Jump to content

Stargazer

Contributor
  • Content Count

    8,248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stargazer

  1. I know about this thing. Our cat, Toffie, is on his last life. I am afraid that we will be saying goodbye to him this week.
  2. Well, I hope you continue to respectfully defy her in this! And just because "wheat is for man" does not mean man MUST eat wheat. "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground..." does NOT mean that one MUST eat grain. But spelt is grain, too, and while I don't know if it is an allergen for those with wheat intolerance, it would be a nifty substitute. "that which yieldeth fruit" would include strawberries, and so does this mean that people who are allergic to strawberries MUST eat strawberries in order to comply with the WoW? And if we MUST eat wheat, must we eat it every day, every week, once a year, or is there some other required schedule? Good heavens.
  3. When one reads between lines, one frequently finds things that are not there. LOL.
  4. I regard respectful discussion over matters of practice to be healthy in a spiritual sense, so while I am also not particular to personal philosophy discussions (if "particular" is the word you meant to use), it helps me formulate methods of approach and explanation to non-members and possibly less-active members with regard to these subjects.
  5. Would following it with exactness make you less healthy, do you think? I tend to think that the portion of the Word of Wisdom that was made a criterion for temple worthiness was made so for a wise reason and was in accordance with God's will concerning the matter. We may not see this now, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. It's not just a health law, in other words. In my humble opinion.
  6. Yes, that puts a bit of a hole into the proposal, doesn't it?
  7. Sure, but "hot drinks" had to be interpreted so as to not forbid hot chocolate, didn't they? I can answer "Yes" to the temple recommend question even if I eat meat every day of the year, so isn't that also subject to interpretation? Were you aware that when the Nigerian mission was first opened and one of the first faux-Mormon congregations officially joined the Church, that they had to be told that they could start eating oatmeal again? Because DC 89 said oats were for horses (v. 17) they assumed that they weren't for man (they seemed to have missed verse 16, which said all grains were for man). The question "What constitutes the Word of Wisdom when it comes to temple worthiness?" is a matter of interpretation, and worthy of discussion. As for me, even if the Word of Wisdom was declared no longer mandatory for temple worthiness, I would still never, ever start smoking or using tobacco in any form. I'd also not drink strong drinks, though I might drink a beer occasionally. But I hope that the Four Horsemen of the WoW are never made voluntary. I like things the way they are.
  8. I was going to post this on the Vaping thread, but decided it would be a definite threadjack if it got any traction, so here it is on its own. I have an LDS Facebook friend whom I've never met, but he and I have occasional discussions about British politics, since he's a Labourite and anti-Brexit, and I'm opposite. Today he posted the following, which is actually a quote from another Facebook friend of his. I got his permission to re-post this here (don't think it's against the rules, since Facebook isn't a message board). I've tried to entice him to come here and participate, but so far no luck. Maybe he thinks he has enough drains on his time... Anyway, your thoughts are solicited. Note that I don't necessarily agree with any of this, but thought these observations were interesting and worthy of discussion. -------------------------------------------- "Alright Latter-day Saints, let's put this to bed. Yes, at the time that the revelation was given, the most common "hot drinks” for New Englanders were tea and coffee. So, yes, the revelation was referring to tea and coffee. But all indications suggest that the issue was the temperature of them. Avoiding "hot drinks" literally meant don't consume boiling hot beverages. This was based on pseudo-dietary science of the time that taught extreme temperature threw one's body out of balance and decreased its ability to ward off illness. The fact that Joseph Smith still drank coffee (if you ever visit Nauvoo, be sure to take a tour of the Mansion House. You'll be delighted to learn that one of the few artifacts original to the Smiths is a coffee bean grinder) tells us that it wasn't, in his mind, about prohibiting coffee or tea. It was literally about letting it cool off for a bit. Also, iced tea and iced coffee weren't things in 1833. Nobody had ice. At least not during the summer. And the revelation wasn't about addiction, per se. Outside of being a "drunkard," there was very little concept of addictive substances in the early-1800s. Even the label "drunkard" was generally aimed at those who drank distilled, not fermented, alcohol. Whiskey and rum ("strong drink") were seen as contributing to immorality (laziness, spousal abuse, rude conduct, prostitution, etc.). Ale and wine ("mild drink") were seen as safer (and, in reality, they were safer than most of the water sources at the time). When the revelation referred to "barley ... for mild drinks," it was recommending beer. It's well-documented that Joseph Smith enjoyed wine until his last day (literally). Tobacco was viewed as an unseemly habit, but not because it was thought to be addictive (those studies didn't come out until much later). It was unseemly because it was gross and stinky (this was Emma's complaint). I mean, it wasn't but fifty years after this that we were putting cocaine into cola beverages and touting it as medicinal. Now, there are many who will say "that's what makes this a true revelation. Even though they didn't know of the dangers of addictive substances at the time, God did, and now look at how much society would benefit by following it." While that may be true, that still doesn't mean that was the original intent of the Word of Wisdom. It's a benefit, to be sure, but c'mon, who among us is avoiding meat in the summer and only consuming it during winter or times of famine as the revelation instructs? That said, the spirit of the word of wisdom is simple: make responsible choices. Take care of your body and mind. Let's not complicate it with unnecessary legalistic definitions, and let's stop using it as a determining factor of one's worthiness. It's not the modern Law of Moses. It's a recommendation for moderation and sensible consumption of food and beverages (from a nineteenth-century perspective)."
