Jump to content

rockpond

Contributor
  • Content Count

    13,924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rockpond

  1. Why does anything unhealthy need to be in or added to the Word of Wisdom?
  2. I agree. I'm okay with the church teaching kids to avoid these harmful substances and habits. I just don't think we should be inserting them into the Lord's revealed word and pretending that this is part of His Word of Wisdom without His express revelation to so indicate. For me, it weakens true revelation for us to take an existing revelation and add our own words, beliefs, and philosophies and claim that the Lord "clearly" meant them to be there.
  3. First you said that the WoW is evolving and that God could add to it but has chosen not to. Then you said that though God didn't change the text, the clarified it through his prophets. How do we know? You explained that we know God clarified it because the prophet changed it. So I am gathering that each time you used "changed" you didn't really mean to use that, you meant "clarified". So the apostles were involved in the decision to clarify the WoW and they sought the counsel of the Lord. Are you suggesting that they then had these clarifications revealed to them and so they decided to publish them anonymously in the New Era? So I take it you are not able to provide any support to your claim that the apostles received these recent clarifications from the Lord?
  4. So the Word is Wisdom has changed and we know it was the Lord behind the change because the prophet changed it. CFR of where the prophet changed the WoW.
  5. Yes, and people are drinking alcohol and coffee as well. My point was that as Saints, we shouldn’t need every unhealthy thing added to the “no” list in the WoW.
  6. Where? So you acknowledge that it has changed? Huh? Who is talking about dodging anything? What loophole? So the Lord did not alter the text but you just said he is behind the changes. So you are saying that Section 89 hasn’t changed? I agree. But that the WoW has changed? If the Lord changed it, how do we know?
  7. It is? And the Lord said that where? I agree. So why do we keep adding to it... Vaping is not tobacco. Many (most?) vape juices have nicotine, but not all. So if the Lord has chosen not to add to the WoW, why are you? And why is the Church doing so in the New Era and through the Newsroom?
  8. Wow did this topic explode... 6 pages in 10 hours! It's a terribly sad situation. I hope that the Brethren are taking note. This is part of the problem with our teachings on this: With no great option for faithful gay and lesbian members, many will choose to enter into a mixed orientation marriage. And many of those marriages will end in divorce. Homes, lives, and hearts are torn apart. Current teachings have improved but we still have a long way to go.
  9. Is this sufficient reason for hijacking the Word of Wisdom and claiming it says something that it doesn't? I ask because the prevailing attitude here seems to be: 1) If something isn't necessarily unhealthy but is prohibited by the WoW, than it's just something the Lord is asking us to do for reasons that are His. And 2) If something is unhealthy and/or addictive, it obviously falls under the prohibitions of the WoW. Section 89 is a revelation from the Lord. If He wants to add something to it, isn't He capable of doing that? And, if something is unhealthy and/or addictive, aren't we capable of abstaining (and teaching our children to abstain) without it needing to be a part of the WoW? [I welcome responses to these questions from anyone. Genuinely curious of others' thoughts on this.]
  10. Fortunately, I never had anyone say "no" to that question so I don't know how I would have handled it. I would have had to follow the Spirit.
  11. "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?" That's all that asked and we're instructed not to add to it. It's up to the members to use their knowledge, faith, and testimony to answer it. Technically, the answer is irrelevant. It's not a commandment so a "no" answer to that question isn't (in and of itself) a reason to deny a recommend.
  12. This whole issue is somewhat indicative of laziness: Why is the Church adding things to the WoW without any hint of them being revealed? We're taking a revelation and adding to it with the philosophies of men. Why? I dunno... maybe so that we can use it as an easy way to tell our children (and fellow members) that they can't partake of certain things.
  13. My sweet great grandmother attributed her longevity to taking her vitamins every day. In her 90’s and having lost her eternal companion about five decades earlier, she commented that she would like to stop taking the daily vitamins so as to not live so long. But then she felt that doing so would be something akin to suicide, so she kept taking them!
