or can be called saints. 4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of aevils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of bconspiring men in the last days, I have cwarned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation— 5 That inasmuch as any man adrinketh bwine• or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, apure• wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. (Does this describe sacramental wine? I thought the Saints used water?) 7 And, again, astrong• drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies. (What kinds of "strong" drinks. It looks like it refers to alcohol. Where does caffeine enter in? Let me refill my tea cup and continue on...:) 8 And again, tobacco is not for the abody, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill. 9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. (Why not? Do the Saints not drink hot cocoa? Hot Apple Cider?) 10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome aherbs• God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— 11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with aprudence and bthanksgiving•. 12 Yea, aflesh• also of bbeasts• 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 csparingly; (I do not see evidence of adherence to this in the homes of the Saints that I know or at church functions) 13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be aused•, only in times of winter, or of cold, or bfamine. (Same comment as above) 14 All agrain• is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; 15 And athese• hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger. (Color me confused...made what for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger? Does this mean the grain or the animals?) 16 All grain is good for the afood of man; as also the bfruit• of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— 17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain. (Am I reading this right when I say this seems to limit human grain consumption to wheat?) 18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, ashall• receive bhealth• in their navel and marrow to their bones; (Biblical plagiarism) 19 And shall afind• bwisdom and great ctreasures of dknowledge•, even hidden treasures; 20 And shall arun• and not be bweary•, and shall walk and not faint. (Major out of context Biblical plagiarism from Isaiah) 21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the adestroying angel shall bpass• by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen. (I don't get this, a reference to passover?) Top of page Prev | Next The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ Thanks again rpcman, Victoria

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Tell me a story...
Re: Comments, Questions and Thanks... -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/06/2002, 09:25:20 Author Profile Mail author

The one about the events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith, anyone? Victoria

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Tell me a story...
Re: Tell me a story... -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Mensch ® 09/06/2002, 10:12:34 Author Profile Mail author

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/people/joseph_smith/Martyrdom_Joseph_Hyrum.htm Your name sounds so much more distinguished now, Victoria.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Thank you Mensch
Re: Re: Tell me a story... -- Mensch		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/06/2002, 11:13:26 Author Profile Mail author

I will need to wait until tomorrow to read the link you provided. Does my name sound more distinguished now? LOL! I am Victoria Queen of the Late Night Kingdom My sword is flame! ;)

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Bias creates focus
Re: Comments, Questions and Thanks... -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/06/2002, 11:02:29 Author Profile Mail author

It is not surprising to me that you happened to miss everything positive about the Section you just posted of D&C. This LDS revelation was given about 170 years ago, in a time when drinking, smoking, and overall health management was really not considered by any stretch of the imagination essential to a person's personal worth. Here comes Joseph Smith who claims to have received a revelation from God instructing him that members of God's Church shouldn't smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or hot drinks (interpreted to mean tea and coffee today, and likely in Smith's days as well), along with many other dietary guidelines. All these ideas were based on the concept that the body was a temple of God. Consequently for over a century and a half, LDS members have statistically had better health (Statistics do not necessarily reflect upon the individual). I see much good in this, and all you were able to muster up were some comments about plagiarizing the Bible, criticism of inconsistency of members of the Church in following dietary guidelines, and a joke about sipping your tea. Excuse me if I conclude that your bias has caused you to focus on what you perceive as negative and rendered you oblivious to the many "blessings" LDS have received because of this law. TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

TV !
Re: Bias creates focus -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/06/2002, 11:11:17 Author Profile Mail author

TV, I did not comment on the other sections as I had no questions about them nor disagreements with them! How quickly you rush to judge me! Next time, try asking. Victoria Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, Sep 06, 2002, 11:14:12

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

I said it as I read it.
Re: TV ! -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/06/2002, 12:06:48 Author Profile Mail author

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Well, you read wrong and
Re: I said it as I read it. -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/06/2002, 13:14:56 Author Profile Mail author

I would appreciate answers to the questions I asked, if you have them. Thanks. Victoria

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Re: Bias creates focus
Re: Bias creates focus -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: bob noxious ® 09/06/2002, 11:42:24 Author Profile Mail author

I was taught, as a youth, that tea and coffee were considered "hot drinks" because those were the common hot drinks during that time. I have read in the Journal of Discourses that Brigham Young stated that hot soup and cocoa were also considered hot drinks. However, if the logic is that the common hot drinks in that day were coffee and tea wouldn't we be able to conclude that beer was the common drink of the day made from barley?

