site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1979 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 8, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do believe that your current explanation is idiosyncratic, in the sense that the typical Mormon wouldn't see caffeine pills as an acceptable way of dodging their nominal religious obligations.

The Mormon prohibition of tea and coffee is much more akin to the prohibition of Jews eating pork than a prohibition of caffeine. There is official clarification from the church that the prohibition is about hot drinks not caffeine. This was done precisely because of the reasons you state. But it's totally kosher for Mormon teens to drink monster.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if someone were to get baptized, and then very conspicuously continue drinking coffee? Polite tutting?

Giving you the side eye plus not getting a temple recommend which would likely distress your buxom Mormon bride. Ironically if you weren't baptized but attended church people would tolerate it a lot better. As for Mormon doctors they are free to consume all manner of energy drinks, just no tea or coffee,

Mormon prohibition of tea and coffee

Reading around apparently it comes from the Mormon Words Of Wisdom "hot drinks are not for the body or belly", which gets interpreted as tea and coffee. But drinking hot herbal tea is okay, and hot chocolate is okay, and caffeine in non-coffee drinks is okay, but cold tea and coffee aren't, even though the original text doesn't mention tea, coffee or caffeine.

I couldn't find a clear answer whether you can drink cold decaffeinated coffee. Some say yes, some some say no.

The most common hot beverages consumed at the time were coffee and tea (black or green tea that comes from the camellia sinensis plant), hence the use of the term. Coffee and tea are counseled against regardless of their serving temperature as the substance remains the same. Anybody who claims drinking cold coffee is permissible, or that the Word of Wisdom prohibits caffeine or beverages that happen to be hot has poor command of the doctrine.

I just find it interesting that effectively someone can sit there drinking one hot drink while condemning someone else for drinking a different hot drink, or potentially a drink that has never been hot, under the authority of and despite the relevant passage unambiguously referring to "hot drinks".

I'm not trying to start an argument but this seems like it's purpose built for starting arguments.

The entire premise here is fuzzy. Nobody's condemning anyone, hence your perplexity. Upon our baptism, we have entered a voluntary agreement to abstain from specific beverages. Nobody is imposing that framework on people who do not adhere to our Church. Once again, it is a sacrifice we make akin to the Jewish kosher laws wrt shellfish.

"I just find it interesting that effectively someone can sit there eating chocolate with cherry liqueur in it while condemning someone else for slamming jägerbombs at the bar."

My perplexity is in learning that "hot drinks" is interpreted by those it affects in a way that includes certain cold drinks and precludes certain hot drinks. That's all. It's such a simple rule with such low stakes that I find it difficult to think of how it became contentious.

Well again, in 1830s America, it was well understood that hot beverages colloquially referred to tea and coffee as opposed to yerba mate. It is a whole-to-part synecdoche, a colloquial irregularity that appears in every spoken language.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats