Hot Chocolate - A Word of Wisdom Violation

As a mortal, I believe I am afforded the opportunity to have a few indulgences which I know I will have to answer for at the pleasing judgment bar of God someday. 

Some may have indulgences like porn, video games, gambling, drinking and knowingly voting for socialists. I don't judge these people, and with the exception of the latter category, I tend not to avoid them, either. But if you want to avoid me after reading my #1 indulgence, I'll understand (I'll be sad, but understanding).

My #1 indulgence: I. Love. Hot. Chocolate.

I also confess that as Fall progresses and the advent of Winter is nigh, my wife and I plan to totally indulge in copious amounts of hot chocolate until next Spring. In fact, we plan to get some half-n-half, pour in 1-1/2 packets of hot chocolate, mix and nuke that sucker up until there is steam wafting from the chocolately deliciousness. 

Sinful? Decadent? Degenerate? Corrupt? Immortal? Damn straight it is, boss! It's a genuine, bona-fide Word of Wisdom violation: 

Yes, D&C 89:9 says my drinking hot chocolate runs contrary to the Word of Wisdom (ditto for soup, warm broth, Ovaltine, Postum, Japanese mugi-cha and herbal teas such as, chamomile, ginger and peppermint, which contain no caffeine at all, but let's just stick with hot chocolate for now).

I know there are many who would say "But…but…" and begin giving me interpretations of that scripture. BUT BUT do you see an asterisk or exception anywhere in or around "hot drinks are not for the body or belly"?  

Here, let's go back to the Joseph Smith Papers to see if there's an asterisk there:

[1]

Nope, no asterisk nor explanation there. There is an explanatory footnote (#15) in the right-hand panel, which says "Several other early nineteenth-century authors argued that any liquid taken at a high temperature could cause injury." But that provides no exception to the scripture. [2]

Explanations about Hot Chocolate's Sinful Status

In Bush's article (here), he admits that "The subject of "hot drinks" is a little more complicated. "While he admits that "Both tea and coffee were considered mild stimulants," here in the 20th and 21st centuries, drawing a conclusion that caffeine is the culprit is a little complicated. A cup of Swiss Miss cocoa mix has 5 mg of caffeine [3] - far less than a can of Diet Pepsi (35-38 mg). [4]

But I diverge from the issue of hot-ness. Bush's article correctly points out that at the time the Word of Wisdom was written (Feb 1833), liquids (such as soup, tea, and coffee, taken at a very high temperature) were considered "injurious." I always knew there was something about Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup that was injurious!

For more insight, I turned to the General Handbook of Instructions, which says:

Saying that Prophets have clarified that the teachings in D&C 89 include abstinence from hot drinks (tea and coffee) really doesn't tell me anything new. 

It may have started with Hyrum Smith, who said, "Again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. There are many who wonder what this can mean, whether it refers to tea or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea and coffee." "I say" is hardly a definitive doctrinal statement per the Law of Common Consent. [5]

I found 22 references to "hot drinks" in the Scripture Citation Index. In a 1963 talk, Boyd K. Packer once said that "hot drinks -- understood by the Church to mean those with habit-forming potential, specifically coffee and tea" is the perpetuation of an unofficial interpretation of D&C 89:9. [6]   

In 1945, Joseph F. Merrill took things a step further, saying "hot drinks is enjoined, because they are not good for man. By hot drinks was meant primarily tea and coffee, though subsequent researches found that any drinks at high temperatures, such as hot water and soups, are harmful. The ideas voiced in the Word of Wisdom were expressed in words having the meaning current at the time. In those days hot drinks were commonly understood to be tea and coffee." [7] 

Yet Merrill's statement that "hot water and soups, are harmful" isn't accompanied by any double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (the kind which wise and thoughtful medical experts and government leaders gravitate to). It is, in fact, pure speculation ("the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence"), which Ronald A Rasband recently denounced when it comes to seeking answers concerning our health. [8]

In the April 7, 1868 General Conference, George Q. Cannon gave us a definitive interpretation: "Almost every elder who has spoken from this stand has felt the necessity and importance of calling the attention of the people to this subject (the Word of Wisdom). We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks-tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa, and all drinks of this kind are not good for man." [9]

But then again, a forgetful Apostle Mark E. Peterson said in 1962 that "At no time has cocoa or chocolate been included in the prohibitions of the Word of Wisdom, and at no time has the Church said that cocoa is as harmful as coffee. Those who make these claims do so on their own responsibility, and obviously without knowing the facts of the matter." [10]  So much for "clarification."

I've thought about writing a letter to Pres. Nelson and asking him for guidance. After all, who better than a worldwide cardiac expert / global faith leader / revelator all in one to answer my question about hot chocolate? But alas, I know that the Brethren would refer my inquiry back to my stake president. He would call me in for a meeting just to refer me back to the General Handbook of Instructions. This is known as an "endless loop" (which is very common among members seeking answers).

Luckily, Pres. Nelson's 1st Counselor has come to the rescue. Dallin H. Oaks said, "The shield the Lord gives to the faithful also protects us against our own harmful impulses. The revelation that commands modern Saints to refrain from alcohol, tobacco, hot drinks, and other harmful things promises the faithful that "the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them (D&C 89:21)." [11]

If what Oaks says is true (and knowing that the church's prophets, seers and revelators would NEVER mislead us), I am now praying that the destroying angel has mercy on me and won't slay me…

…all because I drank hot chocolate.

Homework Assignments

Today: Please leave me a comment (below) with the best hot chocolate brand/recipe, and why. I figure if I'm going to sin and even be destroyed by an angel for sipping hot chocolate, I might as well do it with style and panache.

Whenever: The next time you're having some casual conversations with a member, ask them if they think it's important to obey the Word of Wisdom. (They'll likely say yes). Then ask them about abstaining from hot drinks. Then ask them about hot chocolate. If they say it's allowed, ask them where it says so in D&C 89. If they say church leaders have said it's just tea and coffee, then ask them when that revision to D&C 89:9 was voted on by church members. Let me know how it goes!

Sources

1.   https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-27-february-1833-dc-89/1
2.   Bush, Lester E. "The Word of Wisdom in Early Nineteenth-Century Perspective." In The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, edited by Dan Vogel, 161-185. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990.
3.   https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/does-hot-chocolate-have-caffeine
4.   https://cspinet.org/eating-healthy/ingredients-of-concern/caffeine-chart
5.   "The Word of Wisdom," Times and Seasons 3 no. 15 (1 June 1842), 801.
6.   April 1963 General Conference
7.   October 1945 General Conference
8.   https://ldtruths.blogspot.com/2021/09/elder-rasbands-divinely-inspired.html
9.   Journal of Discourses V.12:221-223
10.   Patterns for Living, 1962, p. 235-37; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/04/our-readers-write?lang=eng
11.   "Bible Stories and Personal Protection", October 1992 General Conference

Not taking the jab? Prepare for your excommunication – Part 2

My last post concerned a member who was excommunicated. I was unfortunately not able to interview the ex-member in question, but now I have. And I have some documentation, too. (Because I’m not overly-anxious to publicize the person’s name, I’ll go with his first initial plus a little more confirmatory information). 

Setting the Stage

In 2017, for a variety of reasons, “D” was no longer motivated to attend the LDS church in his area near Cardston, Alberta. Fast forward to early 2021, when he was (unexpectedly) invited to meet with his stake president. In the meeting, the stake president explained that he had received an assignment from Church Headquarters in Utah.

“It was a complaint against me. It originated in Salt Lake City and came down to the Area Authority Seventy in Alberta. And he (the stake president) was following up on it,” “D” explained.

The Initial Meeting

The Stake President refused to disclose the names of those who lodged the official complaint, but was enthusiastic in explaining the accusation against “D”: That “D” and his family had formed a “religious compound” on his Southern Alberta farm. In response, “D” said that another family was living on his property at the time, helping him build some large greenhouses.

The stake president asked “D” if they were participating in prayers and hymn singing. “D” explained that yes, his family had a prayer and hymn every night, and the other family was welcome (not required) to participate. It was not a religious compound; not by a long-shot.

At this point, the stake president reportedly began asking “D” the temple recommend questions. When he was asked, “Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?”, “D” said, “Frankly, no.”

“D” said that he did not believe that Pres. Nelson’s advocacy of the Covid-19 jab and facemask wearing was inspired. He also said that Pres. Nelson (and the church’s) growing friendship with the Pope and the Catholic Church was similarly uninspired. After some discussion, the meeting ended.

“A Membership Council”

In late January 2021, “D” received a letter notifying him of a forthcoming membership council. On February 9, 2021, both he and his wife attended the meeting which was also attended by the three members of the stake presidency. “D” stood his ground, and his wife shared “D’s” beliefs. A few days later, “D” received a letter confirming the removal of his membership. Despite her agreement with “D,” his wife has not had a membership council held on her behalf.

Please click here to view the membership council invitation and decision letters.

(I’ve saved the images of the letters in a PDF, with only “D” and his wife’s names, and their ward name, redacted).

Corrections/Clarifications

When I spoke with the father and brother of “D” a week ago about his excommunication, I was told it was because he publicly refused to get the Covid-19 “vaccine.” Actually, according to “D,” he said nothing publicly about the church’s advocacy of the jab/masks. It was only after “D” admitted his disbelief re: Pres. Nelson’s “inspiration” in a temple recommend interview did the issue surface. Other than that one point, “D” has reviewed the rest of the preceding post and found no problems with it.

Another surprise (but not) is that the accusations against “D” originated in Salt Lake City. Even though D&C 102:18-19 makes provisions for one’s accusers to participate and speak in a disciplinary council meeting, to this day, “D” has no official word as to the identity of his accusers.

His meeting with the stake presidency did not include any high councilmen; just the three stake presidency members. It is unknown when the provisions of such disciplinary meetings (which are supposed to include high councilmen) were superseded with new scripture per the Law of Common Consent.

 …and Contradictions

In the new General Handbook of Instructions (released February, 2020), Section 32.6.3.2 outlines the criteria for apostasy:

In the case of “D”:

1. He did not repeatedly act in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders. As “D” has stated, his beliefs (re: Pres. Nelson) were personal and never publicly shared. They only came to light during his private temple recommend interview.
2. He never taught, as Church doctrine, what is not Church doctrine.
3. He was inactive at the time and not interacting with church members. He also did not discuss his private views online. Thus, he never showed a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members.
4. He never believed in, was involved with nor followed the teachings of apostate sects.
5. He never formally or informally joined another church.

It seems to me that there are three possible conclusions here:

• “D” has not violated the church’s own apostasy criteria, and was therefore unjustly excommunicated per the General Handbook of Instructions.
• There is a new, yet undocumented, churchwide criteria for apostasy: Do not sustain the church President or Brethren.
• The stake president has introduced his own criteria and is therefore not in harmony with the general leaders of the church (who established the known five apostasy criteria), and is himself operating under his own form of apostasy.

(Additionally, inviting friends into your home to participate in family prayer and hymns may now get you an appointment with the stake president).

In the case of “D”, he could not sustain Pres. Nelson’s “policy” re: Covid-19 injections/face masks, nor its leaders who are continually honoring the Catholic Church and its leaders. So, he was exed.

Or, as I postulated in my previous post (which “D” agrees with as well), “Not taking the jab? You don’t sustain the brethren. Prepare for your excommunication.” 

Such a belief no longer imperils just your temple recommend; it is now a prime criteria to nuke your membership and brand you as an apostate.

“I’m still appreciative of the values and morals instilled in me by the church, and still utilize the Book of Mormon on a regular basis,” “D” told me. “I just want to encourage people to walk in the truth. To trust in God, not men.”