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

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

A couple of years ago I had an interesting conversation with a full-time seminary teacher in Utah who told me that a number of his otherwise faithful students had taken up vaping with e-cigarettes. Since I was researching how young adults are (or are not) keeping the standards of the Word of Wisdom, I was keenly interested in, and not a little alarmed by, this development.

“They don’t see it as violating the Word of Wisdom,” the teacher said. Since vaping exposes the user to nicotine but not tobacco, these teenagers viewed it as a healthier alternative to smoking. And some of the available flavors even make vaping sound like it’s beneficial: mango, mint, watermelon and “summer peach” are among the offerings. In the absence of an official prohibition from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, these young people were experimenting.

Not so fast, the church has now clarified. In this month’s edition of the New Era, the official magazine for youths, the church states its position:

“Electronic vaporizers or e-cigarettes are devices people use to inhale mist, usually with various flavors. One study showed that nearly two-thirds of teen e-cigarette users thought that the pods they were vaping contained only flavoring. That’s way, way far from the truth. Most vaping pods contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, and all of them contain harmful chemicals. Vaping is clearly against the Word of Wisdom.”

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.”

So there we have it. Vaping is verboten.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 13, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

Good.  (No points at the moment).  👍

Edited August 13, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

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

[Nacho2dope]

Thanks!

[CA Steve]

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?

[The Nehor]

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.

[MustardSeed]

(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. 

[blueglass]

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. 

 

[The Nehor]

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:

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

[snowflake]

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

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

 

No, just to be precise section 89 talks quite a bit about the consumption of meat. 

[ksfisher]

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.

[Storm Rider]

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. 

[Calm]

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 August 13, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

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

[blueglass]

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.

[Stargazer]

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...

[Stargazer]

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.

[Storm Rider]

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?

[cinepro]

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

 

[Storm Rider]

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, however, 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 and disappointed me - to say those drinks are against the Word of Wisdom specifically. When the scriptures are so clearly, easily understood by reading the actual text, it is error to 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. Our objective is to teach truth and we have no business using scripture to support personal goals. The Word of Wisdom has specific promises that God has given us; if we follow the WofW, we have engaged the Lord by our obedience. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

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 August 13, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

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

[smac97]

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

[smac97]

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

[mfbukowski]

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.