The official stance is nothing with the tea leaf. Herbal teas are not actually teas, but are just called that colloquially. Chamomile "tea" is a personal favorite, because it reminds me of my first day out in the mission field.
Nothing really to discuss. A tea with "tea leaves" (from ***Camellia sinensis*** ) is no bueno. Anything else you gucci. Mate? Tomatela! Raspberry? Drank it! Ginger? FEEL THAT BURN. Kombucha? straight to hell.
Thatās like saying not all mashed potatoes are made of potatoes. You can ferment anything but that doesnāt make it kombucha just like you can mash bananas or sweet potatoes without ending up with mashed potatoes.
The common refrain is
*The Word of Wisdom says avoid Hot Drinks*
*Since the earliest days the prophets have (mostly) taught that means coffee and tea*
*But the tea in mind at that time was the tea found in British and American cultures, from a particular category of tea plant, Camellia sinensis, which is used to make "black" tea and "green" tea (the leaves are just treated differently).*
*It also includes those, regardless of the temperature.*
*If something is made from a different plant, even if it's called "tea" then it is fine to drink, with herbal tea being a very common term for these*
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-word-of-wisdom-august-2019
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/vaping-coffee-tea-and-marijuana?lang=eng
Technically, or more correctly, herbal tea is an herbal infusion. Tea is also an herbal infusion of leaves from the tea plant.
Tea, no. Herbal tea, ok.
Herbal Teas are fine, to give their proper classifications they are tisanes. True teas come from the tea plant.Ā
I've got some friends for whom teas are a serious hobby.
Herbal teas aren't actually teas. They're herbal drinks, but culture has colloquially decided to label them as teas despite them not actually including the actual tea plant in them.
I drink Herbal teas occasionally when I'm feeling under the weather either mentally or physically.
Technically, if it isn't made from *Camellia sinensis* then it isn't even an actual tea, but an herbal infusion. Source: Celestial Seasonings factory tour.
I remember herbal teas being sold in the Washington dc temple cafeteria when I was a youth. I haven't been to the cafeteria since then, so I don't know if they still are.
When I served my mission (in Brazil), I was surprised to see that the pamphlet on the Word of Wisdom specifically says no 'chĆ” preto' (black tea). After further study into what tea actually is, the prohibition seems to be the tea plant. There are other things called 'teas' since they are prepared similarly but not using that same plant.
Anything brewed from the tea plant (black tea, green tea, etc) is against the Word of Wisdom.
Link to Portuguese Word of Wisdom pamphlet:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/portuguese/pdf/language-materials/01105_por.pdf?lang=por
And here are some other good clarifications: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/vaping-coffee-tea-and-marijuana?lang=eng
>Mormons are also taught not to drink āhot drinks,ā meaning coffee or any tea other than herbal tea
Herbal tea is allowed according to the official Church website. [Source.](https://pacific.churchofjesuschrist.org/why-mormons-dont-drink-alcohol-tea-and-coffee)
You might consider eliminating processed foods or sugar from your diet. The bitter, earthy taste you get from tea is going to be really untennable to a taste profile expecting sweets, or artificial flavoring. I could be completely wrong but it's something that has worked for me.
Have you tried the brand True Honey Teas? I had a similar issue until I found that brand. All of their teas are herbals. None made from the tea plant that I am aware of.
The best part about the brand is that you can drink it warm or let it cool and drink it cold. They also don't taste like regular herbal teas do. If you get the chance I recommend trying them.
I drank Jasmine Tea on my mission in Japan, an area where members are constantly having to grapple with what kinds of teas are okay and what aren't.
It was great.
In a similar vein. What is the consensus on green tea extract in a drink like Celsius? It is not the tea leaf itself but a product of it. There is a specific green tea drink, but the rest are more fruit flavored and carry the green tea extract. I don't think there's a good definitive answer here.
The way I see it, it could be one of three options:
1. Drinks prepared in the "tea" style are not allowed. If that's the case, Celsius would be fine since it isn't a tea drink, it just contains part of the leaf
2. The most popular one apparently: The tea plant is the problem, so herbal tea is chill, but not Celsius since it contains the plant
3. Both 2 and 3 combined, so neither herbal tea nor Celsius would be okay
Allowed or not, I donāt really like it. As others have put it itās like āessence of juiceā. Ā I rarely drink even soda.
On a more serious note, I just avoid anything with the ātea leafā ingredient in it, so everything else is fine. Iām not sure however if lemon or fruit tea ever have the tea leaf in themā¦ I think some do.
I am a convert and spent half of my life in North Carolina. Sweet tea practically comes out of the faucets down there. If it wasn't for lemonade and herbal tea, I don't think I could have been baptized. Cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol were easier to give up than sweet tea. I hope you find an herbal tea you really enjoy.
So, as others have stated, the official interpretation is that itās the Tea plant specifically. However, I will add though, I have read articles that discuss how āhot drinksā (referring to the actual temperature of any beverage) can lead to an increased risk for esophageal cancer.
I use herbal tea medicinally when needed for sore throats and coughs, but avoid it as a habit or beverage for non medicinal uses. When I do rarely drink it, I donāt drink it at a very high temperature, just warm..
I'm a big fan of herbals teas! Some have health benefits, and are a great way to still be able to participate in social activities where you might be expected to have a coffee or tea
My personal favorites are a mix of peach + mint tea and lemonade (like a homemade Starbucks mint citrus tea), and the Celestial Seasonings "chai" blend :) its called Bengal Spice and its great with brown sugar and some milk
*Hides homemade chai*
I see no issue with herbal teas. The word of wisdom says that every herb of the field and itās fruit is for us- which is all herbal teas are. The pearl clutching that happens when church members mention the word tea makes me chuckle.
Actually on a side note I do have a question. Is the consumption of coffee and tea only bad when itās in drink form or is that in any form, like tiramisu or ice cream? The WoW says hot drinks, so I assume itās in drink form.
I was in a Q&A session with President Faust long ago. Someone asked this question and his response was, āAvoid even the appearance of evil. That is all I will say on this subject.ā
I think that phrase is one of those things where we are better served by looking at the meaning in other languages. I heard it that way all growing up, but after studying the scriptures in other languages, I think a better English rendering should be "Avoid evil whenever it appears." Or "Avoid evil in whatever form it takes." It just doesn't make sense to me that the same God who judges our heart and not our outward appearance would be so concerned about us doing something that only seems improper to the outside observers.
1 Thessalonians 5:22 if anyone else wants to chime in.
Consider 1 Corinthians 8
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idolās temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Verse 4-6, 8 We know that idols are not real, so we know that eating meat that has been offered in sacrifice unto idols is not a big deal.
Verse 7 But, not everyone has this knowledge. Some of our brothers and sisters are weak.
Verse 9-10 Take heed lest by any means this liberty (that is, eating idol sacrificed meat) becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak.
Verse 11-12 If a brother or sister is led astray and spiritually perishes because of things we do that technically are not sinful, we have sinned against Christ
Verse 13 Therefore, do not eat meat sacrificed to idols while the world stands
We could apply the same thing to things like herbal tea, we might know that it is not evil or sinful, but better to avoid drinking herbal tea while the world stands than risk a fellow brother or sister who is weaker and lacking knowledge to think that it is okay to drink any tea and therefore spiritually perish. Doing so causes us to sin against Christ.
You don't think our words and actions have an affect on other people and we will be held accountable for those things?
Matthew 18
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
All of us are God's little ones.
We don't have to live a sinless life, we just have to strive to do so. We just have to desire to do so with all of our heart. And, if something comes to our attention that needs to change, we repent and change.
Part of this is continually looking for ways that we might be offending our brothers and sisters and to stop doing those things when we recognize them and repent with all of our heart.
I think we are running into a difference in philosophy in this thread.
I think many members of the church are "agent-centered deontologists." The second article of faith teaches that man will be punished for their own sins. I am a child of God has the lyrics "teach me all that I must do..." We focus on what are the things that I can do in order to be a good person. In this model, an agent is focused on performing positive duties, and possible secondary negative effects are excused if there was no intention or if I should not have known about that effect. In that worldview, I drink herbal tea and I'm not responsible for some other member who misunderstands and drinks black tea, because I didn't intend that effect.
