4 ms·

Lots of people think this means "don't smoke" or something like that. From the members I have conversed with, they are forbidden from using caffeine.

lolinder 4y ago
Coffee and black/green tea are typically considered to be prohibited (I know active members who drink green tea and still participate fully), but caffeine in general isn't banned. One of the apostles even acknowledged drinking a whole lot of diet coke to help while learning to use a computer[0]: > It took a great deal of time, repetition, patience; no small amount of hope and faith; lots of reassurance from my wife; and many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless. [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/10/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference...
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  I'm not a member, just going off what they told me. From what I understand the actual edicts (maybe it's called something) else aren't really supposed to be published or talked about. So I've only talked to ex-mormons about this.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. There are a whole lot of people who have their own interpretations of the commandments, and that coupled with our history of secrecy surrounding the temple could definitely give rise to the idea that it's difficult to know what all the requirements are, but it's all online and available to everyone at this point. Here's the relevant information about the health code[1]: > The Lord revealed in the Word of Wisdom that the following substances are harmful: > Alcoholic drinks (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:5–7). > Tobacco (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:8). > Tea and coffee (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee). [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-e... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/word-of-wisdom https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
    - csdvrx 4y ago
      I've checked the website and it's easy to get lost clicking around like on tvtropes.org > I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. Great! So here's a very legit question: is there a PDF version that I could read linearly to get a good idea of the whole doctrine? (I mean something like the Talmud) I'm just curious and want to learn.
      - lolinder 4y ago
        It's obviously very difficult to compress any religion's doctrines down into an easily digestible form, but the pamphlets used by the missionaries do a pretty good job of summarizing the most important points [0]. Beyond that, the Gospel Topics[1] section is, as you found, a bit of a rabbit hole, but contains the church's official stance on any topic where they've taken a stance. If you can't find it there, it's likely that there isn't an official consensus. [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings/mission-callings/teaching-pamphlets https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-call... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
      - nocoolnametom 4y ago
        It's not just a funny joke that attempting to define LDS doctrine is akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. For almost every doctrinal position there are either other doctrinal positions or historical events that go against it (or sometimes both). Even on something as traditionally Christian as the Atonement of Jesus Christ and grace vs. works, the LDS doctrine and previous LDS leadership authorities can be read to support penal substitution theory or satisfaction theory, and you'll find plenty supporting both the supremacy of grace AND the supremacy of works. Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice. Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism 3: https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-robert-l-millet-79027 https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-ro... 4: https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine
  - patch_collector 4y ago
    It's actually quite public. The 'raw' doctrinal backing comes from 'Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89': https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/word-of-wisdom-dc-89?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/wor... Clarifications as to what the 'hot drinks' section means has come over time, generally being shared during the twice-annual General Conference. The most prominent call came in 1921. You can read more about it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations...
  - freedomben 4y ago
