Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not hot drinks, it's coffee and tea.  So iced tea is okay?  No, it's the addictive and problematic substance caffeine that is what we should avoid.  So many members (myself included) thought that caffeinated soda was prohibited by the Word of Wisdom.  I once had a bishop's interview as a teenager where my bishop compared my drinking a pepsi that was served to me at school with drinking a beer at a party.  Now it turns out that it isn't the caffeine and it's still not the temperature at which it is served... its the plants from which it is derived.

As I said, the "it's tea and coffee" is from the beginning. So there's tons of consistency there. The question is more the boundary conditions which are more ambiguous. A point I've tried to make repeatedly is that this will be a problem with any criteria. You always have ambiguities in boundary conditions. It's an unavoidable aspects of language and reference.

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Doesn't sound like we're letting members make such an interpretation.

Ultimately that's the real issue. Who decides when a person is worthy? For the most part I think we do let members decide. There's very little asking of leading questions or clarifications in the recommend interviews by a Bishop or Stake President. However clearly we recognize people lie and people have misunderstandings. So, to change the topic of worthiness from Word of Wisdom to s**, my Bishop in college complained about people trying to say they were worthy despite having a*** s** or o*** s**. You have to make clarifications at times and the Church has decided to leave that up to Bishops for the most part with counsel not to press too much. (A limited number back in the 80's asked about sexual practice in marriage leading the Church to issue letters to stop)

But fundamentally again this is unavoidable and not even your proposal of explicit clarification and common consent would resolve it. First off you'd end up with the problem of a Mormon Talmud. Second off it's unclear God would give explicit clarification which means you have leaders making decisions that get voted on that then become fixed in stone leading again to a Talmudic problem. Finally you'd not really solve the problem which is clarifying since you won't be able to keep up with all terms or practices.

I think the current solution, while it has its problems, is better than the alternative of spelling everything out. If anything, I think the problem at present is asking questions with members for the most part deciding what they mean. So to me I see it quite inverted from how you see it. Especially given how ignorant most members are of Church teachings. (I was shocked at this recent announcement to find my wife thought green tea was fine and only black tea was prohibited for instance - and she was very confused over whether diet aids were breaking the Word of Wisdom)

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As I said, the "it's tea and coffee" is from the beginning. So there's tons of consistency there. The question is more the boundary conditions which are more ambiguous. A point I've tried to make repeatedly is that this will be a problem with any criteria. You always have ambiguities in boundary conditions. It's an unavoidable aspects of language and reference.

Yes, there will likely always be some ambiguities to the Word of Wisdom.  

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Ultimately that's the real issue. Who decides when a person is worthy? For the most part I think we do let members decide.

I believe that is the Brethren's intent.  Doesn't always end up that way.

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But fundamentally again this is unavoidable and not even your proposal of explicit clarification and common consent would resolve it. First off you'd end up with the problem of a Mormon Talmud. Second off it's unclear God would give explicit clarification which means you have leaders making decisions that get voted on that then become fixed in stone leading again to a Talmudic problem. Finally you'd not really solve the problem which is clarifying since you won't be able to keep up with all terms or practices.

Whoa... explicit clarification and common consent is not my proposal.  My proposal is to cease altering the Lord's revelation.  But if we need to alter it, it should come from the Lord and then be accepted through common consent.  I'm fine with Section 89 as it stands.

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the current solution, while it has its problems, is better than the alternative of spelling everything out. If anything, I think the problem at present is asking questions with members for the most part deciding what they mean. So to me I see it quite inverted from how you see it. Especially given how ignorant most members are of Church teachings. (I was shocked at this recent announcement to find my wife thought green tea was fine and only black tea was prohibited for instance - and she was very confused over whether diet aids were breaking the Word of Wisdom)

I'm not sure why you'd be shocked at that.  IMO, green tea is much more similar to herbal teas than black tea.

Do you feel diet aids are breaking the WoW?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

IMO, green tea is much more similar to herbal teas than black tea.

An opinion to which you're certainly entitled but one that has literally no grounding in botanical facts.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

An opinion to which you're certainly entitled but one that has literally no grounding in botanical facts.

I get that.  Just explaining why @clarkgoble shouldn’t be surprised that his wife didn’t think green tea was prohibited by the WoW.  Prior to participating in this thread, I had no idea green and black tea came from the same plant.

I’m not a tea drinker* so I don’t know much about tea.  I just know the impression that I had for all these years. I’ve learned a lot on the thread. So prior to this discussion, while I wouldn’t have suggested that a church member drink green tea I also wouldn’t have felt inclined to tell them it was not in keeping with the WoW. 

 

* The exception to my lack of tea drinking is Mate that I developed a taste for during my mission and still enjoy from time to time. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Whoa... explicit clarification and common consent is not my proposal.  My proposal is to cease altering the Lord's revelation.  But if we need to alter it, it should come from the Lord and then be accepted through common consent.  I'm fine with Section 89 as it stands.

Oh my apologies then. I was completely misreading you. I think we just disagree over what it means to alter his revelation. Again I don't know the history of illegal drugs (or prescription drug abuse which technically is illegal) and temple recommend interviews. While tied to the Word of Wisdom I suspect it has its own history. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure why you'd be shocked at that.  IMO, green tea is much more similar to herbal teas than black tea.

Do you feel diet aids are breaking the WoW?

I think it depends upon how the diet aids are used. If you're using them medicinally (i.e. as diet aids) then I think they're fine. Much like I think alcohol in medicine as a solvent is fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Oh my apologies then. I was completely misreading you. I think we just disagree over what it means to alter his revelation. Again I don't know the history of illegal drugs (or prescription drug abuse which technically is illegal) and temple recommend interviews. While tied to the Word of Wisdom I suspect it has its own history. 

I think it depends upon how the diet aids are used. If you're using them medicinally (i.e. as diet aids) then I think they're fine. Much like I think alcohol in medicine as a solvent is fine.

 

Understood.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post

On our discussion about medical marijuana, here's an article of what it can really do. Glad the church is allowing members to use this for medical reasons!

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/study-on-cannabis-chemical-as-a-treatment-for-pancreatic-cancer-may-have-major-impact-harvard-researcher-says-165116708.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

On our discussion about medical marijuana, here's an article of what it can really do. Glad the church is allowing members to use this for medical reasons!

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/study-on-cannabis-chemical-as-a-treatment-for-pancreatic-cancer-may-have-major-impact-harvard-researcher-says-165116708.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews

adding to that

American Medical Association

Cannabis with THC and pain management

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/medicinal-cannabis-and-painful-sensory-neuropathy/2013-05

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

On our discussion about medical marijuana, here's an article of what it can really do. Glad the church is allowing members to use this for medical reasons!

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/study-on-cannabis-chemical-as-a-treatment-for-pancreatic-cancer-may-have-major-impact-harvard-researcher-says-165116708.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews

And a caution about how this stuff is becoming modern day snake oil with absurd promises it will help with anything.

This infographic is a couple of months old but click on the malady to get information on what science actually shows:

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-cannabis-the-scientific-evidence-for-medical-marijuana/

Go to the bottom to find where it actually seems to help.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/13/2019 at 3:28 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

Thanks,

-Smac

It would be wonderful if the Church would also be as legalistic and controlling about other substances that are not forbidden that have tragic health consequences. Maybe limiting sugar, meat consumption (oh wait there is something about that but you can eat prime rib and bacon all day long and not be restricted from the temple) and how about obesity, etc. Yet green tea and coffee, both which are proven to have tremendous health benefits will keep you out of the temple.  Who was it who said we should be concerned more about what comes out of the mouth than what goes in?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/13/2019 at 5:34 PM, 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

It is intended to help us live healthier lives when evidence shows that what it prohibits is bad for us (excluding sugar, lots of meat, ice cream and being to darn fat) but when a substance like coffee or green tea is shown to be good for us, as well as a bit of wine or a glass of beer once a day, well then it is about obedience and something that sets us apart.  Nice how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, provoman said:

adding to that

American Medical Association

Cannabis with THC and pain management

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/medicinal-cannabis-and-painful-sensory-neuropathy/2013-05

Thanks for the link, appreciate a positive post. :)

Recently, an attorney whom I know, has come out to say that Utah shouldn't jump to legalization yet since it isn't federally legal. So who knows if my state of Utah is going to back the vote or not, which may be never. It boggles my mind because the other states have gone ahead with it. This was on the news tonight. https://www.ksl.com/article/46622847/special-session-could-loom-to-fix-medical-marijuana-law-utah-governor-says

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It boggles my mind because the other states have gone ahead with it.

How many other states?  And is Utah in the habit of automatically following other states?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Calm said:

How many other states?  And is Utah in the habit of automatically following other states?

Quote

Medical marijuana is legal in 33 U.S. states and the District of Columbia: States that allow restricted use of medical marijuana include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

I think the point is, if the majority of states make medical marijuana legal even if the federal government does not,  seems like a flimsy excuse.  Someone just doesn't want medical marijuana legal in Utah and is trying to use the federal government as an excuse.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the point is, if the majority of states make medical marijuana legal even if the federal government does not,  seems like a flimsy excuse.  Someone just doesn't want medical marijuana legal in Utah and is trying to use the federal government as an excuse.

conform-Yeah-okay-meme-24188.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2SKJlOqBKNdhHMrtsoUO

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHav1m0q33eCIHZsNklvD

 

churchgetwithtimes.jpg

😁

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

conform-Yeah-okay-meme-24188.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2SKJlOqBKNdhHMrtsoUO

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHav1m0q33eCIHZsNklvD

 

Or don't always look to the Federal Government to solve state problems would be a little more accurate.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

churchgetwithtimes.jpg

😁

This last one is interesting. Even when the people of Utah cast a ballot on a measure the Church does not support, when the Church looses an election they STILL try to get the people of Utah to submit to their will by finding an excuse to not implement the LAW.

Why am I so thrilled to not be living in the church controlled state of Utah.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, california boy said:

...in the church controlled state of Utah.