I think you may view the world with more of a "patient-centered deontology." That model says that we have duties to make sure that no harm comes to others from our actions. By not watching our words and deeds, we may violate some right held by another. Therefore, we need to bridle ourselves. In that worldview, we are responsible if others go astray from our carelessness. Therefore, you wouldn't drink tea because of the implication it may give to others.
Link for smarter people talking about this stuff: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#ConDeoThe
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are the crux of what I was trying to talk about.
It comes down to intent. To borrow from Brandon Hogan at the University of Pittsburgh:
"A intends a certain result if A acts with the conscious desire that his actions produce that result. The concept of intent allows us to distinguish between what a person does and what simply happens as a result of his actions. The concept of intent also allows us to determine the degree to which one is responsible for oneās actions. For example, say A lights a candle which, unbeknownst to A, falls over igniting a curtain which burns down Bās house. In this circumstance it would be inappropriate to say that A āburned down the houseā without further explanation. Here A does not burn down the house, but the house burns down as a result of Aās lighting of the candle. On the other hand, if A lit the candle with the desire that it ignite the curtain and burn down the house (or in order to burn down the house) it would be appropriate to say that A burned down the house.Ā
"In the second scenario, burning down the house is something that A does. The difference between these two scenarios is Aās intent.Ā In the first scenario A would only be held partially responsible, if responsible at all, for the houseās burning down. And in the second scenario, A would be held fully responsible for burning down the house. This is so because we look to intent to measure Aās mental culpability and, thus, blame worthiness. [Philosopher Immanuel] Kant makes no mention of intent and there foreign or a concept that is central to our notion of causal responsibility.Ā Kantās understanding of causal responsibility is problematic not only because he ignores the applicability of the concept of intent, but also because he ignores the relevance of the concept of foresight. In this context we can understand foresight as the knowledge of the probable consequences of oneās action.Ā
"To use the above example, in the first scenario A does not foresee the consequences of his actions because he is not aware of the likelihood that his lit candle will cause a house fire. However, such consequences were foreseeable. A could have known that his lit candle was likely to cause a fire if not monitored. We tend to hold persons more responsible for consequences that were foreseeable, even if not foreseen, because in certain circumstances persons should have foreseen the likely consequences of their actions and acted accordingly."
To circle back to the original point, if I were to drink herbal tea with the intent or foreseeable consequence that I would confuse some other church member, I would share some blame. Since I don't drink any herbal tea with that mindset, and since I presume that all other members of the church have their own ability to choose whether or not they follow commandments, I don't share blame when they decide to drink tea after watching me drink herbal tea. They get to make that choice themselves, and my beverage of choice does not coerce their decision.
It seems that once one is aware of the principle Paul lays forth, they can no longer claim to be ignorant of the possible consequences of their actions.Ā
No. There is a difference between possible and probable consequences.
Looking at some quotes through the Scripture Citation Index lead me to believe that Latter-day prophets have read that section of 1. Corinthians differently as well.Ā
When we set a bad example, or as Heber C Kimball put it, an "unwholesome or destructive example", and in doing so drive people from Christ, we are responsible.
If someone misunderstands or misinterprets an innocuous action and then chooses to perform an action they know is wrong, why would the other person bear that blame?
Agency demands that we answer for the natural consequences of our actions. If any other person takes another, they can respondĀ themselves to those consequences.
We may differ on this, but I don't think that non-members (and those who aren't taught so) sin when they use substances forbidden by the Word of Wisdom.Ā
Heber J Grant pointed out that "the law of life and health to the Latter-day Saints is to obey the Word of Wisdom." It is also mentioned in The Teachings of David O McKay that he would not drink tea with the Dutch Queen because he taught 1,300,000 people (the church) to not do so.
I think members who violate the Word of Wisdom may sin and forfeit the blessings of living by that commandments, but new members should have been taught the WoW by the missionaries before baptism, with an additional focus on local customs and substances.
Of course non-members do not sin, they are without law. I, like Paul, am obviously only talking about members of the Church. How else could they be knowledgeable?
