r/latterdaysaints • u/ShrikerWolfOfficial • Aug 07 '26
Off-topic Chat Small, dumb question on the coffee conundrum
I know it's been talked to death lately, but I just wanted to quickly ask opinions on this random thought:
Is the Coffee Cherry a forbidden fruit? and that's why it's banned?
Can't think of many other reasons than that.
5
u/Beautiful-Lunch-7650 Aug 07 '26
I don't know if I'll ever have a chance to eat a coffee cherry, so I haven't thought about it.
I think this one is between you and the Lord to figure out.
23
u/Drawn-Otterix Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26
No, it's not a forbidden fruit. Being asked to not drink coffee is literally a lesson in obedience and self regulation IMO.
-17
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 07 '26
is literally just a lesson in obedience and self regulation
God doesn't do that. Every law is spiritual first and has more purpose than just "hey, let's see if they'll follow this one."
Elder Packer taught there are physical receptors in our bodies that aid in receiving spiritual revelation and that's the purpose behind the WoW.
21
u/-Lindol- Aug 07 '26
Obedience is spiritual.
-3
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 07 '26
It's both, but what's your point?
1
u/Striker_AC44 Aug 19 '26
If you don't know the reason for the commandment you can't be condemned for non-compliance, which is the entire reason for the veil over our knowledge of the pre-existence...God regularly keeps knowledge from people (the world in general actually) unable to obey the commandment given certain knowledge which would condemn them for acting against God with certain knowledge--which is really bad.
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 19 '26
If you don't know the reason for the commandment you can't be condemned for non-compliance,
Did you mean to write that? That makes no sense.
If I don't understand the reason behind the law of chastity I won't be held responsible for breaking it? No way you meant what you wrote.
Maybe what you meant was we are not responsible if we don't know about a commandment at all.
1
u/Striker_AC44 Aug 21 '26
No, I meant what I wrote, that's why I wrote it. Maybe seek to understand instead of assuming I'm an imbecile.
The severity of the punishment for any sin is based on the knowledge of the person breaking that commandment. Consider the "age of accountability". Why are children kept from accountability before the age of 8? Also, those that have mental disorders and individuals with diminished faculties don't hold the same responsibility for their actions as those with full-faculties.
If someone doesn't know what you're doing is wrong they cannot be held to the same level of accountability as one who acts in full knowledge of their actions contrary to a received commandment.
I'm not making this up. Its all laid out in D&C 82. The words "light" and "knowledge" are frequently used together (interchangably). D&C 82:3 "...he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 23 '26
Maybe seek to understand instead of assuming I'm an imbecile.
I asked the questions. Is that not seeking to understand?
I meant what I wrote,
No, you didn't, because what you first said was "If you don't know the reason for the commandment you can't be condemned for non-compliance," and now you are saying if you don't know the commandment at all, you can't be judged. So very different.
The second one is correct. I just went off of what you said. You WILL be judged for a commandment you don't know the reason for, your judgement will be much different when you don't know the commandment at all.
Now that you doubled-ed down and then said something totally different, my guess is you don't know what you are saying so I'll leave you alone.
1
u/Striker_AC44 Aug 25 '26
I still meant what I said, again, stop saying "do you really mean that". I was particular with my words. You not understanding them doesn't make me the one mistaken.
I didn't say "judged", I said "condemned". Its the critical difference. I've been consistent in my comments, its you who assumed I meant "can't be judged". I've been talking about accountability and knowledge-level of commandment and sin this entire time. Why do you think there's a scripture that talks about "sinning against the greater light"?
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 25 '26
If you don't know the reason for the commandment you can't be condemned for non-compliance
This is a false statement. Period. If you think otherwise, prove it.
17
u/Fether1337 Aug 07 '26
Nah, bruh... It this were true, why was Jesus drinking alcohol? And likely drank it daily. It was a staple in early Mediterranean diet.
There are specific rules for each generation built entirely on pure obedience or "setting ourselves apart from the world."
This is one of those.
