A new Word of Wisdom

[hostile]

Interesting. I always thought it contained caffeine. A quick Internet search links to articles that differ on this. One that agrees with you says it contains a similar alkaloid, whose chemical structure differs from caffeine by only a methyl group. I'm sure it has similar stimulant properties.

Both contain a methyxanthine. Caffeine in coffee, theobromine in chocolate.

[pellegrino]

Think about how many Asians won't listen to the missionaries because of the tea ban and how many Central and South Americans won't because of the coffee ban. Would God really want to put a barrier to the saving ordinances as petty as drinking tea and coffee?

yet another reason why I don't think he did.

[ERCougar]

Both contain a methyxanthine. Caffeine in coffee, theobromine in chocolate.

I'm pretty sure chocolate has both theobromine and caffeine...

DH, link?

EDIT:

For the sake of argument (and to make our calculations simple), let's assume that the chocolate manufacturers use 10% added cocoa butter. We can then calculate the approximate amount of caffeine in one pound of dark chocolate as follows:

Chocolate Percentage mg/pound mg/3.5oz (100g) mg/2oz (56g)
43% (Semi-Sweet) 353mg 77mg 44mg
50% 453mg 99mg 57mg
60% (Bittersweet) 544mg 119mg 68mg
70% 635mg 139mg 79mg
80% 725mg 159mg 91mg
90% 816mg 179mg 102mg

https://www.amanochocolate.com/artic...chocolate.html
100% 907mg 198mg 113mg

[ERCougar]

On theobromine vs caffeine, from the same article as above:

For the record, chocolate contains small amounts of caffeine. Chocolate also contains another closely related substance called theobromine in much larger levels, and the presence of these two closely related substances has been the cause of much confusion among chocolate lovers.

I think being a chocolatier in Orem qualifies him to address the subject.

[RobinFinderson]

Would God really want to put a barrier to the saving ordinances as petty as drinking tea and coffee?

God never said that it would be easy... only that it would be worth it.

EDIT: Also, the purpose of your life MIGHT be to push like Sisyphus against an immovable rock in order to become a muscly, bronzed gay pinup icon, only to have God move the rock for you once you die.

[Joe Public]

Why is that? Chocolate doesn't contain caffeine.

Well, that solves that! Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, DH.

On theobromine vs caffeine, from the same article as above:



I think being a chocolatier in Orem qualifies him to address the subject.

Hershey's also has links that discuss theobromine and caffeine. The caffeine link has a chart that shows the levels of caffeine and theobromine in various Hershey's products.

Of note, their list of chocolate myths says:

Many people are surprised to learn that a typical serving of milk chocolate contains relatively small amounts of caffeine – slightly more than an 8-oz cup of decaffeinated coffee. Dark chocolates contain more caffeine; caffeine content can range from about 25 to 40 mg per serving. A typical 8-ounce cup of regular coffee contains 65-120 mg of caffeine.

Both milk and dark chocolate also naturally contain theobromine, a close relative to caffeine. Amounts range from about 60 mg in a 1.4-ounce milk chocolate bar to over 300 mg in an 82% cacao dark chocolate. Although in the same family of compounds as caffeine, theobromine has been found to have different effects in the body. It is believed that theobromine, unlike caffeine, does not have much, if any, stimulant effect.

[Joe Public]

Ah geez, getting more specific is not the answer. Allowing people to approach in the spirit in which it was given is the right approach.

I always thought it was odd that we ignore the "eat meat sparingly" part and the "wheat for man, corn for the ox,..." part (which was clearly based on folklore).

How so? I know about the diet fads of the time, which parallel the fruits/vegetables/wheat/little meat emphasis. I also know about the belief of the time that the temperature of food and drink impacted a person's health, which parallels the "no hot drinks" part. Your point is new to me, and I am interested to hear more about it.

[smokymountainrain]

yet another reason why I don't think he did.

Seems like there is little the church is more interested in than high conversion numbers. If this is something the chuch is making up and/or could change, for the reason mentioned above, doesn't it stand to reason that they would?

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if anything, RCV's comments suggest that God did ban those things, IMO.

[pellegrino]

Seems like there is little the church is more interested in than high conversion numbers. If this is something the chuch is making up and/or could change, for the reason mentioned above, doesn't it stand to reason that they would?

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if anything, RCV's comments suggest that God did ban those things, IMO.

After studying the historical record with regards to how the WoW was changed from canonized good advice to a test of fellowship, I don't see much of God's hand in it. I do, however, see a lot of Heber J. Grant's hand in it, but then that's just my opinion. Believe what you want.

[smokymountainrain]

After studying the historical record with regards to how the WoW was changed from canonized good advice to a test of fellowship, I don't see much of God's hand in it. I do, however, see a lot of Heber J. Grant's hand in it, but then that's just my opinion. Believe what you want.

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. If pressed, I'd probably say there isn't much of God's hand in it. But it seems to me RCV's comments would point a person to believe the opposite. That's all I'm saying.

[Indy Coug]

After studying the historical record with regards to how the WoW was changed from canonized good advice to a test of fellowship, I don't see much of God's hand in it. I do, however, see a lot of Heber J. Grant's hand in it, but then that's just my opinion. Believe what you want.

God's hand or not, the evidences of the benefits of abiding by it are self-evident.

http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10378579

http://longevity.about.com/od/lifelo...ng_mormons.htm

As another anecdotal note, while working for Beneficial Life, whose client base is almost entirely LDS, reinsurers were incredulous about our company's mortality experience because it was so much better than the industry averages.

[UtahDan]

After studying the historical record with regards to how the WoW was changed from canonized good advice to a test of fellowship, I don't see much of God's hand in it. I do, however, see a lot of Heber J. Grant's hand in it, but then that's just my opinion. Believe what you want.

I having not studied the science very closely, but what in there is good advice besides tobacco abstinence? I mean that is a biggie to be sure. But what else is there?

[Clark Addison]

I having not studied the science very closely, but what in there is good advice besides tobacco abstinence? I mean that is a biggie to be sure. But what else is there?

Alcohol.

[Solon]

The Aaronic Priesthood manual claims that drinking tea & coffee can cause poor health and contribute to heart disease.

Is there any medical reason to believe this?

http://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-pr...isdom?lang=eng

[check the table of Avoidances & Consequences]

So, no?

Also, I heard a great story last night about Parley P. Pratt on his expedition to Southern Utah during the winter of 1849-50. On their way back north to the rest of their party at Parowan, Pratt & friends ran into some of the last gold-rushers heading to California along the Old Spanish Trail. These tenderfeet had run out of food but had plenty of whiskey, so Pratt traded them a bunch of supplies for their whiskey. When he and his men met up again in Parowan, they celebrated their completed expedition by pounding all the whiskey and trading toasts all night before heading back up to Salt Lake.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://mormonstories.org/317-318-byu...rmon-doctrine/

Some other points I took home (obviously, my interpretation--feel free to correct):
-overly focusing on points of doctrine is generally productive, because they're so likely to change, and often significantly. The basics of Christian behavior will not change; the doctrine merely reflects our current understanding of the reasoning supporting the behavior, and is very subject to change.
-He feels like McConkie et al were responding to a dynamic within the church in which members were seeking solid end-of-the-line answers to questions, and that in general, this was a harmful direction to go. He thinks the focus on specific doctrine is dying out and specifically pointed to Elder Uchdorf and Elder Holland (this one surprised me) as high-level examples of this change.

Th whole thing was interesting on its own and for the examples of doctrines that have radically changed over the years (from the Fall of Adam to polygamy), but even more so coming from a BYU professor. I think he's on a looser leash because he doesn't teach in the religion department, but encouraging nonetheless.

Thanks for the link, ER. That podcast was fascinating. Some mind-blowing stuff there. And I had no idea Charlie was such an accomplished scholar in this area.

I just ordered a copy of the book:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/This-Is-My-Doctrine-Development/dp/1589581032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334951920&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology (9781589581036): Charles R. Harrell: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VCfBiEASL.@@AMEPARAM@@41VCfBiEASL[/ame]

There is a Kindle version also. I will try to remember to post a review.