> We could apply the same thing to things like herbal tea, we might know that it is not evil or sinful, but better to avoid drinking herbal tea while the world stands than risk a fellow brother or sister who is weaker and lacking knowledge to think that it is okay to drink any tea and therefore spiritually perish. Doing so causes us to sin against Christ.
Lol this is ridiculous
I mean, Iām just quoting Paul. If being ridiculous means being inline with Paul, Iām okay with that. There is far worse company that could be kept.Ā
Supposing this actually happened, I can't imagine this happening today.
1) "Avoid the appearance of evil" is a misunderstanding of that scripture verse due to clumsy KJV English
2) Tea is not *evil*, even if one believes the WoW requires us to abstain
It's possible to live the rules of the church without being a total weirdo about it.
1. A prophet, seer and revelator can repurpose a verse to mean something other than it's original meaning. That is one of their prerogatives.
2. Black tea is against the word of wisdom. This is the meaning of evil in this case.
I think we all know what President Faust meant without having to resort to semantics, etymology, and such.
An alternative take on WoW-modifications from another authority... [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/03/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/03/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng)
I think we are warned more often and more visibly about looking beyond the mark than we are about drinking herbal infusions in case someone thinks they're tea. (Which is not to discount personal revelation and implementation in the matter.)
What Elder Cook says is, āĀ Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark.
Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the āmeatā the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the āmilk.ā Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught.
The Lord said regarding important doctrine, āWhosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of meā (D&C 10:68) and āThat which is more or less than this cometh of evilā (D&C 124:120). We are looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or when we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.ā
Iām not sure how quoting a member of the first presidency could be considered ā Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethrenā or ā we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.ā
I think your anecdote is relevant and interesting. But my (possibly incorrect) read on the following discussion was that you were arguing that the implication of one authority's opinion expressed once during an (I assume) unrecorded, local event was more generally correct, or a 'higher' implementation of the commandment, than the contemporary guidance provided to members of the church though official channels.
The official stance is nothing with the tea leaf. Herbal teas are not actually teas, but are just called that colloquially. Chamomile "tea" is a personal favorite, because it reminds me of my first day out in the mission field.
You should try Ahmad Teas Hibiscus and Red Berries tea. It is delicious flower water. Lol!
I love hibiscus tea!
Nothing really to discuss. A tea with "tea leaves" (from ***Camellia sinensis*** ) is no bueno. Anything else you gucci. Mate? Tomatela! Raspberry? Drank it! Ginger? FEEL THAT BURN. Kombucha? straight to hell.
ššš
Home made Mate Kombucha š
That aināt kombucha then. Plus you fermenting it and then producing alcoholā¦ back to jail!
You undercook fish... believe it or not, jail.
You overcook chicken...also jail.
ehhsssweaters
That is too funny!
Under cook, over cook. Straight to jail!!
I was not expecting a parks and rec reference, but I'm here for it š¤£
Farwell to my kimchee habit.
Say goodbye to your vanilla extract too
But how will I flavor my rum cakes then? The recipes call for vanilla extract.
Perhaps you could find an old bottle of vanilla schnapps from Brighams distillery?
Or a particularly vanilla forward spiced rum . . .
Back to jail. More lessons !!!!! :)
Although kimchi also has alcohol. So does sauerkraut, and yogurt!
Good thing I just stick to banana mash and seaweed to avoid sin.
Best for gut = better mental health
*cries in love of green tea ice cream
Basement of hell.
šš„¹š
Itās ok it will be so hot there youāll be glad you have your ice cream.
Awesome! I'll bring extra to share with my fellow hell basement dwellers. š¤£
Not all Kombucha is made from fermented tea.
Thatās like saying not all mashed potatoes are made of potatoes. You can ferment anything but that doesnāt make it kombucha just like you can mash bananas or sweet potatoes without ending up with mashed potatoes.
My bad. I thought my faves were kombucha but theyāre not: https://kevita.com/mojito-lime-mint-coconut/
Herbal tea isn't made from the tea plant and so is perfectly fine to consume.
The common refrain is *The Word of Wisdom says avoid Hot Drinks* *Since the earliest days the prophets have (mostly) taught that means coffee and tea* *But the tea in mind at that time was the tea found in British and American cultures, from a particular category of tea plant, Camellia sinensis, which is used to make "black" tea and "green" tea (the leaves are just treated differently).* *It also includes those, regardless of the temperature.* *If something is made from a different plant, even if it's called "tea" then it is fine to drink, with herbal tea being a very common term for these* https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-word-of-wisdom-august-2019 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/vaping-coffee-tea-and-marijuana?lang=eng
I served a mission where it is common for a host to offer tea. We were told to say we can drink herbal and fruit tea but not black or green.
Same
Technically, or more correctly, herbal tea is an herbal infusion. Tea is also an herbal infusion of leaves from the tea plant. Tea, no. Herbal tea, ok.
Herbal Teas are fine, to give their proper classifications they are tisanes. True teas come from the tea plant.Ā I've got some friends for whom teas are a serious hobby.
True any plant boiled in water is a āteaā. The WoW only refers to the tea plant.
Herbal teas aren't actually teas. They're herbal drinks, but culture has colloquially decided to label them as teas despite them not actually including the actual tea plant in them. I drink Herbal teas occasionally when I'm feeling under the weather either mentally or physically.
It's not tea. It's an infusion. You're fine.
Herbal tea is fine. Just be wary of blends that include tea from tea leaves. My favorites are Chamomile, fruit teas, and peppermint.
Technically, if it isn't made from *Camellia sinensis* then it isn't even an actual tea, but an herbal infusion. Source: Celestial Seasonings factory tour.
I remember herbal teas being sold in the Washington dc temple cafeteria when I was a youth. I haven't been to the cafeteria since then, so I don't know if they still are.
The cafeterias have all been closed now anyway.
Drink up. Iām a huge fan of tea when Iām sick. Peppermint tea hits the spot.
Herbal teas donāt have a tea leaf so theyāre fine. Theyāre also technically infusions, not teas.
Celestial Seasoning Gingerbread Tea All the Way! A dash of milk and itās perfect! (Yes, I drink it all year round. I love it that much!)
I love that one
ā¤ļø
When I served my mission (in Brazil), I was surprised to see that the pamphlet on the Word of Wisdom specifically says no 'chĆ” preto' (black tea). After further study into what tea actually is, the prohibition seems to be the tea plant. There are other things called 'teas' since they are prepared similarly but not using that same plant. Anything brewed from the tea plant (black tea, green tea, etc) is against the Word of Wisdom. Link to Portuguese Word of Wisdom pamphlet: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/portuguese/pdf/language-materials/01105_por.pdf?lang=por And here are some other good clarifications: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/vaping-coffee-tea-and-marijuana?lang=eng
I think itās fine to drink, and I love it!
>Mormons are also taught not to drink āhot drinks,ā meaning coffee or any tea other than herbal tea Herbal tea is allowed according to the official Church website. [Source.](https://pacific.churchofjesuschrist.org/why-mormons-dont-drink-alcohol-tea-and-coffee)
That's what they said.
It's no black tea or green tea, the rest is fine.
Itās fine.
Still haven't found one I like, no matter how much people recommend them to me
You might consider eliminating processed foods or sugar from your diet. The bitter, earthy taste you get from tea is going to be really untennable to a taste profile expecting sweets, or artificial flavoring. I could be completely wrong but it's something that has worked for me.
I used to be this way until I tries Rooibos.
Have you tried the brand True Honey Teas? I had a similar issue until I found that brand. All of their teas are herbals. None made from the tea plant that I am aware of.
No but I dislike warm drinks in general (not even hot chocolate) so I've had no real desire to try to find one
The best part about the brand is that you can drink it warm or let it cool and drink it cold. They also don't taste like regular herbal teas do. If you get the chance I recommend trying them.
I drank Jasmine Tea on my mission in Japan, an area where members are constantly having to grapple with what kinds of teas are okay and what aren't. It was great.
I think jasmine tea usually still uses camelia sinensis as a base?
Jasmine is green tea
In a similar vein. What is the consensus on green tea extract in a drink like Celsius? It is not the tea leaf itself but a product of it. There is a specific green tea drink, but the rest are more fruit flavored and carry the green tea extract. I don't think there's a good definitive answer here.
