Neutron, it’s about the kind of drinks that are traditionally served hot, namely coffee and tea.
Having a glass of hot OJ isn’t against the Word of Wisdom.
Okay, that makes even less sense.
Hot coffee and tea are bad because they contain caffeine? No, because Coke is okay.
Hot coffee and tea are bad because they’re hot? No, because other hot drinks are okay.
Huh?
No it isn’t. The prophet has specifically told members that they are not supposed to partake of caffeine in general, and yes that includes Coke.
You getting confused over semantics, hot drinks is referring to coffee and tea, two drinks that are traditionally served hot, a cold cup of coffee or tea is not suddenly okay. I’m not exactly sure when the Word of Wisdom was written down but it was well before Pepsi and Nestles Iced Green Tea.
Couple points:
-
Sdrawkcab–(I really really mean this to sound polite, I’m sorry if it doesn’t:) Please don’t generalize about the members of any religion based on any “official” stance. There are always people who disagree with certain positions or interpret them differently. Plenty of non-fundamentalist Muslims out there (I married one), and at least a few Mormons who have different views on homosexuality (like me).
-
Dravin, could you please provide a cite to a statement from the First Presidency specifically telling members to abstain from caffeine? I’m not challenging your authority, I’m just curious because I’m not aware of any such statement. If there is one, I’d best speak to my bishop about my caffeine habit.
-
neutron star, occasionally we will have church leadership offer pronouncements on or interpretations of scripture. The leadership has officially interpreted “hot drinks” to specifically mean coffee and tea (“tea” meaning “any infusion made with the leaves of the tea plant”). Why? No reason given. Folks at all levels of authority have speculated as to reasons, but no official “divine” pronouncement other than that we’ll be healthier for abstaining. I for one cannot argue with that, but I understand why people may find it vague.
-
Question for the OP and other folks on this thread: how do you think the people of NYC will respond to the new Manhattan Temple the church is building? I know LDS temples generally foster goodwill in the community (Boston temple being sort of an exception), but I wonder if NYC people will find it strange that we have a temple in the city, or if those of differing religious views will constantly try to evangelize temple patrons.
I’m not blaming you, personally. Or any Mormon personally. However, so long as your church holds such a position, it is advocating evil, and cannot, in my POV, be considered a decent or respectable organization in any way, shape or form. To disapprove of homosexuality because of some inane lines in an old book is one thing. To advocate what sounds like conversion therapy brainwashing and “pray out the gay” nonsense is deadly.
Sdrawkcab – I see what you’re getting at. I don’t have a response, except to say that I wish things were different, and the best I can do is to live according to my own particular beliefs and interpretations.
As a New Yorker who lives on the Upper West Side and has several LDS friends, I have some thoughts on PublicBlast’s question four about the Manhattan LDS Temple.
First of all, as I understand it, the church is not building a new temple structure, but rather remodeling several floors of the LDS building on West 65th Street into a temple. The building currently contains two chapels and hosts quite a few wards (congregations).
There is also another temple has been planned in Westchester County, a suburban area north of the City. This temple has faced a great deal of local opposition, particularly due to concerns over things like traffic and congestions. Part of the reason for converting the building in Manhattan to a temple is because of the delays in constructing one in Westchester and the immediate need for a local temple.
Personally, I don’t think that having a LDS Temple in Manhattan will make very much difference at all. It’s located right across from Lincoln Center, so the relative volume of additional traffic it brings won’t be that significant. There are houses of worship from virtually every denomination here in the City, so I don’t think that having an LDS Temple here, rather than just numerous chapels, will bring out people trying to evangalize. In fact, because of the diversity of religions, I don’t think that NYC is particularly evangelical.
I think no one will think it surprising that New York would have an LDS Temple. I’m rather surprised that they don’t have one already considering its population in general and the number of LDS here.
I, for one, am looking forward to being able to tour the temple prior to its dedication. Seeing what’s inside an LDS Temple is something that I was always interested in doing.
You won’t regret it, I recall going to the Anchorage temple (probably the last time I’m ever gonna get to step inside a temple), was a very neat experience, just walking around a Temple to look at stuff is not something even LDS get to do much.
That is to say at least I didn’t get to do it when I flew down to Portland 5 years ago to do Baptisms for the dead.
Peace,
Forgive me if I get this wrong. I only have this second hand through the veils of my fuzzy memory.
Can you tell me more about the beliefs regarding the human origin of God The Father? How many aspects of God do you have in LDS? I know you believe in some version of the trinity, but the ultimate Creator is a seperate being. Did I hear wrong?
Your fellow “Ask a …” obnoxious thread starter
Martin
I would not say, Sdrawbkcab, that that is a completely fair characterization of the LDS Church’s stance on homosexuality. It’s a tricky and heartbreaking issue. As we’ve covered, the short version is that fornication in general is wrong and the Church does not condone it, regardless of who is engaging in it. Homosexual sex is not particularly different from straight sex outside of marriage in this regard. However, because we see marriage as an eternal bond, and men and women as intrinsically meant to work together in a married team, we don’t go for gay marriage, since we believe that God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Now, as to whether gays can change or not, or whether that is advisable to try, is a whole other question. Some feel yes, some feel no, and many feel that it may be possible sometimes and not others, with the majority not possible. A General Authority, I forget which one, has called it a ‘quirk of nature,’ implying that there isn’t much to be done about it. A person who has SSA (the usual Church term for same sex attraction, which is used to describe the feeling without the assumed actual sex) would be encouraged to choose to stay chaste, but actually changing desires is a much murkier area.
Once upon a time, Mormons, like the rest of the country, felt that it was more of a choice than it is now considered and that people could change. Gay men often married in the hope of ‘becoming’ straight. It has been quite a few years now since that was considered a good idea, and is certainly not encouraged. I would have to say that the main policy of the Church leaders in regards to this is to remind us that we are supposed to love everyone as Christ does. The rest is still kind of in flux as people learn more, and I think we don’t really know much.
Yeah, what genie said. At the same time, however, there are plenty of LDS members who have different beliefs. As has often been stated in discussions on this topic, however, the beliefs of any or some Mormons do not make those beliefs part of official teachings/canon by default. So, as I cautioned sdrawkcab, it’s tough to generalize about the LDS church because it’s sometimes hard to pin down exactly what “we” believe.
On this note, Martin-ibn-Martin, there’s not that much “official” doctrine on the mortal nature of the Creator. I think it’s official that He was a mortal man at some point, but is now the Supreme God of the universe. How He got that way is a matter of much speculation and few answers. (I also know of at least a few Mormons who do not believe that God was ever mortal, adding more confusion to the mix.)
Very much official, however, is that the members of the Trinity (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are three distinct individuals–it’s one of the tenets of Mormonism.
BTW, if anyone wants an analysis of the issue of same-sex attraction by a leader of the LDS church, this is the definitive article on the matter. While not an official statement from the First Presidency, it tackles some of the issues of doctrine vs. how we interpret the doctrine vs. how we should act wrt the subject. When I was in college (at UC Berkeley–don’t think I wasn’t aware of the issue!) I led a discussion based on the article. I think it would help most LDS to read and understand it too.
The biggest issue I see with discussing SSA is that it has become politicized to such a degree, it’s nearly impossible to disagree with the PC line and not have the conversation ended with cries of “bigot!” or more polemic. Read the article.
I’d say it has largely to do with the emphasis Ezra Taft Benson placed on it. Additionally, I’d add that reading the Book of Mormon daily has more effect on me in my life than reading any other body of scripture (even though studying all the works we have is important). See, for example this seminal talk.
As a missionary, I also found that the Book of Mormon had the most power to convert people. That is, answering questions, praying with people, etc. were all helpful, but if someone simply read the Book of Mormon it posed the question to people better than anything else. In addition to testifying of Christ from the beginning to the end, it contains a promise that people can know of its veracity if they sincerely pursue the answer in prayer.
Uh…unless this happened within the last year (that’s how long it’s been since I sat through a General Conference), then I don’t remember hearing this.
The most I was ever told was that it’s a matter of “personal revelation.” If you feel Coke is bad for you, don’t drink it. But if you do drink it, it’s nothing you have to “repent” over.
I’ve only heard small portions of what LDS practice is on performing baptisms for the dead, so please forgive me if I get things backwards. However, is there any provision made for baptising deceased persons into the LDS church if they have no descendants who are LDS? What if your great-grandfather’s third cousin is unbaptized and you are their closest LDS descendant – can you baptize them? What if you know of someone else’s deceased grandmother who is unbaptized --who can baptize them?
Again, please, no offense intended if I have misunderstood baptisms for the dead.
Hm… I very well could have been wrong, I’m having difficulty finding any cites to back it up. So untill I can dig something up the supports my claim I shall concced the point.
I beg your forgiveness, tis been some time since I’ve been active in the church.
LOL, me too. Maybe someone who actually is active might be able to settle it.
Is there anyway to block having someone baptize you after your dead? If you put it into your will “Don’t anyone ever ‘baptize’ me as a Mormon after I die,” will the church respect your wishes? Because that seems awfully arrogant, intrusive and insensitive to me, to go around “baptising” people who have no say in the matter.
I’m pretty sure you have say in the matter, just not on this earth. I’ll ask my Dad he should know the details.
When someone is baptized by proxy, in the afterlife, that person does have the choice to accept it or not.