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

could be
Re: Re: Bias creates focus -- bob noxious		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/06/2002, 12:09:15 Author Profile Mail author

Though I must admit that this would not be entirely relevant within the context of LDS ideology. The president of the Church is considered the authoritative voice on what God's will is now, so it really would only matter what GBH says today. Though you may be right regarding beer. TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Anecdotal aside, and query . . .
Re: Re: Bias creates focus -- bob noxious		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Sarahbelle ® 09/06/2002, 22:35:26 Author Profile Mail author

A story is told, allegorically, of Brighgam Young's unique interpretation of the 'spirit of the Law' that included a bias against pork products. So strong was Brothger Brigham's repulsion of pork, that once, having been served doughnuts (he had a notorious sweet tooth) in the home of church members, he reached out to take several off the plate, then stopped, asking what they had been fried in. The hostess replied that they had, naturally, been fried in lard. Brigham shouts, "Yes, ma'am, pig lard!!! I will not eat them, they are an abomination!!" I'm guessing that hot ham and bean soup wouldn't have gone over well either. My query: This interesting thread has discussed much about interpretation of hot drinks to mean only coffee and tea. What about the more modern (unofficial, but pervasive)interpretation that the injunction also includes cold caffeinated bevarages, i.e.: colaes, etc? I know that in my 25 years in the church I have seen it 'enforced' to varying degrees. One stake president asked members during temple recommend interviews if they so imbibed, and if so, they were refused a recommend until they had repented. (When we moved out of his stake I resumed swilling Dr Pepper with a vengence.) Most church leaders don't ask about cola consumption on recommend interviews, but never have I seen cola drinks served at ward functions. Does anyone on the board know when this interpretation reared its ugly head?? Which church president or general authority first expressed this opinion, and in what forum? Inquiring, thirsty minds want to know!

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Anecdotal aside, and query . . .
Re: Anecdotal aside, and query . . . -- Sarahbelle		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 09/07/2002, 03:48:42 Author Profile Mail author

To my knowledge, it was never officially made doctrine, although prophets more than once have told people to "use their brains" to decide what is correct. They have repeatedly refused to make a definitive statement on the subject, in spite of thousands of letters sent asking them to condemn or approve it. However, the common conception that it was wrong has prevailed among most Mormons, probably because Bruce McConkie stated expressly that it was against the "spirit" of the WoW in "Mormon Doctrine." It wouldn't surprise me if he weren't the first. Mormons looking to justify will usually state that McConkie couldn't speak authoritatively on the subject (true). Also, it is worth mentioning that the harmful ingredients of coffee are not limited to caffeine (propylene glycol, for one). Based on that, it is reasonable to assume that caffeine alone might not be sufficient to ban a drink. If caffeine is the *only* reason coffee is banned (which doesn't make sense medically), it still doesn't mean soft drinks should be, because soft drinks contain far less caffeine. Chocolate, which also contains a bit of caffeine, has rarely been considered for elimination. When I was Mormon, I met people who drank de-caf because they couldn't drink coffee. But then they would also drink cola drinks. I typically said something like the following: --------- There are only two ways to be consistent. If you think coffee is bad because of caffeine, you have to eliminate all caffeine from your diet (including soft drinks). Thus, if you drink de-caf to excuse yourself, you can't drink cola. If decide to drink cola, then de-caf doesn't make sense, because you are implicitly saying that caffeine is the problem. You can't drink both de-caf and cola and be consistent. --------- On the other hand, caffeine is a mind altering drug, and the WoW has been expanded by the Church to include most drugs. But then, it usually only includes the illegal ones, so who knows. There have been studies of caffeine addictions in people who only drank it in cola, and it caused some pretty bad ailments when they stopped drinking (dizzyness, severe headaches, etc.). Bottom line: coffee and tea are bad for health in more ways than just caffeine, but the high concentration of caffeine in coffee is still quite bad for you. Since the WoW doesn't say *why* coffee and tea are prohibited, it makes sense to eliminate them, regardless of caffeine. Based on that, and the Church's statements, cola drinks haven't been definitively banned or condoned. -Dan

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Apostate Stake President
Re: Anecdotal aside, and query . . . -- Sarahbelle		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/07/2002, 07:12:37 Author Profile Mail author

The Stake President you mention was an apostate, and had the Church been aware of his imposition he would have been reprimanded. TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Re: Bias creates focus
Re: Bias creates focus -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 09/06/2002, 15:45:44 Author Profile Mail author

> It is not surprising to me that you happened to miss > everything positive about the Section you just posted of D&C. How do you know she missed it? Perhaps she didn't consider those things impressive or important. > This LDS revelation was given about 170 years ago, in a time > when drinking, smoking, and overall health management was > really not considered by any stretch of the imagination > essential to a person's personal worth. I have to disagree here. First, health concerns: It wouldn't have taken a genius to see that alocohol had the ability to screw up the body--hangovers, drunkenness, etc. In 1795, Sammuel Thomas (Maine) reported finding cancers in the lips of pipe smokers. In 1798, Benjamin Rush claimed that tobacco use led to "drunkenness." In 1828 Ludwig Reimann and Wilhelm Heinrich Posselt wrote extensively about tobacco and called it a "dangerous poison." Since the 1600s, state Churches had banned tobacco on numerous occaisons, once even stating that snuff was worse than indulging in sexual pleasures. In the 1830s an anti-tobacco movement started, following the temperance movement of the 1820s, both of which held as general principles that tobacco and alcohol were both unhealthy and evil. See this D&C Lesson, on the WoW. Read bullet 3, which basically explains that Joseph Smith's ideas on alcohol and tobacco were not new, but that health was an issue, and because it violated Protestant ethics. This is a D&C lesson, by a Gospel Doctrine teacher, admitting that the WoW didn't teach anything new. Here's a quote from this adventist page: "In 1831 a majority of students at Williams College decided to abstain from tea, coffee and unwholesome foods. Similar moves took place at the Bible seminaries of Lane, Danville, Southern and Western, Andover, Main Wesleyan, Oneida, and Hudson." This shows that anti-tea and anti-coffee movements were popping up prior to 1833, in *religious* societies. Also in this page, it mentions the Oberln student pledge (1835), in which a majority of students chose to abstain from tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco, except as was necessary for medicine. On this page, under an explanation of temperance, it says the following: "In the early 1800s, liquor consumption was blamed for a wide range of social ills. A number of societies, many sponsored by religious organizations, sought to suppress the availability of liquor." Thus, not only were these things considered part of a person's "worth," the anti- movements were sponsored by religion. The things written by Joseph Smith were not new, they were common religious and health concerns couched in a revelation-like format. I agree with you that there was "much good" in the revelation and its following. LDS members have had statistically better health than the *average* population, as would be expected of people ingesting fewer poisons. But so have JWs, Adventists, and other religions that teach similar principles. Now, what is the point? Well, the point mainly is that this revelation was nothing special. I am not Mormon and personally follow the WoW pretty closely, because I agree with some of the teachings in there. I don't expect the Destroying Angel to pass by, though (I haven't put any blood on my door). I just think it's stupid to hurt your own body. I don't see the need in being critical of someone who failed to be wowed by the WoW (no pun intended). The obvious health issues that the WoW is right about don't need commenting. They were true then (but not original) and are true now. -Dan Modified by nofaith at Fri, Sep 06, 2002, 16:57:58

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Good post!
Re: Re: Bias creates focus -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Gunnar ® 09/06/2002, 16:56:01 Author Profile Mail author

I also refrain from coffee, tea and alcoholic beverages, as much because I simply never acquired a taste for them as because they are unhealthy, or at least, potentially so. If I could think of no other reason for abstaining from them other than the fact that LDS teachings proscribe them, I probably would not abstain from them. Gunnar

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Factual issues
Re: Good post! -- Gunnar		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 09/06/2002, 18:13:15 Author Profile Mail author

Hello, Gunnar! Good to see you! What about the recent findings that caffiene appears to be healthy after all? According to an article in JAMA based on a THIRTY YEAR longitudinal study, drinking three to four cups of coffee every day is remarkably helpful in drastically reducing the incidence of Parkinson's disease, which is obviously a very serious health problem. The healthy choice, then, appears to be to drink a lot of caffienated beverages! And as far as alcohol goes, not only very recent findings but the findings of scores of previous studies have indicated that drinking a decidedly non-trivial amount of alcohol (wine is the typical recommendation) every day appears to be quite healthy, at least for reducing the incidence and severity of heart diseases in middle-aged and older men, which is one of (if not the) leading cause of death in that demographic. Of course, both of these claims have been disputed in the scientific journals at one time or another, but to lean towards the latest findings is usually a sound decision, even if it may require revising one's behavior every few years. - Martin Modified by Martin at Fri, Sep 06, 2002, 18:19:23

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Factual issues
Re: Factual issues -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: RC ® 09/06/2002, 22:53:53 Author Profile Mail author

I hesitate to agree with you on this one. So what if coffee reduces the likelihood of Parkinson's disease? First, how many people are likely to get Parkinson's disease in the first place and what is the cause of it? Second, consider the detriments: Can cause agitation, hypertension (leading to possible cardiac conditions), anxiety, swelling of the joints, and addiction related symptoms. I'm not sure the benefits (assuming that it really does help reduce the risk of Parkinson's) of caffeine outweight the detriments. As for alcohol, you can reap the same benefits by drinking a glass of grape juice everyday. And that, without having the negative effects of the alcohol. The only other added benefit to a glass of wine a day is the potential relaxation that may be attached to it. But, if you can find other ways of relaxing at night, wine is no better for you than grape juice and is likely worse. Though there may be benefits, I think it is important to consider the detriments at the same time... and alternatives.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Not so
Re: Re: Factual issues -- RC		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Kevin ® 09/07/2002, 00:40:02 Author Profile Mail author