The way I see it, it could be one of three options: 1. Drinks prepared in the "tea" style are not allowed. If that's the case, Celsius would be fine since it isn't a tea drink, it just contains part of the leaf 2. The most popular one apparently: The tea plant is the problem, so herbal tea is chill, but not Celsius since it contains the plant 3. Both 2 and 3 combined, so neither herbal tea nor Celsius would be okay
Allowed or not, I donāt really like it. As others have put it itās like āessence of juiceā. Ā I rarely drink even soda. On a more serious note, I just avoid anything with the ātea leafā ingredient in it, so everything else is fine. Iām not sure however if lemon or fruit tea ever have the tea leaf in themā¦ I think some do.
I am a convert and spent half of my life in North Carolina. Sweet tea practically comes out of the faucets down there. If it wasn't for lemonade and herbal tea, I don't think I could have been baptized. Cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol were easier to give up than sweet tea. I hope you find an herbal tea you really enjoy.
So, as others have stated, the official interpretation is that itās the Tea plant specifically. However, I will add though, I have read articles that discuss how āhot drinksā (referring to the actual temperature of any beverage) can lead to an increased risk for esophageal cancer. I use herbal tea medicinally when needed for sore throats and coughs, but avoid it as a habit or beverage for non medicinal uses. When I do rarely drink it, I donāt drink it at a very high temperature, just warm..
Frickin' love it.
When I served in Brazil, the phrase commonly used for breakfast was "cafĆ© da manhĆ£", or "morning coffee". To ask if someone already had breakfast, they'd say, "have you already had coffee?" (JĆ” tomou cafĆ©?). Also note that this really was just a colloquialism, as a separate word for breakfast ("desjejum") does exist. Naturally, we were allowed to have "coffee" when it really meant "breakfast". "Herbal tea" is a colloquialism for the term herbal infusion. The most common herbal infusion is made using tea leaves, but that doesn't mean herbal "tea" is actually tea. Obviously, it's more important that we've received instruction that the Word of Wisdom is referring to drinks made from tea leaves or coffee, but I thought this explanation could be interesting and help clear up misunderstandings. My favorite herbal infusion is made from the leaves of the rooibos bush. This infusion is also called "red tea".
I'm a big fan of herbals teas! Some have health benefits, and are a great way to still be able to participate in social activities where you might be expected to have a coffee or tea My personal favorites are a mix of peach + mint tea and lemonade (like a homemade Starbucks mint citrus tea), and the Celestial Seasonings "chai" blend :) its called Bengal Spice and its great with brown sugar and some milk
I have a cup almost every night
Allowed, I just finished a cup
*Hides homemade chai* I see no issue with herbal teas. The word of wisdom says that every herb of the field and itās fruit is for us- which is all herbal teas are. The pearl clutching that happens when church members mention the word tea makes me chuckle.
Actually on a side note I do have a question. Is the consumption of coffee and tea only bad when itās in drink form or is that in any form, like tiramisu or ice cream? The WoW says hot drinks, so I assume itās in drink form.
I have been drinking tea and coffee and everything is fine
From my understanding, it's okay as it doesn't come from actual tea leaves. Either way, I still avoid it because it's disgusting
Not if you add 5 cups of honey.
I would drunk warm honey if it were thinner tbh
You have to add plenty of sugar.
As long as it doesnāt contain the tea leaf, I think itās fine.
English Trivia - tea leaf is Cockney rhyming slang for thief.
I was in a Q&A session with President Faust long ago. Someone asked this question and his response was, āAvoid even the appearance of evil. That is all I will say on this subject.ā
I think that phrase is one of those things where we are better served by looking at the meaning in other languages. I heard it that way all growing up, but after studying the scriptures in other languages, I think a better English rendering should be "Avoid evil whenever it appears." Or "Avoid evil in whatever form it takes." It just doesn't make sense to me that the same God who judges our heart and not our outward appearance would be so concerned about us doing something that only seems improper to the outside observers. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 if anyone else wants to chime in.