    I'm a former Mormon (I guess you could call me an "ex-mormon"). Just some advice: be careful about getting (or propagating rather) information from ex-mormons regarding Mormonism (or rather, verify it first). There's an incredible mix of ignorance and/or antipathy that leads to extremely unreliable information. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but it's a massively deep philosophy/corpus that not many (even active members) put in the effort to actually know it, and for some reason some people become LLMs when asked questions about it, answering very confidently with whatever sounds the most correct to them without regard to actual truth value.
    - nocoolnametom 4y ago
      That "massively deep philosophy/corpus" doesn't help things, though. With nearly 200 years of a leadership that teaches that whatever is spoken by God's servants (the highest church leadership) is to be equated as similar to the word of God (with a normal human distribution of those leaders who approach this view with a cautious humility through those who speak their musings with confidence) there's a HUGE of collection of some pretty odd beliefs. Since the church leadership almost never repudiates these past statements, preferring to have them quietly fade from the collective memory and consciousness of the membership over time, chances are that there's still some few members who are aware of these weird beliefs and can back them up with some sort of statement by a modern LDS prophet or apostle. This makes any "actual truth value" of an odd teaching or belief really difficult to gauge, and chances are there's some actual statement behind many of that unreliable information. That's speaking of teachings and doctrine, of course. When it comes to history that's less like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall and it's much easier to find sources for more accurate history, and I agree that it's a bit sad how little accuracy in history seems to be respected by some believing and formerly-believing members.
      - freedomben 4y ago
        Actually I completely agree with you. There are indeed plenty of things where it's murky and hard to piece together the truth (particularly since Joseph and the early church were so secretive about some teachings like polygamy). The type of thing I had in mind are things that aren't ambiguous but rather are pretty clear. Things like "the actual edicts ... aren't really supposed to be published or talked about" regarding caffeine/word of wisdom. I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I have spent an insane amount of time reading/researching Mormon history and I've never heard that before. Stuff like that seems to pop up constantly for some reason when I talk about things with ex-mormons.
  - bart_spoon 4y ago
    It's not that they aren't supposed to be published or talked about, its that the caffeine thing was never an "edict" in the first place. The edict was no coffee or tea, and culturally that became "no caffeine" because that was a common link between the two. It became a common enough belief among lay-members over the case of many decades that the church in recent years put out a statement clarifying that caffeine is not in fact prohibited or addressed in any way by church doctrine.
seanw444 4y ago
It depends on the family. My girlfriend wasn't allowed to drink any caffeine when she was a kid. Caffeine was normal in my family though. Coffee is pretty universally frowned upon (I don't get it either). Apparently Mtn Dew > Coffee as it pertains to health. They base their dietary standard on the "Word of Wisdom". Source: grew up Mormon, and still have a close relationship with my Mormon family.
specialist 4y ago
Opinions differ. Best as I can tell, like all other dogmas, their rules are some blend of urban legends, game of telephone, and calvinball. eg The nephew of the owner, prepping for his missionary work, gravely explained to me that he has to be careful not to immerse himself in open waters (or maybe it was just moving water) past the belt line. Something about being vulnerable to witches or demonic possession or whatever. And it was totally true because his cousin's best friend knew a guy who swam while on mission and then died.
- nocoolnametom 4y ago