  9. Had to ask this: how did you happen to learn to speak German? I learned it for my mission, but I know you were an adult convert, so...?
  10. One of my bishops told me his father almost died after drinking too many Monsters. Which is my favorite energy drink, at least the "Monster Assault" flavor. I don't know what "too many" was in this case, however. When I drink the things I restrict myself to no more than 2 per day, and that rather seldom.
  11. My wife didn't want to spend the money for buying a ready-made Zapper (yes, that is what Dr. Clark called it), so since I was an electronics technician before I was a programmer, I got the components and built one for her from scratch, according to the published plans. This happened long before the cancer was diagnosed, by the way. The Zapper was nothing more than a square-wave generator operating at the frequency of 528 Hz. This frequency is sometimes called the "Love Frequency" and has been claimed to be able to clean water of bad stuff, make people feel good, and you name it. It's complete and utter pseudoscience. People make money with this stuff, if you Google it you can find plenty of retailers online selling these and other devices for which outlandish claims are made.
  12. I haven't either but I've seen plenty of examples of the wife taking up most of the time allotted to both, leaving the "final" speaker 5 minutes. It even happened to me once, not that that was a problem. 😁
  13. Tonight I purchased the right to stream the conference and have watched the first and last talks. Both bear repeated viewing imho.
  14. I think we have some in the cupboard. Maybe I should try it again to see if it is as bad as I thought it was. We do have Pero, which to me is tolerable, at least. You find the same arbitrary rules here in Europe. Fortunately, I don't find myself in need of vanilla in the things I cook. They tend to be savory rather than sweet.
  15. Yikes, that's suboptimal for sure. I wondered about this syndrome, and looked it up on Wikipedia. It is said: "Despite its wasting and at times long-lasting effects, most cases are resolved by the body's healing system, and recovery is usually good in 18–24 months, depending on how old the person in question is. For instance, a six-year-old could have brachial neuritis for only around 6 months, but a person in their early fifties could have it for over 3 years." Hopefully it's only temporary for you! Prayers for you, Rod!
  16. Just saw a sequence from the film on YouTube. How exciting! I think I won't be watching the full film.
  17. I would think that in a new temple district that would be more necessary. But in an area with thousands of long-time, mature, experienced leaders? I say this in some perplexity, as Seattle had plenty of such, yet still they sent someone from Utah.
  18. Does she want this "opportunity"? You're arguing that it's for her own good so she should be grateful. I doubt that she is giving thanks over this. Or that she ever will. After 20 years of marriage, my late wife's first husband (let's call him "Casey") came home from a year in Korea (military tour) and then promptly got her pregnant and then divorced her. Because he found that he liked playing around (like he did in Korea as she found out) more than being monogamous, and temple covenants were just, so last decade. He was just being honest with himself, "coming out" as a libertine, and we should all applaud and tell his now ex-wife that she has this great new "opportunity" to find a man who will love her and stay loyal to her? Pardon me, but aside from the benefit to myself of finding a loving wife whom I could love and cherish for the rest of her life, I don't think this was quite as much of an "opportunity" as you think. And please explain to me the difference between what Mr. Smart has done to Mrs. Smart and what Casey did to my late wife? People go off to "find themselves" all the time, only to realize (usually too late) that all they did was get lost.
  19. I find what you write extremely interesting and valuable, even on the odd occasion when I disagree with you. And it is so annoying to find out that you've written something I've not yet read. I suppose I should be happy to find something new to me... Looking on ScribD I see that there's lots I haven't read. Better get cracking... Anyway, when are you going to publish a book? I note that a check of Amazon reveals a book entitled "Oracles & Talismans, Forgery & Pansophia: Joseph Smith, Jr. As A Renaissance Magus", which is noted as being "not available". Time to self-publish on Amazon, Robert? I've done it myself, it's not hard. The world is waiting for you! If you publish on Kindle, with a nice price, you'd find people actually paying you read what you write.
  20. Not taking it! LOL What film is this meme from?
  21. My late wife was really into alternative medicine, and spent a fair amount of money studying the various alternative alternatives. Heh. She actually got a certificate in Nutritional Therapy, which involved a year-long syllabus, including lectures and a fair amount of serious study. I'm a bit of a sciency person, and I spent some effort trying to follow what she was learning, and for the most part it was not bad stuff. I remember one important point they made, and that was that this branch of therapy was largely preventative, and although there were some nutritional therapies taught that were effective in actually helping with treating some illnesses (and they were VERY careful in saying things like this, in order to avoid charges of "practicing medicine without a license"), there came a point where people needed to transition over from "holistic nutrition" to actual medicine and doctors. There are other, much less palatable, outfits out there which are blatantly deceiving people and collecting money while doing it. After my wife's cancer was diagnosed, she seemed to forget what she had learned as a nutritional therapist, and started digging into some of those deceptive philosophies. One was an herbal concoction called Essiac, supposedly an Indian cure for cancer. You can buy the stuff online, but you can also make your own. She made her own, and it didn't help at all. When I investigated it further, I found that the person after whom it was named (a woman with the last name Caisse) sold the formula to a Canadian pharmceutical company. This company actually tried to do a legitimate study of the formula, and found that they got mixed results: some people with cancer improved; some people had no change; and some people's cancer got worse. In short, it was pharmacologically worthless. But there are people making money selling books, components and lectures on the stuff, even now. Of course, the stuff didn't help my wife at all -- we (yes, I helped her) made it strictly according to the recipe, and she drank the stuff as recommended. After I found out that the stuff had been proven to be useless, I stopped helping her with it. She also got a hold of a book "The Cure for All Cancers" by some whackjob biochemist named Hulda Clark. And yes, the woman was an actual PhD biochemist, so she should have known better. Either that or she was delusional. Anyway, this whackjob wrote this book, and my wife was going to follow her program, which included a "medical device" that could be bought on the internet (or built yourself if you could do basic electronics assembly). So I read the first chapter of the whackjob's book: it was complete and utter crap. But, to give credit where it is due, it was well-written, sounded scientifically literate (she was a PhD, after all), included lots of nifty diagrams, and looked quite believable. IF, and this is a really big IF, you were unable to look things up on the internet and were critical-thinking impaired. As apparently quite a few people are. In short, Dr. Clark's claim was that all cancers are caused by parasites. And not just any parasite, she had a particular parasite in mind. This parasite was Fasciolopsis buski. She claimed that if you had cancer, no matter what kind, then you were infested with this parasite. And if you got rid of the parasite, then you would go into remission and be cured. Yay! I'm tempted to explain her methods, but I will just say that they don't matter, because Fasciolopsis buski is a southeast Asian parasite that requires three life stages to propagate, and if one stage host is absent it cannot progress and eventually dies, case closed. Oh, but she had an explanation for that: apparently this parasite changes its life cycle in the presence of propyl alcohol, so one way to help prevent infestation is to avoid taking in propyl alcohol. Get rid of shampoos and suchlike that contain it. Oh, and what did Dr. Clark die of? Cancer of course. You can still find her books for sale, and there are a number of herbal outfits selling concoctions made according to her recipes. The Crap is Out There. Literally. <=== that's a shout-out to the X-Files, by the way Sorry for the long diatribe, I get really upset with the way my wife decided to handle her cancer, and with the scam artists out there who victimize those in desperate need. Including those who disparage modern medicine in favor of things that have never been proven to work. Makes the old bloodletters look like geniuses of the first order. NOTE: I'm not saying that all alternative therapies are useless, and that there are no treatments out there which might be effective at this or that. I'm just saying, BE AWARE, BE CAREFUL, AND DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ.
  22. πŸ˜„ Haven't met anyone yet, but I betcha there's at least one out there!
×
×
  • Create New...