"As for alcohol, you can reap the same benefits by drinking a glass of grape juice everyday. And that, without having the negative effects of the alcohol." That is apparently incorrect. I'll have to find the documentation for you, but grape juice is not a substitute for red wine -- although it is a very common misconception. For some reason, there is something about RED wine in particular that is very good for a person's heart. It's something to do with the grapes combined with the fermentation process that makes it so good. Unfermented grape juice (even the purple kind) is lacking in those qualities. Also, white wine lacks the same qualities. Grape juice, of course, is very beneficial in other ways, but it is a modern myth that it works the same as red wine.

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Surprising!
Re: Not so -- Kevin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Gunnar ® 09/07/2002, 18:07:43 Author Profile Mail author

I, like many others, had assumed that the health benefit of red wine was due to something inherent in the grape juice itself. I had not heard before that something in the fermentation process conferred some additional beneficial property to the wine. Obviously, however, from what you said it is not the presence of the alcohol itself that is beneficial, as the same benefit is not observed from drinking white wine. That much, I already suspected. Do you know if anyone has identified the fermentation byproduct that actually confers the benefit? It would be great if this could somehow be isolated so the alcohol could be removed without destroying the benefit, for the sake of those who have a strong objection to drinking the alcohol. Thanks for the info! Gunnar

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

The benefit is primarily from ALCOHOL
Re: Surprising! -- Gunnar		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 09/08/2002, 09:40:46 Author Profile Mail author

Excerpts from a referenced paper on alcohol, it's health effects, and it's social impacts from an addiction treatment site: Modern epidemiologic research on alcohol (Camargo, 1999; Klatsky, 1999) embodies this view of alcohol's double-edged nature with the U- or J-shaped curve, in which mild to moderate drinkers display reduced coronary artery disease and mortality rates, but abstainers and heavier drinkers show depreciated health outcomes. ... The health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption (as opposed to both abstinence and heavy drinking) were first presented in a modern medical light in 1926 by Raymond Pearl (Klatsky, 1999). Since the 1980s, and with greater certainty in the 1990s, prospective epidemiologic studies have found that moderate drinkers have a lower incidence of heart disease and live longer than abstainers (see Camargo, 1999; Klatsky, 1999). The United States typifies a modern society with a highly developed and educated consumer class characterized by an intense health consciousness. Bromides, vitamins, and foods are sold and consumed widely on the basis of their supposed healthfulness. There are few cases, if any, in which the healthfulness of such folk prescriptions is as well established as in the case of alcohol. Indeed, the range and solidity of the findings of medical benefits of alcohol rival and exceed the empirical basis for such claims for many pharmaceutical substances. The evidence is quite strong that it is the alcohol itself that is the source of the primary health benefits, rather the grapes or any processing or secondary byproducts of the fermentation process (which may well provide additional benefits). Regrettably, I don't really enjoy alcoholic beverages and therefore I very, very rarely imbibe. I consider this to be unfortunate because the overwhelming weight of the scientific, medical, and epidemiological evidence convinces me that regular use would be very healthy for me. - Martin Modified by Martin at Sun, Sep 08, 2002, 14:40:24

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Surprising!
Re: Surprising! -- Gunnar		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Kevin ® 09/10/2002, 05:29:55 Author Profile Mail author

Hi Gunnar! I need to ask my friend who has looked into this quite a bit. He had heart surgery fairly recently, and his doctor instructed him to drink one or two glasses of red wine each day. His doctor told him that while (just as Martin stated) all alchoholic beverages were beneficial in moderation, there was something about red wine specifically that helped the heart more than other drinks. I'll have to ask my friend about the specifics. Furthermore, my friend told me that in his research that all alchoholic beverages have benefits for other organs than the heart. It lubricates something. I can't remember what, though. For this particular benefit, beers, liquors and wines seem to be equally effective. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. The next time I'm with my friend I'll ask him again, and retain his answers better. Also, I'll ask where he got his information. As for isolating whatever it is, I believe he said that researchers had indeed isolated it. Whether they'll introduce it as a pill, who knows. Purchasing wine would undoubtedly be less expensive, and possibly more enjoyable to injest. :)

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Thanks for your comments!
Re: Factual issues -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Gunnar ® 09/07/2002, 17:51:11 Author Profile Mail author

Yes, I am aware of the recent findings that small doses of caffeine have been found to confer some health benefits. I have also read that caffeine can enhance cognitive abilities and alertness to some extent. I don't really worry about caffeine being a serious health threat. I love chocolate and Doctor Pepper, both of which contain caffeine, but I don't get enough of them to be a serious health threat, I'm sure. The excessive sugar in them is probably more detrimental than the caffeine. In the case of coffee and tea, I refrain from them now mainly because I have never acquired a taste for them. I have tried them and don't like their taste (though I love the smell of freshly ground, roasted coffee beans). I'm sure it is true, though, that it doesn't take much caffeine to confer a benefit (there is really not a huge amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee, or even 3 or 4 cups), and that getting much more than that small amount would be more detrimental than beneficial. The same is true of alcoholic drinks. Of course, the same thing is also true of vitamins, particularly vitamin D and vitamin A. People have gotten seriously ill and even died from large overdoses of certain vitamins. An important difference between vitamins and caffeine (and also red wine), however, is that small (even tiny) amounts are more than just beneficial; they are absolutely essential to health and life. Getting none at all will more surely cause illness and/or death than overdosing on them. This is certainly not true of caffeine or red wine. Gunnar Modified by Gunnar at Sat, Sep 07, 2002, 18:24:20

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Thanks for your comments!
Re: Thanks for your comments! -- Gunnar		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Martin ® 09/08/2002, 10:01:57 Author Profile Mail author

Thanks yourself, Gunnar! By the way, to obtain the health benefits described, you would need to drink at least 3 5-oz. cups of average-strength percolated coffee per day. That much coffee contains, on average, approximately 315 mg of caffeine! From my own perspective, at least, that's not a small amount. You'd have to drink 7 and a half 12-oz cans of Dr. Pepper daily to consume as much as is necessary for the health benefits reported in the current JAMA. Like you, I have never developed a taste for coffee or tea (well, the hot versions, anyway; although I'm a fan of either one iced.) And as I said in a previous reply, I dislike all alcoholic bevereges. However, I believe I should try to take them up for health reasons. - Martin Modified by Martin at Sun, Sep 08, 2002, 10:02:31

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Interesting food for thought!
Re: Re: Thanks for your comments! -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: gunnar ® 09/09/2002, 14:19:05 Author Profile Mail author

I wonder still, however, how significant the health benefit can be when Utah Mormons who abstain completely from alcohol and caffeinated beverages manage to have a higher average life expectancy than the average for the nation as a whole. Mind you, I am not discounting the findings that there is an observable, statistical health benefit from low to moderate use of these things. I realize that these abstaining Mormons are being compared to all other groups, including those who indulge more than moderately in their use of alcohol, coffee and tea (which constitute a fairly large proportion of the population), but how great is the additional health benefit from moderate use versus complete abstention? Unlike the case with certain vitamins (which are absolutely essential to life and health in small or even tiny quantities, despite being deadly when taken in overdoses that are still quite small, in some cases), it is possible for many to live long, healthy lives while completely abstaining from alcohol or caffeine. I'm sure you don't disagree with the fact that in the case of alcohol (in particular) the difference between the amount that confers a health benefit and the amount that is definitely detrimental is quite small. Besides that, alcohol, at least, is potentially addictive. Reportedly, some people are strongly predisposed, genetically or otherwise, to becoming addicts. Such people would have difficulty moderating their use after having acquired a taste for it, and would probably be better off, in the long run, leaving it alone entirely. My favorite and fairly recently deceased aunt, for example, started drinking wine after her doctor (with the best intentions, of course) suggested that a daily glass of wine would help alleviate certain health problems she was experiencing. Much to the chagrin of her family, she acquired a strong liking for the wine, and eventually found it increasingly difficult to restrict herself to only one glass a day and became an alcoholic (which almost certainly shortened her life and contributed to the dementia from which she suffered in her final years of life). Someone like you, however, who doesn't like the taste of alcoholic beverages and would force oneself to take moderate amounts only in the expectation of thereby achieving some health benefit from it would be less likely to overdose. As for 315mg being a large amount of caffeine, or any other substance, that depends on what one considers large. 315mg is only a little more than one hundredth of an ounce! Most people would not necessarily consider that a large amount! It is much smaller than the amount of alcohol in a typical glass of wine or beer. If someone were to place a weight that small on the fingernail of your pinky finger, you would not even notice the small extra effort it would require to raise your finger! Of course, if we were talking about an extremely toxic poison like botulin toxin, that would be a dangerously large amount indeed! As for the amount of caffeine in a drink of Doctor Pepper, there is admittedly very little likelihood of me ever drinking enough of that to get even enough caffeine to obtain any health benefit from it, let alone to be actually toxic (I drink maybe 1 to 3 cans a week). As I said before, the excess sugar in that much Doctor Pepper would surely outweigh any health benefits from the caffeine. All that carbonation wouldn't do me any good either! Respectfully and admiringly; Gunnar Modified by gunnar at Mon, Sep 09, 2002, 14:52:17