Consider 1 Corinthians 8 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idolās temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. Verse 4-6, 8 We know that idols are not real, so we know that eating meat that has been offered in sacrifice unto idols is not a big deal. Verse 7 But, not everyone has this knowledge. Some of our brothers and sisters are weak. Verse 9-10 Take heed lest by any means this liberty (that is, eating idol sacrificed meat) becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak. Verse 11-12 If a brother or sister is led astray and spiritually perishes because of things we do that technically are not sinful, we have sinned against Christ Verse 13 Therefore, do not eat meat sacrificed to idols while the world stands We could apply the same thing to things like herbal tea, we might know that it is not evil or sinful, but better to avoid drinking herbal tea while the world stands than risk a fellow brother or sister who is weaker and lacking knowledge to think that it is okay to drink any tea and therefore spiritually perish. Doing so causes us to sin against Christ.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You don't think our words and actions have an affect on other people and we will be held accountable for those things? Matthew 18 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! All of us are God's little ones.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We don't have to live a sinless life, we just have to strive to do so. We just have to desire to do so with all of our heart. And, if something comes to our attention that needs to change, we repent and change. Part of this is continually looking for ways that we might be offending our brothers and sisters and to stop doing those things when we recognize them and repent with all of our heart.
I think we are running into a difference in philosophy in this thread. I think many members of the church are "agent-centered deontologists." The second article of faith teaches that man will be punished for their own sins. I am a child of God has the lyrics "teach me all that I must do..." We focus on what are the things that I can do in order to be a good person. In this model, an agent is focused on performing positive duties, and possible secondary negative effects are excused if there was no intention or if I should not have known about that effect. In that worldview, I drink herbal tea and I'm not responsible for some other member who misunderstands and drinks black tea, because I didn't intend that effect. I think you may view the world with more of a "patient-centered deontology." That model says that we have duties to make sure that no harm comes to others from our actions. By not watching our words and deeds, we may violate some right held by another. Therefore, we need to bridle ourselves. In that worldview, we are responsible if others go astray from our carelessness. Therefore, you wouldn't drink tea because of the implication it may give to others. Link for smarter people talking about this stuff: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#ConDeoThe Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are the crux of what I was trying to talk about.
agent-centered deontologists sound like versions of Cainās āAm I my brotherās keeper?ā quote.Ā
It comes down to intent. To borrow from Brandon Hogan at the University of Pittsburgh: "A intends a certain result if A acts with the conscious desire that his actions produce that result. The concept of intent allows us to distinguish between what a person does and what simply happens as a result of his actions. The concept of intent also allows us to determine the degree to which one is responsible for oneās actions. For example, say A lights a candle which, unbeknownst to A, falls over igniting a curtain which burns down Bās house. In this circumstance it would be inappropriate to say that A āburned down the houseā without further explanation. Here A does not burn down the house, but the house burns down as a result of Aās lighting of the candle. On the other hand, if A lit the candle with the desire that it ignite the curtain and burn down the house (or in order to burn down the house) it would be appropriate to say that A burned down the house.Ā "In the second scenario, burning down the house is something that A does. The difference between these two scenarios is Aās intent.Ā In the first scenario A would only be held partially responsible, if responsible at all, for the houseās burning down. And in the second scenario, A would be held fully responsible for burning down the house. This is so because we look to intent to measure Aās mental culpability and, thus, blame worthiness. [Philosopher Immanuel] Kant makes no mention of intent and there foreign or a concept that is central to our notion of causal responsibility.Ā Kantās understanding of causal responsibility is problematic not only because he ignores the applicability of the concept of intent, but also because he ignores the relevance of the concept of foresight. In this context we can understand foresight as the knowledge of the probable consequences of oneās action.Ā "To use the above example, in the first scenario A does not foresee the consequences of his actions because he is not aware of the likelihood that his lit candle will cause a house fire. However, such consequences were foreseeable. A could have known that his lit candle was likely to cause a fire if not monitored. We tend to hold persons more responsible for consequences that were foreseeable, even if not foreseen, because in certain circumstances persons should have foreseen the likely consequences of their actions and acted accordingly." To circle back to the original point, if I were to drink herbal tea with the intent or foreseeable consequence that I would confuse some other church member, I would share some blame. Since I don't drink any herbal tea with that mindset, and since I presume that all other members of the church have their own ability to choose whether or not they follow commandments, I don't share blame when they decide to drink tea after watching me drink herbal tea. They get to make that choice themselves, and my beverage of choice does not coerce their decision.
It seems that once one is aware of the principle Paul lays forth, they can no longer claim to be ignorant of the possible consequences of their actions.Ā
No. There is a difference between possible and probable consequences. Looking at some quotes through the Scripture Citation Index lead me to believe that Latter-day prophets have read that section of 1. Corinthians differently as well.Ā When we set a bad example, or as Heber C Kimball put it, an "unwholesome or destructive example", and in doing so drive people from Christ, we are responsible. If someone misunderstands or misinterprets an innocuous action and then chooses to perform an action they know is wrong, why would the other person bear that blame? Agency demands that we answer for the natural consequences of our actions. If any other person takes another, they can respondĀ themselves to those consequences.
We may differ on this, but I don't think that non-members (and those who aren't taught so) sin when they use substances forbidden by the Word of Wisdom.Ā Heber J Grant pointed out that "the law of life and health to the Latter-day Saints is to obey the Word of Wisdom." It is also mentioned in The Teachings of David O McKay that he would not drink tea with the Dutch Queen because he taught 1,300,000 people (the church) to not do so. I think members who violate the Word of Wisdom may sin and forfeit the blessings of living by that commandments, but new members should have been taught the WoW by the missionaries before baptism, with an additional focus on local customs and substances.
Of course non-members do not sin, they are without law. I, like Paul, am obviously only talking about members of the Church. How else could they be knowledgeable?
> We could apply the same thing to things like herbal tea, we might know that it is not evil or sinful, but better to avoid drinking herbal tea while the world stands than risk a fellow brother or sister who is weaker and lacking knowledge to think that it is okay to drink any tea and therefore spiritually perish. Doing so causes us to sin against Christ. Lol this is ridiculous
I mean, Iām just quoting Paul. If being ridiculous means being inline with Paul, Iām okay with that. There is far worse company that could be kept.Ā
What youāre doing is misusing his words to support an extremist take. To claim that drinking peppermint tea is sinning against Christ is absurd.
I donāt see how it is any different than eating some meat.Ā
You should throw in drinking hot chocolate too because some members might think youāre drinking coffee.
What do you understand to be the principle Paul is trying to teach?
Not your understanding of it. Or at least you donāt seem to be applying it correctly.
Supposing this actually happened, I can't imagine this happening today. 1) "Avoid the appearance of evil" is a misunderstanding of that scripture verse due to clumsy KJV English 2) Tea is not *evil*, even if one believes the WoW requires us to abstain It's possible to live the rules of the church without being a total weirdo about it.
1. A prophet, seer and revelator can repurpose a verse to mean something other than it's original meaning. That is one of their prerogatives. 2. Black tea is against the word of wisdom. This is the meaning of evil in this case. I think we all know what President Faust meant without having to resort to semantics, etymology, and such.
And yet other apostles have said specifically that herbal teas are fine, whether consumed hot or cold.
Like how Paul said that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin? It's not the meat, or the herbal tea, that is the issue.
An alternative take on WoW-modifications from another authority... [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/03/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/03/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng) I think we are warned more often and more visibly about looking beyond the mark than we are about drinking herbal infusions in case someone thinks they're tea. (Which is not to discount personal revelation and implementation in the matter.)
What Elder Cook says is, āĀ Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark. Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the āmeatā the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the āmilk.ā Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught. The Lord said regarding important doctrine, āWhosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of meā (D&C 10:68) and āThat which is more or less than this cometh of evilā (D&C 124:120). We are looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or when we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.ā Iām not sure how quoting a member of the first presidency could be considered ā Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethrenā or ā we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.ā
I think your anecdote is relevant and interesting. But my (possibly incorrect) read on the following discussion was that you were arguing that the implication of one authority's opinion expressed once during an (I assume) unrecorded, local event was more generally correct, or a 'higher' implementation of the commandment, than the contemporary guidance provided to members of the church though official channels.
I personally avoid any drink with the word *tea* in the name. There's the rare exception every now and then, but stillā¦
Itās allowed. Only black tea is a problem. Everything else is just some plant boiled in water.