When I was a young Mormon kid, the one thing the other kids would ask me is, “So, you can’t drink Coke?” That was the one thing they knew about the Church.
As a believer, I always thought this idea was a misreading of the “Word of Wisdom” — the Mormon revelation that forbids “hot drinks”, including coffee or tea. However, based on the prevailing mood of the membership, I had to allow that it was an extremely common misreading.
Now, it seems that the LDS Newsroom has clarified.
On Wednesday, the LDS Church posted a statement on its website saying that “the church does not prohibit the use of caffeine” and that the faith’s health-code reference to “hot drinks” “does not go beyond [tea and coffee].”
A day later, the website wording was slightly softened, saying only that “the church revelation spelling out health practices … does not mention the use of caffeine.”
I’m not sure if this is a policy clarification, or a full-on revelation — the LDS Newsroom seems to be in charge of church doctrine now. But whatever. The Mormon Church can arrange things how it likes.
What’s kind of surreal to me, though, is that if this is how an omniscient being wants to communicate his will to his people, he’s not a very good communicator. Why so much confusion and ambiguity for fifty years? Let’s follow the path:
In 1833, god gives a revelation to Joseph Smith. It forbids alcohol, tobacco, and “hot drinks”, and places restrictions on meat, but it’s explicitly not a commandment.
Over the next two centuries, Mormons expand and modify the Word of Wisdom. It becomes non-negotiable, and grows to somehow include caffeinated beverages, at least in the imagination of much of its membership. Prohibitions on meat, meanwhile, are ignored. God, apparently, doesn’t feel the need to intervene.
Now, after decades of limbo, the LDS Newsroom clarifies. It says caffeinated drinks are okay, contradicting other church leaders.
Can we agree that this is a dumb way for an omniscient being to communicate? It’s ambiguous, imprecise, and incremental. But consider: While it seems very unlikely that a god would need to use this method for imparting his will, it is exactly the kind of system that humans would use.
2 September 2012 at 5:57 am
"But consider: While it seems very unlikely that a god would need to use this method for imparting his will, it is exactly the kind of system that humans would use. "
Unless God has a sense of humour and gets her kicks from watching Mormons squirm over this stuff.
2 September 2012 at 6:43 am
Well, let's face it–the Mormon God doesn't have a fantastic track record. He does a lot of waffling (polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, law of consecration, etc), so maybe his communication problems aren't his number one priority when it comes to building his rep.
4 September 2012 at 9:02 pm
In the '70s, the church had a similar "clarification" where they said church doctrine does not prohibit caffeinated soda, but many Mormons promptly ignored it.
5 September 2012 at 8:25 am
So true! Especially if you consider how talky god was in its younger days. 🙂
23 January 2013 at 10:56 am
Note that this post has been nominated for a Brodie Award for "Best LDS Church Watch." You can vote for it here.
22 November 2013 at 4:04 pm
It may be that the Church leaders are just being smart pet owners
Pet Owner’s Manual: A too tight leash may prompt aggressive in dogs
Q: Our Labrador has reached adolescence and is getting aggressive when walking on leash. I pull him to my side as we pass others and I have treats if he behaves. Unfortunately, he is never polite enough to deserve one. At the dog park, he is a completely different dog, one that loves to play and visit. How can we improve his leash walking skills?
A: Tight leashes trigger a range of problems, including leash aggression. Nervous dogs struggle because their ability to flee has been restricted. Feeling trapped, they launch into a blustering offensive designed to drive others away.
Boisterous dogs have a different problem. They often have an opposition reflex. If pushed, they push back. If pulled by the leash, these dogs pull away even harder than before.
Frustration mounts in sociable dogs that cannot reach potential playmates. Inhibited movement affects their playful body language.
This does not mean that owners should abandon leashes. Rather, they must be mindful of the impact of short, tight leashes. They also must become self-aware, critically evaluating whether they are initiating a battle of wills by using too much physical manipulation via the leash. Well-trained pets listen to their owner’s words and not a nagging leash.
http://www.thestar.com/life/2012/11/02/pet_owners_manual_a_too_tight_leash_may_prompt_aggressive_in_dogs.html