  I'm guessing you've gotten some downvotes for this probably because this is recognized as a pretty bizarre belief, and one most modern Mormons do not follow or aren't even aware of. Since Mormonism almost never repudiates the teachings of their past leadership, it merely stops reinforcing old and odd teachings, you'll always be able to find at least a few members who still know about and hold beliefs that the rest of the membership has either forgotten or have never been taught. The particular belief in question here arises from modern LDS scripture (D&C 61) where God says to a group of early LDS missionaries that "there are many dangers upon the waters." These dangers are from Satan being given power over the waters as the world approaches Armageddon, and while faithful LDS missionaries will be preserved while traveling over any water (canal, lake, sea, etc) they're encouraged not to risk it if their faith is not strong enough. This used to be a pretty common teaching from leadership, but in recent decades it's fallen out of fashion. Missionaries are still forbidden from going swimming at any point during their missions, but usually it's presented as a result of insurance dangers facing unsupervised 18 year olds (which, let's be honest, is an entirely reasonable and accurate concern). For almost every weird or odd belief you've heard that at least some Mormons believe, there are usually a combination of scriptures and old leadership quotes behind it, but the modern teachings have left them behind with the hope that if these odd teachings are ignored they'll go away (which works out pretty well, for the most part).
  - mrkstu 4y ago
    This is mostly an issue of the hierarchal/revelatory nature of the church. If every folk belief held by any Pope or Church Father was held as a controlling 'belief' of the Catholic Church, it'd spin apart instantly via the contradictions. The 'Mormon' church has to deal with the contradiction of near-infallibility of its leaders with their very human frailties and willingness to opine on things without much knowledge. Considering their need to weld together tens of thousands of converts under murder, oppression, and official government endorsement of their extermination, it was understandable they needed to centralize a belief in their leadership in order to survive. Climbing down from that philosophy has been understandably fraught and drawn out.
nocoolnametom 4y ago
The caffeine thing is a long-standing internal debate that arises from: 1. Unclear doctrinal specifics 2. An orthopraxic rather than an orthodoxic culture The first item is that the only doctrine possibly relating to caffeine is a single verse in modern scripture that says "hot drinks are not for the body or belly". Long-standing teaching by leadership has merely narrowed down "hot drinks" to mean tea and coffee. The second item is by far more important in the debate: Mormons are _highly_ orthopraxic, meaning that you're usually free to hold heterodox doctrinal beliefs as long as your public life and behavior reflects the common orthopraxy. Or, to put it simply, the public appearance of righteousness is culturally far more important than internal doctrinal beliefs (this is, ironically enough, not technically doctrinal). The same chapter that defines "hot drinks" (coffee/tea) as not good for the belly defines beer ("barley... for mild drinks") as entirely appropriate, but since the orthopraxic behavior is to be seen as avoiding coffee, tea, hard liquor (which is specifically called out in the same scripture) then avoiding anything above and beyond those is often seen as an increased sign of righteousness. So you'll often have arguments between Mormons who follow the letter of the law and others who follow what they define as the spirit of the law. And since coffee and tea both contain caffeine then many Mormons will avoid caffeine as well. You'll find this same argument about following just the doctrine defined in the open canon versus following behavioral practices above and beyond it in other aspects of Mormon life, such as: not calling members of the church or the church "Mormon," payment of 10% of monthly income (though the scriptures call for 10% of an annual "increase"), women only wearing at most one set of earrings, no dating for youth below the age of 16, men applying to serve missions the instant their 18th birthday arrives (though the window for honorable service is many years wide), no clapping in meetings, no drums or brass in meetings, and so on for many other cultural practices. This is, as you can probably recognize from some of the items in that list, in no way a phenomenon isolated to the LDS religion, but it does inform the inevitable debate you'll hear if you ever bring up caffeine in a group of Mormons.
- freedomben 4y ago
  For others gaining a new vocabulary word today: > Orthopraxic v. orthodoxic: In the study of religion, orthopraxy is correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace.[1][2][3] Orthopraxy is in contrast with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief. The word is a neoclassical compound—ὀρθοπραξία (orthopraxia) meaning 'right practice'. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy
irrational 4y ago
It's not caffeine. It's coffee, black/green tea, and alcohol. Soda has caffeine and is seen as okay. Think of it as Jewish Kosher or Muslim Halal.

lolinder 4y ago

Coffee and black/green tea are typically considered to be prohibited (I know active members who drink green tea and still participate fully), but caffeine in general isn't banned. One of the apostles even acknowledged drinking a whole lot of diet coke to help while learning to use a computer[0]: > It took a great deal of time, repetition, patience; no small amount of hope and faith; lots of reassurance from my wife; and many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless. [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/10/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference...

sidewndr46 4y ago
I'm not a member, just going off what they told me. From what I understand the actual edicts (maybe it's called something) else aren't really supposed to be published or talked about. So I've only talked to ex-mormons about this.
- lolinder 4y ago
  I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. There are a whole lot of people who have their own interpretations of the commandments, and that coupled with our history of secrecy surrounding the temple could definitely give rise to the idea that it's difficult to know what all the requirements are, but it's all online and available to everyone at this point. Here's the relevant information about the health code[1]: > The Lord revealed in the Word of Wisdom that the following substances are harmful: > Alcoholic drinks (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:5–7). > Tobacco (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:8). > Tea and coffee (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee). [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-e... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/word-of-wisdom https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    I've checked the website and it's easy to get lost clicking around like on tvtropes.org > I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. Great! So here's a very legit question: is there a PDF version that I could read linearly to get a good idea of the whole doctrine? (I mean something like the Talmud) I'm just curious and want to learn.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      It's obviously very difficult to compress any religion's doctrines down into an easily digestible form, but the pamphlets used by the missionaries do a pretty good job of summarizing the most important points [0]. Beyond that, the Gospel Topics[1] section is, as you found, a bit of a rabbit hole, but contains the church's official stance on any topic where they've taken a stance. If you can't find it there, it's likely that there isn't an official consensus. [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings/mission-callings/teaching-pamphlets https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-call... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
    - nocoolnametom 4y ago
      It's not just a funny joke that attempting to define LDS doctrine is akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. For almost every doctrinal position there are either other doctrinal positions or historical events that go against it (or sometimes both). Even on something as traditionally Christian as the Atonement of Jesus Christ and grace vs. works, the LDS doctrine and previous LDS leadership authorities can be read to support penal substitution theory or satisfaction theory, and you'll find plenty supporting both the supremacy of grace AND the supremacy of works. Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice. Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism 3: https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-robert-l-millet-79027 https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-ro... 4: https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine
- patch_collector 4y ago
  It's actually quite public. The 'raw' doctrinal backing comes from 'Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89': https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/word-of-wisdom-dc-89?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/wor... Clarifications as to what the 'hot drinks' section means has come over time, generally being shared during the twice-annual General Conference. The most prominent call came in 1921. You can read more about it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations...
- freedomben 4y ago
  I'm a former Mormon (I guess you could call me an "ex-mormon"). Just some advice: be careful about getting (or propagating rather) information from ex-mormons regarding Mormonism (or rather, verify it first). There's an incredible mix of ignorance and/or antipathy that leads to extremely unreliable information. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but it's a massively deep philosophy/corpus that not many (even active members) put in the effort to actually know it, and for some reason some people become LLMs when asked questions about it, answering very confidently with whatever sounds the most correct to them without regard to actual truth value.
  - nocoolnametom 4y ago
    That "massively deep philosophy/corpus" doesn't help things, though. With nearly 200 years of a leadership that teaches that whatever is spoken by God's servants (the highest church leadership) is to be equated as similar to the word of God (with a normal human distribution of those leaders who approach this view with a cautious humility through those who speak their musings with confidence) there's a HUGE of collection of some pretty odd beliefs. Since the church leadership almost never repudiates these past statements, preferring to have them quietly fade from the collective memory and consciousness of the membership over time, chances are that there's still some few members who are aware of these weird beliefs and can back them up with some sort of statement by a modern LDS prophet or apostle. This makes any "actual truth value" of an odd teaching or belief really difficult to gauge, and chances are there's some actual statement behind many of that unreliable information. That's speaking of teachings and doctrine, of course. When it comes to history that's less like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall and it's much easier to find sources for more accurate history, and I agree that it's a bit sad how little accuracy in history seems to be respected by some believing and formerly-believing members.
    - freedomben 4y ago
      Actually I completely agree with you. There are indeed plenty of things where it's murky and hard to piece together the truth (particularly since Joseph and the early church were so secretive about some teachings like polygamy). The type of thing I had in mind are things that aren't ambiguous but rather are pretty clear. Things like "the actual edicts ... aren't really supposed to be published or talked about" regarding caffeine/word of wisdom. I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I have spent an insane amount of time reading/researching Mormon history and I've never heard that before. Stuff like that seems to pop up constantly for some reason when I talk about things with ex-mormons.
- bart_spoon 4y ago
  It's not that they aren't supposed to be published or talked about, its that the caffeine thing was never an "edict" in the first place. The edict was no coffee or tea, and culturally that became "no caffeine" because that was a common link between the two. It became a common enough belief among lay-members over the case of many decades that the church in recent years put out a statement clarifying that caffeine is not in fact prohibited or addressed in any way by church doctrine.

seanw444 4y ago

It depends on the family. My girlfriend wasn't allowed to drink any caffeine when she was a kid. Caffeine was normal in my family though. Coffee is pretty universally frowned upon (I don't get it either). Apparently Mtn Dew > Coffee as it pertains to health. They base their dietary standard on the "Word of Wisdom". Source: grew up Mormon, and still have a close relationship with my Mormon family.

specialist 4y ago

Opinions differ. Best as I can tell, like all other dogmas, their rules are some blend of urban legends, game of telephone, and calvinball. eg The nephew of the owner, prepping for his missionary work, gravely explained to me that he has to be careful not to immerse himself in open waters (or maybe it was just moving water) past the belt line. Something about being vulnerable to witches or demonic possession or whatever. And it was totally true because his cousin's best friend knew a guy who swam while on mission and then died.