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Re: Factual issues
Re: Factual issues -- Martin		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Ramona ® 09/08/2002, 17:41:09 Author Profile Mail author

Greetings and salutations from a distant memory, Insomnia struck and I doth answered. "Egads," I know. As much as I detest agreeing with Martin, only kidding love, he speaks truth here. For a look see, go to, http://www.parkinson.org/shell/websearch.pl I am too tired to html it for your convenience. Mea culpa. For every naysayer against, there are twelve or so it seems, scientists that prove the beneficial nature of wine <-That would be the strong drink. The latest finding is that white wine aids in the reparation of the lungs, and increased lung capacity following a specific recommended usage. I never thought there would be a positive in being asthmatic. My specialist suggests 1 glass daily. Ramona

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Factual issues
Re: Re: Factual issues -- Ramona		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Ramona ® 09/08/2002, 18:10:19 Author Profile Mail author

So it's 5:55 and I'm not at my best sans sleep, please forgive. Not only does coffee have its beneficial uses, let us not forget another "hot drink" tea and it's strong anti-cancer properties. Smoking was known to be problematic, even at that time. No inspiration was required. During a visit to the Kirtland temple, the temple guide discussed that the source of inspiration being that Emma Smith detested the spittoons (and misses of) relating to chewed, not smoked tobacco. Regardless, tobacco dangers were still well known. So, Joe Smith wasn't inspired, but nagged into inspiration in part. And clearly wrong on the remainder. He sucks at this prophet stuff..nope he duped quite a few of us, until we investigated truth. Ramona

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

Bias creates more focus
Re: Re: Bias creates focus -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/07/2002, 07:10:38 Author Profile Mail author

I didn't say JS was the first person to promote these ideas, nor did I say there was no one living by them, but I think it is quite evident that the general rule given to the PEOPLE of the Church was quite beneficial. I cannot but be happy that other people also found benefit in these principles. As to your statement that I can't know if Victoria considered the positive aspects... I can't, I can only judge by what she said, which was not positive in any way. Thanks for your comments. TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Bias creates more focus
Re: Bias creates more focus -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 09/07/2002, 08:24:06 Author Profile Mail author

Vines: I respect your opinion, and I agree that the rule given to the church was beneficial. Victoria was obviously commenting from a skeptical standpoint, and as such pointed out what she felt were flaws. It seems like you took offense at this and wanted her to see the good parts of the message. While I can understand this, you have to understand her perspective. When someone claims something to have been a "revelation," it demands critical inspection--a few good points that are not original don't change that. It would be a bit like me claiming a revelation, and including a phrase that says, "Fuel cells are better than combustion engines." In 200 years, will people praise my work because the world has recognized that truth, and uses fuel cells to improve our atmosphere, etc.? No, they will look at my revelation, and criticize it as they see fit. They may even ignore the bit about fuel cells, because they can show that the Ford Motor Company had been pushing it for several years before that. Obviously, it's not a perfect example, and there's no need to point that out. But the point is made: a few unoriginal 'truths' included in a "revelation" do not make the revelation worthy of praise. The real question is: do you think the revelation came from God? If you do, you had better follow *every* part of it. If you don't, then you will likely only follow the parts that have been independently "proven." Vines, what is the point of "bias creates (more) focus"? You've just as much bias, and just as much focus. You have focused on only the good parts of the revelation. You have focused on (what you consider) the bad parts of Vicky's response, when there are some perfectly legitimate questions in there: why do LDS not use wine for sacrament?; why does it say "hot drinks," when they only forbid tea and coffee?; why the total ignoring of only eating meat in famine? You could have answered these questions, and I'm sure you knew most of the answers. But instead, you posted a comment in which you simply referred to these things as "criticisms." You too have bias, and focus--so does everyone. People who talk about the Nazi empire usually focus on The Holocaust/racism because of their natural bias. This doesn't mean they are above seeing good elements of the philosophy (such as strong Nationalism, which is viewed as positive here in the US, although I partially disagree). As I have made abundantly clear in other parts of this thread, I agree with much of the WoW. But, I don't believe it came from God. Since the second part is what people are likely to disagree with, that is where I will focus my comments. In another part of this thread, I have focused on the pluses of the WoW with regards to coffee, since Martin was disagreeing on that point. Thus, it might be more accurately said, "Disagreement creates focus." When I disagree with something that has been written, I will focus on that and do my best to make the case--not because I am naturally biased against any and all things Mormon (I'm not). If you are attempting to discredit questions, comments, and ideas by labeling them "bias creates focus," it's not intellectually valid, Vines. If you have issue with a statement, take issue--don't accuse the person of intellectual dishonesty due to their bias. Motives are irrelevant, if the argument is solid. Of course bias will partially determine the line of reasoning used--but it is up to you to show *why* the line of reasoning is incorrect, not simply discredit it because the writer was biased. -Dan Modified by nofaith at Sat, Sep 07, 2002, 11:51:56

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Hold on...
Re: Re: Bias creates more focus -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/07/2002, 10:53:04 Author Profile Mail author

Dan, you say: Your attempts to discredit questions, comments, and ideas by labeling them "bias creates focus" are not intellectually valid, Vines. If you have issue with a statement, take issue--don't accuse the person of intellectual dishonesty due to their bias. Motives are irrelevant, if the argument is solid. Of course bias will partially determine the line of reasoning used--but it is up to you to show *why* the line of reasoning is incorrect, not simply discredit it because the writer was biased. Did I say anywhere that Victoria's points were not valid? Did I say she was not entitled to her motives, or even to her biases? Far from that, I think she is perfectly entitled as I am to point them out if she expresses them publicly, and frankly I don't see why you are jumping to conclusions as to what my motivations were. I think you are being quite biased toward me... its actually getting amusing isn't it. Obviously we are all biased in many ways. I am biased toward those who have condescending attitudes toward LDS, and who, while discussing about the WoW, throw in comments like, I think I am going to go make myself a tea, while in the same breath accusing JS of plagiarism, as if that said anything about the principles anyway. You are not LDS, perhaps you have no loved ones that are either. That is not my case. I don't like it when people take lightly that which others hold sacred, especially those I love, so yes I am biased and yes I will point out that Victoria has been insensitive and biased in her anti-LDS sentiment driven remarks. As to yourself, considering how quickly you jumped the gun and jumped to unfounded conclusions about me trying to invalidate the actual questions Vicki proposed without even asking me if that were the case, I would say that you are biased too. We are all a big family of biased humans. Isn't it great! TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Hold on...
Re: Hold on... -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 09/07/2002, 11:48:50 Author Profile Mail author

Yes, I admit bias. The reason I entered the discussion in the first place was that I disagreed with your original statement that made it sound like Joseph's ideas on health concerns were original, and thus special. I appreciated your response to that, but I felt your title "bias creates more focus" was an attempt to implicitly undermine what I wrote. My "focus" was not because I was biased, but because I disagreed. I understand the emotional side of having something sacred ridiculed, and I think I can understand how you feel, because I was Mormon at one time (my family is all Mormon, btw). And, it's probably true that some of the focus on the bad came from personal biases. Your titles, perhaps, were totally accurate. I felt that your second title was not so accurate, because the point of my post was not to focus on the bad of the WoW, but to respond to your assertion that it was given in a time where health was "not considered by any stretch of the imagination essential to a person's personal worth." I simply don't agree with that statement, and my comments were to that point. In your original reply to Vicky (whose comments I'm not defending), you said, "Excuse me if I conclude that your bias has caused you to focus on what you perceive as negative and rendered you oblivious to the many 'blessings' LDS have received because of this law." I ask, was that really a fair statement, or were you simply reacting to her lack of respect for what you consider sacred? You conclusion that her bias rendered her "oblivious" to the benefits to LDS suggests that her bias left her incapable to consider all parts of the argument--an implicit accusation of dogmatism/ignorance. Such an accusation might even have a place on this forum. But I don't think a few questions and criticisms are a good reason. Vicky didn't make any conclusions--just a few comments and questions. You are right that I shouldn't have accused you of trying to invalidate Vicky's questions. Perhaps you weren't doing that. On the other hand, I didn't consider your suggestion that she was simply "oblivious" to be a totally fair way of responding. Also, by saying that "all [she] could muster" were criticisms, comments, and jokes, you essentially called all her statements useless, when if fact there were legitimate questions. I still think the titles to the posts is unhepful, if not a bit insulting. Even if bias was the reason I focused on your existence of anti-tobacco/alchohol/tea/coffee precedent, the title implicitly applies the same standard to me that you applied to Vicky, namely that I have become oblivious to the good in Mormonism simply because I choose to not be Mormon. If this isn't what you meant by that title, I apologize. -Dan PS. I am amending the last paragraph in my previous statement to use the word "if," since I can't know what your intentions were with your labeling. The original will remain here in your quoting of it. Modified by nofaith at Sat, Sep 07, 2002, 12:34:11

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Hold on...
Re: Re: Hold on... -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/07/2002, 13:12:45 Author Profile Mail author

Thanks for your posts. I do appreciate your civility and good will. I admit to excessive force with Vicki. I should probably have asked her why she wasn't mentioning anything positive rather than asserting that she was oblivious to it, which obviously cannot be true, though reflected in her post's absence of any positivity. I guess Vicki and I go back a bit. I think I pick on people when they let anti-LDS rhetoric loose sometimes, not always... it depends if its something I think is actually a good thing or not. If Vicki had spoken about racism in the church, etc... she would have not found me opposing her probably, just to give an idea. So, yes, I make it a point to be as focused on my limited view as I perceived her to be focused on her's. The reason I said what I did about your post was not to invalidate any of its statements per se, as much as to invalidate the idea that you were actually expressing my intentions in responding to Vicki, which I think you missed originally. I think both you and Vicki make great points, and just for clarity's sake, I don't hold the WoW "sacred." I think everything good is sacred, and God has nothing to do with it. I think the WOW is a good rule, and I don't think its from God, first of all because I have serious doubts such a being exists in reality; second of all because if he does, then there are some significant omnipotence issues..., because I don't see that omnipotence correlating too much with his goodness and mercy. If he is omnipotent, I think the teaching method is significantly failing, and its not because of human agency which is a complete illusion and does not exist at all IMO. So the inspiration thing isn't working. I believe we are deterministic entities in space-time, so I don't believe in free-will at all, so I don't see why God would have a "non-intervention" type approach, since the metaphor of "violating the free agency of man" is clearly a fallacy. Then again if he is not omnipotent, then things are different... first of which: why should we worship him? Why not just worship the principles or something like that? I think its all in the genes. Well now that we've got that a bit clearer, I guess an apology is due to you and to my bud Vicki... We've been soldiers together for a while, and we know each other a bit... No hard feelings. The WoW is a good law I think we agree, and overall LDS have been fortunate to have had this law. Whether it came from god or man, its the same. TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: Hold on...
Re: Re: Hold on... -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: nofaith ® 09/07/2002, 14:12:34 Author Profile Mail author

Well, I agree with most of what you said, and I can see that you and I share some beliefs. I also apologize if I offended in what I said. I can appreciate the anti-LDS rhetoric feelings, because I don't think it's necessary to recklessly assume the worst about Mormons--that just makes it harder to search for and talk about the truth. Sometimes I scold my wife for wildly speculating about Mormons in unfair ways, any time she gets an idea about "how else" they could be evil. She has had a lot harder time letting go, because of some issues that made her really hate the Church in some ways. Anyway, I'm new on this board, so I'm sort of feeling people out. I'm glad there are no hard feelings. I may have jumped the gun a bit on criticizing your motives, and for that I am sorry. -Dan

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Thanks and welcome
Re: Re: Hold on... -- nofaith		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/07/2002, 22:53:03 Author Profile Mail author

I appreciate your presence, as I am sure many others do as well. This is an interesting place to share ideas, as I hope you will find. Thanks for sharing your ideas and feelings openly. Warm regards TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous |   | Current page

TV
Re: Hold on... -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/07/2002, 12:29:48 Author Profile Mail author

How about answering the questions I asked? Victoria

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

Re: TV
Re: TV -- Jersey Girl		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: The Vines ® 09/07/2002, 13:22:50 Author Profile Mail author

Alright... sorry I intellectually jumped you. You are biased, but you didn't intend in your post to express anything but that part of your beliefs. That doesn't mean you don't know of the positive or don't appreciate it. I don't think you were too surprised however. I can be known to stick up for "LDS feelings" when I perceive that they could be broke if a sensitive LDS were around. Your post just struck me as a bit smug. As to your questions and points, I think you make valid points... Though I doubt seriously the idea of plagiarism can fit well in religious literature, especially considering that much of the Bible is plagiarism, and borrowing of other people's identities to write opinions of history. In other words, I think that if you approach religion that way, you invalidate the very premise of religion. Any LDS will tell you that the reason it sounds like plagiarism is because its the same Jesus Christ speaking. TV

| Recommend | Alert

Where am I? Original Top of thread

Previous | Next | Current page

The same Jesus Christ speaking??
Re: Re: TV -- The Vines		Top of thread	Archive

Posted by: Jersey Girl ® 09/08/2002, 11:02:27 Author Profile Mail author

TV, The title of my post was "Questions, Comments, and Thanks". In my post I asked questions where I needed an interpretation, I made comments where I disagreed and I thanked rpcman for his link. Do you think that when someone takes a critical look at a portion of LDS scripture, asks for clarification on what they're reading and chooses to comment that they are "anti-LDS"? I have one, count em' one, major complaint with the Mormon Church. If you have been reading me all this time you should be able to articulate what it is. What do you mean when you say that any LDS will tell me that the reason it sounds like plagiarism is because it's the "same Jesus Christ speaking"? Those quotes are borrowed from the Old Testament! I should like you to explain what you mean by that. Victoria

|