  14. I thought this might come along... http://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/statement-word-of-wisdom-august-2019 Newsroom throws its weight behind the New Era article. I think it’s good that they did that... news outlets quoting the New Era was kinda comical. Do we get to exercise our common consent on this in October? I know, I know... we don’t do that anymore! Silly Rockpond.
  15. KUTV: LDS Church clarifies 'Word of Wisdom' on vaping, green tea, coffee, marijuana, opioids LDS Living (a division of Deseret Book): Church Clarifies Word of Wisdom, Stance on Green Tea, Mocha, Vaping in "New Era" Daily Herald: LDS Church clarifies vaping, lattes and recreational use of marijuana as against its Word of Wisdom Idaho Statesman: LDS has long forbid hot coffee and cigarettes. But what about iced lattes and vaping? Media outlets seem to want to portray this New Era article as the Church clarifying the "letter of the law" with respect to the Word of Wisdom.
  16. Or "Vaping is clearly against the Word of Wisdom". No citation, no reference... just the anonymous author(s) conclusion that since vaping liquids contain nicotine and/or harmful chemicals it must "clearly" be against the Word of Wisdom. Philosophies of men, mingled with scripture comes to mind.
  17. Agreed. It's too bad that isn't the answer that the public affairs rep gave to Reiss. I don't think this article, which draws conclusions that cannot be backed up by scripture nor prophetic teachings, is truly helpful to our youth. I've taught my children about how harmful and stupid vaping is but I didn't need to wedge it into Section 89 to do so. Funny because I see this article as an "expansion of the letter of the law". And yet, Public Affairs is apparently telling people that this article does represent the official view of the church. If a "good journalist" is told this by the church's public affairs department, I assume they would believe them.
  18. Obviously still becoming more informed. Reading the labels wouldn't have made a difference. I was never taught that Word of Wisdom prohibitions were based on the plant from which a tea was derived.
  19. Interesting. I was working off of the information in the New Era article cited in the OP which states that the only difference between green and black tea is fermentation of the leaves. I understand fermentation to be a chemical break down of an organic substance through yeast or bacteria. Your Harvard quote prompted me to dig into what the tea fermenting process is. I found one article that stated that “fermenting” when it comes to tea is a misnomer. That it is actually being oxidized. That oxidation is stopped along the way by pan frying or steaming the leaves. The degree of oxidation determines the type of tea. Green tea is not oxidized. Black tea is fully oxidized. I have been taught throughout my life that black tea was prohibited by the WoW. Other teas were permitted (Yerba mate, herbal teas). Until this thread I had no idea that black, oolong, and green teas all came from the same plant. That was not something that was ever taught in any church meeting or literature to which I was exposed.
  20. Drying of the leaves is not the difference between green and black tea. It is fermentation. I’ve never once been taught by a church leader that camellia sinensis leaves are what is actually prohibited by the word of wisdom.
  21. Well, @bluebell cites the gospel topics definition and she feels that it is clear that green tea is included in the "tea" prohibition. I don't see it that way as I see the non-fermented varieties of tea as much more similar to yerba mate or herbal "tea" infusions. I also think it is odd for the church to do an official clarification of the word of wisdom in an anonymous New Era article. But, media outlets seem to be treating it that way. Perhaps all this coverage will lead the Brethren to more of an official clarification (as with caffeinated soda some time back). For now, I'm comfortable with my adherence to the WoW.
  22. I'm sorry @bluebell, usually your points make a lot of sense to me but this one isn't. If the article is representing the official position of the church and it is in an official publication of the church, how is it not also the official position of the church? Where would I find the official position of the church on green tea? Here you are quoting the New Era article. So is this the official position of the church? I think the statements above cover all tea made from the tea plant. But I'm trying to find out if the New Era is where they are anonymously publishing the official position of the church on green tea, vaping, marijuana, etc or if there is another source.
  23. Where is that clarification that “all tea” is off limits?
  24. So the view of the church (the “drawing of the flower”) is that green tea is prohibited by the WoW but the official policy (the “actual flower”) is something different than that?
  25. You haven’t. But that’s ok... not your responsibility. I don’t this a BYU professor speaks for the Church. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...