nocoolnametom 4y ago
I'm guessing you've gotten some downvotes for this probably because this is recognized as a pretty bizarre belief, and one most modern Mormons do not follow or aren't even aware of. Since Mormonism almost never repudiates the teachings of their past leadership, it merely stops reinforcing old and odd teachings, you'll always be able to find at least a few members who still know about and hold beliefs that the rest of the membership has either forgotten or have never been taught. The particular belief in question here arises from modern LDS scripture (D&C 61) where God says to a group of early LDS missionaries that "there are many dangers upon the waters." These dangers are from Satan being given power over the waters as the world approaches Armageddon, and while faithful LDS missionaries will be preserved while traveling over any water (canal, lake, sea, etc) they're encouraged not to risk it if their faith is not strong enough. This used to be a pretty common teaching from leadership, but in recent decades it's fallen out of fashion. Missionaries are still forbidden from going swimming at any point during their missions, but usually it's presented as a result of insurance dangers facing unsupervised 18 year olds (which, let's be honest, is an entirely reasonable and accurate concern). For almost every weird or odd belief you've heard that at least some Mormons believe, there are usually a combination of scriptures and old leadership quotes behind it, but the modern teachings have left them behind with the hope that if these odd teachings are ignored they'll go away (which works out pretty well, for the most part).
- mrkstu 4y ago
  This is mostly an issue of the hierarchal/revelatory nature of the church. If every folk belief held by any Pope or Church Father was held as a controlling 'belief' of the Catholic Church, it'd spin apart instantly via the contradictions. The 'Mormon' church has to deal with the contradiction of near-infallibility of its leaders with their very human frailties and willingness to opine on things without much knowledge. Considering their need to weld together tens of thousands of converts under murder, oppression, and official government endorsement of their extermination, it was understandable they needed to centralize a belief in their leadership in order to survive. Climbing down from that philosophy has been understandably fraught and drawn out.

nocoolnametom 4y ago

The caffeine thing is a long-standing internal debate that arises from: 1. Unclear doctrinal specifics 2. An orthopraxic rather than an orthodoxic culture The first item is that the only doctrine possibly relating to caffeine is a single verse in modern scripture that says "hot drinks are not for the body or belly". Long-standing teaching by leadership has merely narrowed down "hot drinks" to mean tea and coffee. The second item is by far more important in the debate: Mormons are _highly_ orthopraxic, meaning that you're usually free to hold heterodox doctrinal beliefs as long as your public life and behavior reflects the common orthopraxy. Or, to put it simply, the public appearance of righteousness is culturally far more important than internal doctrinal beliefs (this is, ironically enough, not technically doctrinal). The same chapter that defines "hot drinks" (coffee/tea) as not good for the belly defines beer ("barley... for mild drinks") as entirely appropriate, but since the orthopraxic behavior is to be seen as avoiding coffee, tea, hard liquor (which is specifically called out in the same scripture) then avoiding anything above and beyond those is often seen as an increased sign of righteousness. So you'll often have arguments between Mormons who follow the letter of the law and others who follow what they define as the spirit of the law. And since coffee and tea both contain caffeine then many Mormons will avoid caffeine as well. You'll find this same argument about following just the doctrine defined in the open canon versus following behavioral practices above and beyond it in other aspects of Mormon life, such as: not calling members of the church or the church "Mormon," payment of 10% of monthly income (though the scriptures call for 10% of an annual "increase"), women only wearing at most one set of earrings, no dating for youth below the age of 16, men applying to serve missions the instant their 18th birthday arrives (though the window for honorable service is many years wide), no clapping in meetings, no drums or brass in meetings, and so on for many other cultural practices. This is, as you can probably recognize from some of the items in that list, in no way a phenomenon isolated to the LDS religion, but it does inform the inevitable debate you'll hear if you ever bring up caffeine in a group of Mormons.

freedomben 4y ago
For others gaining a new vocabulary word today: > Orthopraxic v. orthodoxic: In the study of religion, orthopraxy is correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace.[1][2][3] Orthopraxy is in contrast with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief. The word is a neoclassical compound—ὀρθοπραξία (orthopraxia) meaning 'right practice'. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy

irrational 4y ago

It's not caffeine. It's coffee, black/green tea, and alcohol. Soda has caffeine and is seen as okay. Think of it as Jewish Kosher or Muslim Halal.