Codswallop.  Twaddle.  Poppycock.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Codswallop.  Twaddle.  Poppycock.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was your meme not mine

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, california boy said:

It was your meme not mine

The meme wasn't about the Church appropriating secular authority.  

And it doesn't.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for the link, appreciate a positive post. :)

Recently, an attorney whom I know, has come out to say that Utah shouldn't jump to legalization yet since it isn't federally legal. So who knows if my state of Utah is going to back the vote or not, which may be never. It boggles my mind because the other states have gone ahead with it. This was on the news tonight. https://www.ksl.com/article/46622847/special-session-could-loom-to-fix-medical-marijuana-law-utah-governor-says

 

You are welcome for the link, I was glad to find that the AMA was supporting medical use of THC.

As for federal law....I consider those types of cautions to be scare tactics; and it just is bothersome.

Medical marijuana is legal in 33 states - how many arrest of legal state law abiding officials or citizens have been arrested in 32 of those states for state legal possession, consumption, or legal distribution?  

 People who promote "the fed is going to get us" have no evidence to offer of it having happened. I really do not understand why Utahians are promoting such fear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

You are welcome for the link, I was glad to find that the AMA was supporting medical use of THC.

As for federal law....I consider those types of cautions to be scare tactics; and it just is bothersome.

Medical marijuana is legal in 33 states - how many arrest of legal state law abiding officials or citizens have been arrested in 32 of those states for state legal possession, consumption, or legal distribution?  

 People who promote "the fed is going to get us" have no evidence to offer of it having happened. I really do not understand why Utahians are promoting such fear.

This may not be as bad as I thought. https://fox13now.com/2019/08/21/utah-to-abandon-state-run-medical-cannabis-dispensaries/?fbclid=IwAR3rJCU-RNdKhQ1Pr_rttD1thL81snoK4MmCGV7171IL8EpWHlU-otqpDCA

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Just fyi:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/08/22/utah-dad-critical/

Quote

Nationwide, more than 150 people in 16 states have developed similar ailments, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The sudden rise in vaping-related illnesses has startled and mystified public health officials as multiple patients report initially mild symptoms that in some cases have escalated into full-blown crises....

Health officials don’t know why there’s a sudden outbreak in Utah and nationwide, or whether the illnesses have been occurring for much longer and have only recently been recognized as potentially tied to vaping.

“We don’t know the cause. It is truly as a result of vaping? That’s what we’re investigating,” Ward said. “It’s such a new phenomenon that it’s really challenging for the clinicians. Nobody has a really good answer at this point.”...

In many cases, patients have reported a gradual onset of breathing difficulty and/or chest pain; some had mild to moderate gastrointestinal illness as well, the CDC said.

Many of the patients nationwide have acknowledged recently using products that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the CDC said, but investigators have not linked any specific product or compound to all the illnesses.

“Is it one source? One flavor? It’s taken them a long time to kind of tease [out] what the culprit is,” said physician Dixie Harris, a pulmonology and critical care specialist at Intermountain Healthcare. “My stance right now, until we really get to the bottom of this: I don’t think anybody should be vaping any oil stuff, whether flavored nicotine, essential oils, marijuana oil."

In lipoid pneumonia cases, like Sean Bills’ illness, oil particles make their way to the tiny air sacs in the lungs, Harris said.

“Our lungs are not designed to dissolve oil,” she said. “If you put enough in, the question is, are you just coating the air sacs so they can’t work?”

But not much is known about other possible causes of vaping-related health problems, she said.

“We worry [that] some of the flavoring can break down into toxic substances. Nicotine can cause irritation, and then you could have inflammation and physical blockage. And the amount of nicotine; are you adding nicotine toxicity, in addition to these other substances?” Harris asked.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2019 at 5:21 PM, snowflake said:

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

Of course we all know about these verses in section 89.  The new era article places meat in the "enjoy - but not too much"  list not the "avoid" column, i.e "pleasing unto me that they should not be used".  Are there any talks in the last 25 years advising to eat meat sparingly or not at all from vs13?  Drink iced tea no temple recommend.  Eat meat every day and confess to the interviewer and they will likely laugh and sign it anyway.  I still think if you follow the wisdom you will be blessed for living it.  Just thinking about climate change.

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190820101601.htm  

”Nicotine-free e-cigarettes can damage blood vessels

Single instance of vaping immediately leads to reduced vascular function

Smoking e-cigarettes, also called vaping, has been marketed as a safe alternative to tobacco cigarettes and is rising in popularity among non-smoking adolescents. However, a single e-cigarette can be harmful to the body's blood vessels -- even when the vapor is entirely nicotine-free -- according to a new study by researchers in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. The results were published today in Radiology.”

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2019 at 1:49 PM, blueglass said:

Are there any talks in the last 25 years advising to eat meat sparingly or not at all from vs13?

I don't know who or what vs13 is. But it is a standard pedagogical technique to emphasise more global corrections first. For example, when I've taught writing to uni students, I've ignored egregious punctuation errors in order to focus on lack of a well-developed argument.

Also, it's now Thursday, and my total meat consumption for the week so far occurred Monday evening. I don't feel limited by the Church's decision to focus on minimal requirements.

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...