Jump to content
smac97

It's Official: Vaping is a No-Go for Latter-day Saints

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Good.  (No points at the moment).  👍

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Well, at least meth is still allowed. Got to get my escape from reality somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Would you rather catch your kids drinking energy drinks or tea?

 

My point is, if we can interpret the WoW to cover what are obviously bad habits like vaping, can it also be reinterpreted to cover something that is, when used in moderation, a healthy drink?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Would you rather catch your kids drinking energy drinks or tea?

 

My point is, if we can interpret the WoW to cover what are obviously bad habits like vaping, can it also be reinterpreted to cover something that is, when used in moderation, a healthy drink?

Mountain Dew is basically heroin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

(Quietly slipping my vape in the trash)

If this is a major revelation to anyone, my one eyebrow would admittedly raise higher than the other. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Green tea is bad because we said so, and vaping is bad because of nicotine.  Caffeine is ok because i'm the president of BYU and I like diet-coke, creatine is bad because I read an article on buzzfeed.  How many talks in general conference on the dangers of obesity or the laziness of mormon junk food "refreshments"? 

I'm ok with the church replacing the outdated sec89 with an annual healthy living prospectus written by nutritionists/medical professionals.

From Harari's homo deus,

"In 2014 more than 2.1 billion people were overweight, compared to 850 million who suffered from malnutrition. Half of humankind is expected to be overweight by 2030. In 2010 famine and malnutrition combined killed about 1 million people, whereas obesity killed 3 million."

Still no official pronouncements on animal agriculture and the severe impact to 20% of green house emissions. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Green tea is bad because we said so, and vaping is bad because of nicotine.  Caffeine is ok because i'm the president of BYU and I like diet-coke, creatine is bad because I read an article on buzzfeed.  How many talks in general conference on the dangers of obesity or the laziness of mormon junk food "refreshments"? 

I'm ok with the church replacing the outdated sec89 with an annual healthy living prospectus written by nutritionists/medical professionals.

From Harari's homo deus,

"In 2014 more than 2.1 billion people were overweight, compared to 850 million who suffered from malnutrition. Half of humankind is expected to be overweight by 2030. In 2010 famine and malnutrition combined killed about 1 million people, whereas obesity killed 3 million."

Still no official pronouncements on animal agriculture and the severe impact to 20% of green house emissions. 

 

Nutritionists and medical professionals cannot decide what healthy living is like. I was in one Stake where one of the Stake annual goals was to get healthier. We had a lot of obese people so kind of understandable.

Kind of like this place:

dc75e9507d8b240afc16afb5c432f10a.png

We also cannot just throw out revelation and replace with secular science.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm ok with the church replacing the outdated sec89 with an annual healthy living prospectus written by nutritionists/medical professionals.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to wait on further revelation from the Lord.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Thanks,

-Smac

What part of the Word of Wisdom is violated? This sounds very much like the silliness that some used to say that Coca-Cola was against the WofW.

To be clear, it is pretty evident that vaping is horrible for one's health. My wife and I just listened to the news that reported young people being seriously affected by vaping - their lungs have been affected by them requiring oxygen just to catch their breath, etc. The doctors don't seem willing to say how long term these affects will be, but after just a short time vaping these young people have been harmed. However, determining that something is bad for one's health does not equate to being against the WofW. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, blueglass said:

  How many talks in general conference on the dangers of obesity or the laziness of mormon junk food "refreshments"?

There are a number (not huge, but over the years a good collection) of articles referring to overeating in the church magazines and news and now perpetually online accessible just as this one was for vaping, starting with this one in 75 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/06/i-have-a-question/shouldnt-it-also-be-a-sin-to-overeat.html?lang=eng and most recent probably this short one in 15 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2015/03/encircled-in-his-gentle-arms/victory-through-jesus-christ?lang=eng as well as this longer one two months earlier https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/study-finds-best-motivator-for-teen-weight-loss?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What part of the Word of Wisdom is violated?

The same part, I think, that prohibits meth and heroin.

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This sounds very much like the silliness that some used to say that Coca-Cola was against the WofW.

Did you read the article?  Did you review the potential risks associated with vaping?

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

To be clear, it is pretty evident that vaping is horrible for one's health.

Then why are you labeling guidance against it as "silliness?"

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My wife and I just listened to the news that reported young people being seriously affected by vaping - their lungs have been affected by them requiring oxygen just to catch their breath, etc. The doctors don't seem willing to say how long term these affects will be, but after just a short time vaping these young people have been harmed. However, determining that something is bad for one's health does not equate to being against the WofW. 

I don't understand this.  Isn't the Word of Wisdom intended to help us lead healthier lives?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are a number (not huge, but over the years a good collection) of articles referring to overeating in the church magazines and news and now perpetually online accessible just as this one was for vaping, starting with this one in 75 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/06/i-have-a-question/shouldnt-it-also-be-a-sin-to-overeat.html?lang=eng and most recent probably this short one in 15 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2015/03/encircled-in-his-gentle-arms/victory-through-jesus-christ?lang=eng as well as this longer one two months earlier https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/study-finds-best-motivator-for-teen-weight-loss?lang=eng

These are not general conference talks.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Wouldn't touch the stuff regardless, but what if the vapor contains no nicotine?  Don't know why anyone would do it in that case, but...

Not that I think you're an official source...

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Green tea is bad because we said so,

Green tea is the same stuff as black tea -- just processed differently.  The plant camellia sinensis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The same part, I think, that prohibits meth and heroin.

Did you read the article?  Did you review the potential risks associated with vaping?

Then why are you labeling guidance against it as "silliness?"

I don't understand this.  Isn't the Word of Wisdom intended to help us lead healthier lives?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I strongly support making recommendations to our youth about the dangers of social activities that have detrimental effects to their health. What I am against is distorting the WofW in order to add a further impact to this type of good counsel. 

I don't like to lie nor do I like to mislead. Teach the Word of Wisdom just as it is - it is very clear. The Word of Wisdom has nothing to do with illegal drugs nor does it have anything to do with vaping. There is a spiritual law that we practice by direction of the First Presidency and then there are health recommendations that doctors make, which may also be supported by Church.  I may not be explaining myself clearly, but do you see the distinction I am making?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I contacted the church’s public affairs department about it, and received the response that “church magazines are official publications and do represent the views of the church.”

Well now that we have that settled...

Quote

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Quote

From the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years (see D&C 77:6).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth “abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1980/09/the-gospel-and-the-scientific-view-how-earth-came-to-be?lang=eng

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just read the article and I disagree with that second clause. I will ignore any individual that distorts scripture to include things they want to emphasize as being bad. It is overly and abundantly clear that addictive substances are not good for the body, they have nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom.  I have read that section countless times and it does not say any such thing. Those leaders that have attempted such have spoken as humans and not as prophets.  They may have desperately wanted to the best for the health of the saints, but attempting to make the Word of Wisdom say something that it doesn't is unacceptable to me. 

That is the reason I said the drivel that I have heard from individuals about not drinking a coke or Dr. Pepper has always angered me - that it is against the Word of Wisdom specifically. When the scriptures are so clearly, easily understood by reading the actual text, I certainly don't think any saint should listen to those that distort, exaggerate or anything other thing when it comes to scripture.  We, and leaders in particular, must separate what scriptures say and what they do not say.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, blueglass said:

These are not general conference talks.

Is there a general conference talk on vaping? Or creatine?  Did I miss your point?  Do you think there should be, but are not?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Well now that we have that settled...

 

Don't forget the church manuals.

Quote

The Flood and subsequent cataclysms drastically changed the topography and geography of the earth. The descendants of Noah evidently named some rivers, and perhaps other landmarks, after places they had known before the Flood. This theory would explain why rivers in Mesopotamia now bear the names of rivers originally on the American continent. It is also possible that some present river systems are remnants of the antediluvian river systems on the one great continent that existed then 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/32489_eng.pdf?icid=osd

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Green tea is the same stuff as black tea -- just processed differently.  The plant camellia sinensis.

Yep.  I thought Jana Riess's complaints about the Church's position on this to be . . . odd:

Quote

I can’t give the same ringing endorsement to the church’s prohibition of another popular substance, green tea, in the same New Era article. It states:

“Green tea and black tea are both made from the leaves of the exact same tea plant. The only difference is that the leaves in black tea are fermented and in green tea they’re not. They’re both tea and they’re both against the Word of Wisdom.”

I’m not a tea drinker myself, but this official explanation feels strange and inadequate.

Prohibiting green tea is bizarre from a health standpoint. While the research is not conclusive, some studies have shown that tea’s antioxidants may fight cell damage and even cancer. Daily consumption has been linked to lower rates of Alzheimer’s disease, improved working memory and brain function, and reduced plaque in the arteries. And yet the explanation given for the church’s prohibition of green tea is essentially a guilt-by-association rationale that it’s bad because it is derived from the same plant as black tea. What gives?

I wonder if she also finds time to complaint about the Jewish/Muslim prohibition against pork.  Has she characterized that as "bizarre?"

Moreover, what's with the "guilt-by-association" thing?  If the prohibition is against tea (as in camellia sinensis), then what difference does it make, from a WoW perspective, as to how the tea leaves are processed (black tea is oxidized, green tea is not)?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Smac, I strongly support making recommendations to our youth about the dangers of social activities that have detrimental effects to their health. What I am against is distorting the WofW in order to add a further impact to this type of good counsel. 

How is teaching our youth to avoid a dangerous substance "distorting the WofW?"

I really do not understand your position here.

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't like to lie nor do I like to mislead. Teach the Word of Wisdom just as it is - it is very clear.

Where in the Word of Wisdom does it proscribe marijuana?  Cocaine?  Meth?  Heroin?  Vaping?  Abuse of prescribed meds?

I think the general purpose of the Word of Wisdom is clear, but surely there are some things that might fall into a "gray area?"  Vaping?  Kava?  

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The Word of Wisdom has nothing to do with illegal drugs nor does it have anything to do with vaping.

With respect, I disagree.  I think it has a lot to do with illegal drugs, and vaping.

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

There is a spiritual law that we practice by direction of the First Presidency and then there are health recommendations that doctors make, which may also be supported by Church.  I may not be explaining myself clearly, but do you see the distinction I am making?

Nope.  Sorry.  I'm not being obtuse.  I just do not understand your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Would you rather catch your kids drinking energy drinks or tea?

 

My point is, if we can interpret the WoW to cover what are obviously bad habits like vaping, can it also be reinterpreted to cover something that is, when used in moderation, a healthy drink?

Which of those are "healthy"?

Herbal tea, yes of course.  I have orders from my Doc to avoid caffeine- so neither of those are "healthy" for me and I would argue for anyone since both can lead to heart problems- irregular heart beat, elevated blood pressure,  due to caffeine.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...