Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

Glad there is finally a reaffirmation, via the New Era, that green tea is against the Word of Wisdom. When green tea became a health food fad years ago, I fear more than a few folks became confused on this point. 

Also, it was interesting for me to learn that green tea and black tea are the same substance except that black tea has been fermented. 

Share this post


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

Also, it was interesting for me to learn that green tea and black tea are the same substance except that black tea has been fermented. 

It's actually just oxidised. Fermented is commonly used in this context, for some reason, implying something like alcoholic fermentation, but it's really just the same process as a cut apple browning from exposure to the air. The leaves are bruised to allow contact with oxygen, and they darken.

It helps, I suspect, that I live in a land of tea. I'm currently five minutes from a tea shop, which is not where people buy brewed drinks but, rather, where one can buy hundreds of different varieties of tea, including some non-tea infusions, and all kinds of pots, cups, strainers, etc. used in the brewing process. I don't recall ever seeing such a thing in America.

In addition, our supermarkets typically have an entire aisle just for tea and tea-like products.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Glad there is finally a reaffirmation, via the New Era, that green tea is against the Word of Wisdom. When green tea became a health food fad years ago, I fear more than a few folks became confused on this point. 

Also, it was interesting for me to learn that green tea and black tea are the same substance except that black tea has been fermented. 

I love how the New Era has got church members rolling that off their tongues like it's insignificant.

You might want to rephrase that to be "green tea and black tea are derived from the same plant but black tea leaves have been fermented."   Since that fermentation or oxidation process produces chemical compounds (polyphenols) I don't know if it's appropriate to call them the same substance.  But I'm not a chemist so I could be wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since that fermentation or oxidation process produces chemical compounds (polyphenols) I don't know if it's appropriate to call them the same substance.

Do you consider bright green guacamole to be the same substance as the brownish green guacamole one takes out of the fridge the next day? That's an identical chemical process.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you consider bright green guacamole to be the same substance as the brownish green guacamole one takes out of the fridge the next day? That's an identical chemical process.

Oxidation is a reaction that causes a chemical change.  So, no, not the same substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, not the same substance.

So what would you call the day-old guacamole since it's not the same substance? Or a cut apple that has browned? Do you have a different name for that too since it's a different substance? Do you have a particular point at which, in your opinion, a cut apple becomes a different substance to a fresh apple?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's actually just oxidised. Fermented is commonly used in this context, for some reason, implying something like alcoholic fermentation, but it's really just the same process as a cut apple browning from exposure to the air. The leaves are bruised to allow contact with oxygen, and they darken.

It helps, I suspect, that I live in a land of tea. I'm currently five minutes from a tea shop, which is not where people buy brewed drinks but, rather, where one can buy hundreds of different varieties of tea, including some non-tea infusions, and all kinds of pots, cups, strainers, etc. used in the brewing process. I don't recall ever seeing such a thing in America.

In addition, our supermarkets typically have an entire aisle just for tea and tea-like products.

Thanks. So green tea is even more identical to black tea than I had understood. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/13/2019 at 3:12 PM, smac97 said:

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

I really do not understand your position here.

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?  

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

The WoW doesn't allude to expanding a sub category under each issue. Furthermore, wasn't the WoW declared commandment nearly 100 years after it was originally given? I heard 1921 but I could be mistaken. Declaring Sec89 a commandment so long after its introduction is odd and highly suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Valentinus said:

The WoW doesn't allude to expanding a sub category under each issue. Furthermore, wasn't the WoW declared commandment nearly 100 years after it was originally given? I heard 1921 but I could be mistaken. Declaring Sec89 a commandment so long after its introduction is odd and highly suspect.

I have always viewed it as a merciful God giving the Latter-day Saints a generation or so to get used to it before making it more rigid. Viewed in that light, it has always made perfect sense to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has always made perfect sense to me. 

I find it interesting how much people don't want God to actually be or act like a Father. My earthly parents were forever updating, shifting emphasis, etc. in order to deal with immediate needs. This is kind of the whole point of having a true and living God who can communicate through prophets.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have always viewed it as a merciful God giving the Latter-day Saints a generation or so to get used to it before making it more rigid. Viewed in that light, it has always made perfect sense to me. 

That's a personal perspective and not theologically canon and therefore does not fit the historical construct. Given the the earliest history that does not make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find it interesting how much people don't want God to actually be or act like a Father. My earthly parents were forever updating, shifting emphasis, etc. in order to deal with immediate needs. This is kind of the whole point of having a true and living God who can communicate through prophets.

I think it is more about being a helicopter parent when the child are grown adults. 

Church leaders seem to be obsessed with micromanaging it’s members far more than the Pharisees even thought about. Is that really part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

A broad statement about treating your body with respect and not taking harmful substances seems way more appropriate IMO.

A person should be able to decide for themselves if coffee or tea or coke or whatever is actually harmful to their bodies. For some, the answer would be yes.  For others no.  Can church members not be trusted, so church leaders have to step in and weigh in on each and every choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is more about being a helicopter parent when the child are grown adults. 

Church leaders seem to be obsessed with micromanaging it’s members far more than the Pharisees even thought about. Is that really part of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

A broad statement about treating your body with respect and not taking harmful substances seems way more appropriate IMO.

A person should be able to decide for themselves if coffee or tea or coke or whatever is actually harmful to their bodies. For some, the answer would be yes.  For others no.  Can church members not be trusted, so church leaders have to step in and weigh in on each and every choice?

But they don’t weigh in on each and every choice. They don’t forbid the consumption of “energy drinks,” for example. Or set hard limits on meat consumption. Or “weigh in” on an infinite number of behavioral matters that are left up to individual discretion based on correct principles. 

Saying the Church “micromanages [its] members far more than the Pharisees even thought about” is overwrought in the extreme.  

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

That's a personal perspective and not theologically canon and therefore does not fit the historical construct. