Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 28

TV’s Frink said:

Why has no one asked the most important question?

WHO DRINKS HOT DR. PEPPER???

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/01/soda-hot-dr-pepper-warm-soda-tradition-southern-drinks.html

Ew.

Yeah, but you don’t like soft drinks, anyway.

By themselves no, but (caffeine free) cola of any kind plus whiskey is fantastic. Also lemon-lime soda of any kind (sprite, 7up, anything but Sierra mist) and vodka is also great. Ginger ale is also good with gin or vodka. Come to think of it clear vodka is neutral enough it pretty much makes a good alcoholic version of anything.

suspiciouscoffee said:

darth_ender said:

Lol what a great thread to come to a mock someone else’s beliefs. Haha! What a fruitful discussion!

I apologize, that was not my intent. Reading my post again, I realize that it could’ve come across that way. Forgive me, I meant no disrespect.

In reality I was not terribly offended. I was a little annoyed at the whole direction of the thread, but even then, it wasn’t too much. I expressed my irritation with far more hostility than I intended. I even reread it and thought, “I better clarify that it really isn’t that big a deal,” but then I went to work and forgot about it. I’ve been meaning to respond for a couple of days, but just didn’t have the chance. So please don’t feel bad, and continue to ask honest questions. Even a little humor is okay. It’s just the whole derailment that bothered me. I hope I didn’t scare you off for good.

And in that vein, did my link answer your earlier question?

moviefreakedmind said:

moviefreakedmind said:

How do Mormons view the death (lynching) of Joseph Smith? I know certain people believe that there were some supernatural elements to it, but I’m not sure what the general consensus is regarding that.

Sorry, got busy. I kind of doubt this is what you are looking for, but this is the most supernatural thing I can think of. A man named Willard Richards was one of four prisoners present at the death of Joseph Smith, the others being Joseph himself, his brother Hyrum Smith, and John Taylor, one of the Twelve Apostles who later became leader of the church. Joseph and Hyrum were killed, and John Taylor sustained several injuries, but Willard Richards was nearly unscathed.

Here is the context of the Martyrdom:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Martyrdom_of_Joseph_and_Hyrum_Smith

And here is the reported prophecy:

http://scottwoodward.org/josephsmith_prophecies_willardrichards.html

However, now that I’ve read a bit on Wikipedia, it appears there are some accounts of further supernatural elements that I was not familiar with.

First (and I recall years ago hearing the basis of this different tale), a member of the mob that killed Joseph Smith and was a close witness describes a different story than that of other witnesses, wherein Joseph supposedly did not die after his fall from the Carthage jail second story window, but was then executed by firing squad. When a mobster went to decapitate him, a bright light from heaven frightened the whole mob off.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/carthage/danielsaccount.html

I honestly am not sure I trust this source, but there is one possibility that you might be referring to.

It also appears to have been described as potentially lightning. Since I’ve not heard this before and am only quickly skimming the articles, I will try to be better informed in the near future, but here is a source as well:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/carthage/carthageaccount.html

Let me know if this answers your question.

And I have done some reading recently about the tea/coffee/hot Dr. Pepper discussion, and I will attempt to address it in the near future when I’ve got the chance.

I won’t say it’s untrue but our most valued reference is in our Doctrine and Covenants, which does not relate such details.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/135?lang=eng

Meant to answer the Dr. Pepper discussion earlier.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Cola_drinks_and_caffeine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Application_by_Joseph_Smith

The long and the short is that while some leaders have advocated against caffeine and others not, the fact of the matter is that coffee and tea remain the only caffeinated beverages disallowed by my church. Check the link for some interesting context, including the actual quotes by Joseph Smith’s brother Hyrum Smith that specify that the term “hot drinks” applies to coffee and tea.

But how do I as an individual understand the rules, including the seeming inconsistency between the no coffee/tea rule and the cola exceptions? Well bearing in mind that the revelation prohibiting coffee and tea was given in 1833, there were no cola beverages. However, it was clear that coffee and tea had some mildly addicting and stimulant properties. The revelation prohibited hot drinks, which were later clarified to mean exactly coffee and tea. The revelation was initially just a recommendation, but over time became more and more forceful, and about 100 years later became a commandment.

Now bear in mind that illegal drugs are not mentioned at all in the revelation, and yet we treat those as against our commandments and that revelation as well. You see, the spirit of the law states that one should avoid addicting and damaging substances or inappropriate substance usage. Later church leaders have added such drug usage to the list of prohibitions. Therefore we have a clear letter of the law ennumerated in the revelation itself and expanded upon by church leaders, and we have a spirit of the law, inferred by the intent. The letter of the law does not prohibit cola drinks, even though many do contain more caffeine than something like green tea. If the revelation were given today, I doubt tea would be disallowed, or else that cola drinks would be added to the list. But since neither is the case, and church leaders have avoided ruling out cola drinks, and therefore we are left to use our own judgment within the spirit of the law.

My solution based on this situation: I do drink caffeinated drinks, but not frequently, and usually when I am struggling to remain awake, such as when I’m stuck working night shift (every now and then I still have to). However, I do limit my intake, and I particularly avoid energy drinks and other highly caffeinated beverages. I tend to get caffeine hangovers too, and usually the easiest way to avoid them is by drinking more caffeine, so I usually go a few days between if I can. But I can see how it can become an addictive habit, and thus, even if not against the letter of the law, is at least breaking the spirit of the law with regular usage. So I tend to err on the side of caution. And that’s my philosophy. It took me a couple of hours to get it all down and my browser is displaying things weird, so hopefully this is coherent.

darth_ender said:

my browser is displaying things weird

The only thing weird I see is that drinking hot tea would be a sin. 😉

I don’t think my mother could ever be a Mormon. She drinks at least a dozen cups of coffee every single day. 😉

moviefreakedmind said:

My main confusion about the LDS church dietary constraints (and it’s really applicable to the Catholic Church as well) is how can they justify prohibiting the overconsumption of meat when the NT quite literally says in 1 Timothy that the prohibition of foods is a sign of a false teacher.

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Now that I think about it, it’s more of a question for Catholicism because there seems to be some confusion within Mormonism on whether or not meat should be avoided but I’ll let Ender address that.

Technically, meats are not prohibited, as they can be eaten every day except for Fridays during Lent (I assume that this is what you are referring to). It is no longer a rule that Catholics must abstain from meat on Fridays (which is in commemoration of the crucifixion), but if we choose not to, we must substitute an act of charity or piety instead.

Mine? Everyone else’s?

Seems like a bit of a loaded question. It’s pretty hard to pin down my least favorite thing about Mormonism as a religion. I love it! I believe it!

That said, there are cultural aspects associated with Mormonism that annoy me, particularly the Utah brand of Mormon subculture. They tend to be somewhat exclusive and can leave non-Mormons feeling left out. Things like premarital sex and pregnancy or smoking can often lead to ostracism.

Additionally, I wish the Church were more willing to confront difficult aspects of our history or doctrine. For instance, in the past the Church had some racist policies in place. Only recently did we offer a substantial and frank statement on the topic, owning up to the misguided policies. I wish we would handle that more often. Another example is that some teachings promoted by past leaders are no longer taught and were never accepted as doctrine. Nevertheless, there was a big push from the very top on some of them. They quickly fizzled out, but nevertheless, they left an impact. I wish we could address these sorts of things at church instead of waiting for someone to read about it on an unfriendly website. I understand the reasoning, not wanting to expose people to things that are hard to explain when their doctrinal understanding remains immature. Still, most people will learn of it eventually, and I wish we controlled the discussion more instead of those hostile to our faith who wish to misrepresent us.

In a similar vein, there are doctrines we still teach but that we are a little more cautious in how we share them. For instance, we believe man and God are of the same “species,” if you will. We believe we can become like God some day. We still teach this doctrine first introduced by Joseph Smith, but very carefully, and usually only delve into it when we know the audience is more familiar with the basics. In the past, I felt we weren’t so shy about such things. Again, it leaves the critics too many opportunities to make us sound like a sci-fi religion: “Oh, you know Mormons believe they will get their own planets some day!” Mormon scholars of the past would hit the heavier doctrine without shyness; scholars like B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., and the like. These men would discuss these heavier doctrines in prominent places, such as at the pulpit during general conference (a time when the entire Church gets the opportunity to listen to or read the words of our leaders). Now, general conferences tend to be more like lengthy devotionals. Yes, they are inspiring, but they lack the depth they once had.

One final thing: we are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is something we have been pushing for more in emphasis, particularly in general conference. Still, there are some members who dwell too much on our exotic and distinguishing doctrines, when really the core doctrine is that Jesus Christ is our Savior. We are Christians first, and all that other stuff second. As our founding prophet Joseph Smith said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

suspiciouscoffee said:

“secret underwear they must have at all times and even bathe in.”

I think he’s confused Mormons with these guys.

suspiciouscoffee said:

A relative of mine went on a brief (no pun intended) rant on Mormons and “secret underwear they must have at all times and even bathe in.” Taking this with a couple helpings of salt, how much truth is there to this?

Also, apologies if this has been brought up before, I didn’t feel like reading 28 pages of this thread.

It probably has been brought up, but I don’t mind discussing it again. Probably the best place to look for basic answers is here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-garments

No, we do not wear them at all times. However, we wear them whenever practical. We do not shower in them, swim in them, have sex in them, and often they are removed for sports activities (though I think one could easily wear them for sports in most circumstances). They are a constant reminder of covenants, like a wedding ring for example. A husband or wife wears the ring as often as possible to remind him/herself of promises made, but there are obviously times when it is not worn. This doesn’t mean the wife who is showering and removed her ring has committed adultery. Same principle with the garments.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900006756/president-thomas-s-monson-16th-prophet-of-the-lds-church-dies-after-a-lifetime-spent-going-to-the-rescue.html