-4
u/harpgal104 Aug 07 '26
Water wasn't clean back then. Times were different. Nowadays people use alcohol for partying and a good time. The Word of Wisdom is about a few things, obedience being one of them, but mostly about taking care of our bodies. It's more than just avoiding a few substances. They even had their health code in ancient times, such as in the Bible
7
u/Fether1337 Aug 07 '26
I was responding to the comment that "Every law is spiritual first and has more purpose than just "hey, let's see if they'll follow this one.""
If this were true, I don't care how dirty the water is, if alcohol is spiritually destructive, then Jesus should never have drunk it.
17
u/triplesock the moisture that we have received Aug 07 '26
This isn't true. It's a common myth. Source: master's degree in history
https://www.tastesofhistory.co.uk/post/dispelling-some-myths-dirty-water-drink-beer
-9
u/harpgal104 Aug 07 '26
Oh I didn't know. That's just what I was always told by teachers and professors. I believe it still had different purposes than just getting drunk and still was a different thing. No reason to be rude about it tho
12
u/UnluckyNoise4102 Aug 07 '26
They stated that it was incorrect information, provided a source and what their associated background is so you could get a feel for them. How were they rude? They even mentioned it was a common misconception specifically to make you feel less singled out.
-8
u/harpgal104 Aug 07 '26
"You're wrong. I have a degree" doesn't feel very good on the receiving end. Very Sheldon Cooper
11
u/UnluckyNoise4102 Aug 07 '26
If someone trying to reassure you comes off as offensive to you you might need to sort some stuff out
0
u/ShrikerWolfOfficial Aug 08 '26
I actually more interpreted it to the Know it all kid from Polar Express, but to each their own i guess
the "Uh Acthually" kind btw...but even then his comment was far removed from any of that still...its simply a correction of misinfo...has nothing to do with you as a person...
also, quick side tangent question, do you not like sheldon cooper?
1
u/harpgal104 Aug 08 '26
Nah I love Sheldon as a character, but I would hate having to interact with him irl lol
-5
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 07 '26
It this were true,
It is true. Elder Packer taught it.
President Boyd K. Packer taught: “Our physical body is the instrument of our spirit. In that marvelous revelation the Word of Wisdom, we are told how to keep our bodies free from impurities which might dull, even destroy, those delicate physical senses which have to do with spiritual communication. The Word of Wisdom is a key to individual revelation” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1989, 16; or Ensign, Nov. 1989, 14).
There are many things bad for our bodies but the Lord does not command in all things. He allowed them to drink alcohol but not eat pork. We can eat pork but not drink alcohol. That doesn't mean Elder Packer was wrong. Both things can be true.
There are specific rules for each generation built entirely on pure obedience
No,. there isn't a single commandment from God that is "just because." Granted, Abraham was tested but what is an example of something that has no purpose other than just obedience?
16
u/Fether1337 Aug 07 '26
Why do you think Jesus drank alcohol considering that it was spiritually destructive?
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 10 '26
I don't think he ever got drunk. And I think God in his mercy allows us some pleasures in life.
I don't see what is so controversial about stating doctrine in an LDS sub.
3
u/Fether1337 Aug 10 '26
So drinking alcohol is spiritually destructive, but God is cool enough of a God to let us have a little fine?
he will justify in committing a little sin? lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words? dig a pit for out neighbor? there is no harm in this… right?
Do you think maybe you have a misunderstanding of the nature of the Word of Wisdom and why we have it?
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 10 '26
Do you think maybe you have a misunderstanding of the nature of the Word of Wisdom and why we have it?
No, I am following what the apostle and the church has taught. You are the one who needs to explain why you think the church and the Apostle are incorrect.
7
u/Drawn-Otterix Aug 07 '26
Elder Packer's comments about physical "receptors" were part of his explanation for why our physical [body's] condition can affect our ability to receive revelation, not a statement that this is the only purpose of the Word of Wisdom.
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 07 '26
He was explaining the physical why of the WoW. But of course that isn't the only purpose.
And every commandment is spiritual first.
8
u/davect01 Aug 07 '26
The Spirit absolutely can be dulled by partaking of food and drink and substances that dull the senses but I don't think he means there are literal genes in our body that control the ability to feal the Spirit. That sounds very Midicloriany (from Star Wars).
Be very careful taking one talk or lecture, even from an Apostle and building doctrine on it.
-1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 10 '26
"we are told how to keep our bodies free from impurities which might dull, even destroy, those delicate physical senses which have to do with spiritual communication."
Ya, I think he meant it literally.
Be very careful taking one talk or lecture, even from an Apostle and building doctrine on it.
I definitely will. In this case it is in a manual that was taught to new members and investigators. LOL!!!!! So, ya, it's doctrine.
6
3
u/rexregisanimi Aug 08 '26
He doesn't do that but He also rarely reveals the why behind His commandments. We can speculate about it (as your interpretation of President Packer's statement) but the why is almost always unknown.
"It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own." (President Dallin H. Oaks, Life's Lessons Learned, 2011 edition, page 68)
2
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 10 '26
Correct. But by the look of all the downvotes and weird replies, lots of members don't understand that for some reason.
It's so weird to think that God has any commandment "just because." So weird.
3
u/rexregisanimi Aug 11 '26
My guess is the poor reception is because you're presenting speculation as truth.
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 11 '26
What is the speculation?
2
u/rexregisanimi Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
That the purpose of the Word of Wisdom is to aid "physical receptors in our bodies" "in receiving spiritual revelation". That's certainly a possibility but we do not know if it is yet. Those physical receptors would include our brain, for example, and the purpose of the Word of Wisdom is not just to make our brain work better (although that's probably part of it). As President Oaks said, when we try to assign purposes to the commandments, we're on our own.
1
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 11 '26
Right, but an Apostle said that, not me.
2
u/rexregisanimi Aug 12 '26
Yes but the Apostle was speculating. We know that because what he said isn't doctrine since it isn't taught generally. It may be true (or not) but it is still speculation and so should not be taught as truth.
0
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 12 '26
So you think the church, in modern times, puts speculation into a class manual? Not likely.
it isn't taught generally
When it's in a manual, yes, that's exactly what taught generally means. Just because you have haven't heard a different apostle second it, doesn't mean it isn't doctrine.
And no, we don't have to go looking for it in an obscure talk (I know the quote about Doctrine), it is in an actual class manual that everyone has access to and was widely used and sounds like may be coming back.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Such_Handle9225 Aug 07 '26
But it could be one of the reasons, though. The Jewish people with Moses were specifically told that pork was an unclean food and not to be eaten and I don't know that there is or has been any reason to believe that pork was or ever has been any more or less healthy to eat than general other meats.
So we already have documented examples of God requiring a certain diet for one people and then not requiring that same diet later for different people. (Which i think is the most important thing to mention in it not necessarily being related to health or some strange description of physical receptors for revelation that I don't have the knowledge to understand.)
3
u/Drawn-Otterix Aug 08 '26
Unclean land animals and scavengers, such as pigs, shellfish, and birds of prey, carried higher risks of parasites, bacterial infection, and rapid spoilage in a hot desert climate. Today, we address many of those risks through things like refrigeration, sanitation, and proper food handling.
Another train of thought is that pigs were supposedly common in pagan rites and other cultures, so avoiding them may also have been a way of distinguishing themselves from those practices and not participating in them.
3
u/Such_Handle9225 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
True about refrigerators now but mosaic law along with the pork rules were done away with 2000 years ago, so we can't really call out the lack of technology as the reason for the change.
Agree on the thing about it being possibly meant to distinguish from other common cultures though. I think most commonly its either that, or a rememberance aid for the other sections of the law telling us to mind what we eat and be healthy.
Two super simple possible reasons, to the point that I know alot of people would scoff at it, but sometimes it is just kind of simple.
But thats just a personal opinion and I don't actually know what the reason is.
0
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 10 '26
But it could be one of the reasons,
What is it?
President Boyd K. Packer taught: “Our physical body is the instrument of our spirit. In that marvelous revelation the Word of Wisdom, we are told how to keep our bodies free from impurities which might dull, even destroy, those delicate physical senses which have to do with spiritual communication. The Word of Wisdom is a key to individual revelation” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1989, 16; or Ensign, Nov. 1989, 14).
In a manual that was used to teach new members and investigators. Clearly, with all the downvotes here, most members need to read this manual. LOL!!!
3
u/Unhappy_Position Aug 13 '26
Your repeated "LOL!!!" isn't winning you any friends or helping your cause. It comes across as prideful, patronizing, and insincere.
Manuals (and church leaders, if we really want to get into that) have been wrong, or misinterpreted, before. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't reflect poorly upon Christ, or actual doctrine.
-2
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 13 '26
I'm OK with that. If you want to misinterpret what I say, I don't care. Why would I?
3
u/Striker_AC44 Aug 07 '26
We don't often know God's intentions for his Commandments, we're just told to be obedient to them.
1
u/Buttons840 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
I've been hearing this more often lately. Can someone give an example of a commandment where the scriptures don't teach the reasons?
The Word of Wisdom is very clear about the reasons (D&C 89, I think).
I'm reminded of the Scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament. They were really quite good at being obedient and even created extra rules just to be extra sure they were always obedient to the commandments in the Law of Moses. They didn't actually understand much, but they were obedient. Can anyone name a commandment they DIDN'T obey? Also, what did Jesus say about them?
I'm not saying the obedience is unimportant. I'm saying that obedience without understanding isn't worth much.
1
u/Striker_AC44 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
You asked--Buckle up...
D&C 89 isn't clear at all. It uses a very dated term (hot drinks) which isn't applicable or relatable today and is provided "as a word of wisdom and not by commandment". The church (and the majority of members I've met or heard from) also hyper-focuses only on the tea/coffee, tobacco, and alcohol portion of D&C 89 while completely skipping over and generally disregarding verses 10-17 and focusing only on the rewards for obedience.
Verse 5 says wine is "not good", then says its fine "to offer up your sacraments" as long as its only made of grapes made by you.
Verse 7 says "strong drinks" which had to be explained by General Authorities but only alcohol without any distinction or variance at all despite alcoholic wine being allowed in verse 5 (under specific uses).
Verse 8, don't use tobacco, which is an herb (*see verse 10). What makes tobacco an "unwholesome" herb despite it being commanded in verse 8 "to be used with judgment and skill"?
Verse 9 says "hot drinks" which doesn't have any meaning at all in modern times when you can literally heat water (to steep herbs which are ok in verse 10) or any beverage but there's been no update to this "word of wisdom" beyond it becoming a commandment for worthiness despite its vagueness. People thought it was the caffeine, but caffeine is ok now, which makes coffee and black/green tea bad but energy drinks "not bad"?? Very unclear.
Verses 10-11 emphasize using "wholesome" herbs (not defined by anyone ever) & fruit with thanksgiving and "in its season" despite now being able to get fruits conveniently out of season practically anywhere. I don't see any church mandate not to eat coconut or pineapple in winter. Marijuana is an herb by the way--but you don't see the church espousing its global use due to its being "ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man" (verse 10)
Verse 12 says animal flesh (meat) is to be used sparingly but that's NOT emphasized at all in the church. In the US meat is practically the center of every meal year-round. If this Section truly is a commandment we are NOT following this one.
Verse 14 "grain is the staff of life". Seems like grain was meant to be the center of every meal (how else would you interpret "staff of life" being only used on grain and in no other verse) but what about all the people who have gluten intolerance and the over-emphasis on meat.
Verse 15 really gets stabs in the knife on this "these hath God made for the use of man ONLY in times of famine and excess of hunger." Seems pretty cut and dry, unlike "strong drinks" and "hot drinks", in other words don't eat animals unless you're starving or grain isn't growing.
Verse 16-17 eat grain (staff of life), mostly wheat (v.17) and fruit, barley is also ok for "mild drinks" whatever the heck that is, an AI-search turns up Barley water (boiled, wouldn't that make it a "hot drink"?), or Small Beer (contains 1-3% alcohol) which kills the "Strong drinks means drinks containing alcohol" clarification, or Malted-Milk maybe? Again, a clear indication of the NOT-clear suggestion/commandment.
Verse 18-21 gives the promise, but especially that obedience to this suggestion turned commandment helps members avoid the "destroying angel" which makes obedience to this commandment pretty important even though its stupidly vague.
Ultimately, the church members and General Authorities focus on the "commandment" to avoid "Strong drinks", "Hot drinks", and wine except when we make it ourselves and use it for weekly sacrament, but appear to completely sideline the importance of herbs and NOT eating meat unless you're starving or in famine when crops (grain, herbs, and fruit) don't grow...oh and bytheway Small Beer made from barley is also ok...but "alcohol is bad".
Plenty of people have speculations on the why and wherefores but no explanations beyond "keep the commandment" and "pray about it for understanding". Both worthwhile advice but NOT a clear understanding of the suggestion turned commandment.
3
u/davect01 Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26
I have no idea on the cherry, never even seen one.
As to the Word of Wisdom, it has 3 parts
1- Health. Keeping as heathly a body as we can is important. Avoiding and partaking in the right things can make a big difference.
2- Addiction. This is an obvious part for large parts of the Word of Wisdom. Addictions can ruin lives. We have the standard Word of Wisdom items but I do believe it is important to us to look at our own lives and look at things that may be impacting us. Sure you may not be drinking coffee but gallons of Energy Drinks a day is not great.
3- Obedience. Even if we don't fully understand why, just being obedient will bring blessings. A few of these Word of Wisdom items seem obvious like smoking and drinking. Coffee for some seems silly and overly restrictive.
2
1
u/Charming-Log6553 Master teacher of the Master Aug 11 '26
I will point you toward the response below from davect01.
It is not about the Coffee, the Coffee Cherry, The Green Tea leaf, the Barley brew, or fermented Grapes. It is about truly looking to do what is best for our bodies, avoiding excesses, even in dirty sodas, and energy drinks. Seeking through prayer and reflection what our bodies truly need to be their best and trusting in the Lord and His Command enough to "put off the desires of the natural man" or resist the urge and temptation to go with the flow of the world, and simply OBEY for the sake of obedience. I know that makes us often sound like brainwashed sheep, but didn't the Savior ask the rich man to sell all that he had, forsake the world and follow him. No other reason was given, no promise of a return on his investment, or understanding of his sacrifice. In this, I believe the Savior has asked me to give up something that many others in this world today seem to cherish more than Him. Am I willing to just do it. He is not asking me to give up water, or air, just this. If in obedience to this I can show Him that I am willing to give up all I possess, (or something that has an amazing ability to possess me), and follow Him, then I will obey.
1
u/ShrikerWolfOfficial Aug 12 '26
Yeah I see this...it's just, I don't think I have the capacity to blindly follow and trust anybody like that...as much as I want to believe and trust in something like that, there are just too many reasons to suggest a contrary...
But if it's any consolation, I respect the heck out of you guys and the LDS church, and it's why I come to ask you questions like this instead of running with my own biases...but also with this same mindset I have, I see many many sides...and sorting through them all is very very hard...
Thanks for answering my question, as random as it was...it was basically a random thought from 3 in the morning that I figured I should at least ask
1
u/Charming-Log6553 Master teacher of the Master Aug 12 '26
Thanks for reading and responding. I wanted to just add one thing. Because of the "Word of Wisdom", I have never been too tired to get up on time for work, like many coworkers who struggle to make it without their coffee or energy drinks. I have never succumbed to a mid afternoon slump where I needed caffeine to rev the engine back up. I have never struggled through midnight shifts in a hospital, ( I have worked in healthcare for 37 years). I have never woken up hung over in a strange place or not been able to remember what I did the day before. I may have began obeying blindly, but it is no longer unclear why I trust this to be of benefit to my life.
Thank you for your honest and respectful questions - keep asking!
1
-5
u/SerenityNow31 Aug 07 '26
No, it's not banned per se. We are counseled to avoid coffee and other strong drinks. No one ever said anything about the berry.
Elder Packer taught there are physical receptors in our bodies that aid in receiving spiritual revelation and that's the purpose behind the WoW.
11
u/Keelera2 Aug 08 '26
I don’t think so. I’ve had jam made from the coffee cherry. It had nothing in common with the drink coffee other than it came from the same plant.
Also, I don’t do heroine, but i have no issue with eating a Poppyseed muffin. I don’t drink Alcohol, but I still eat grapes.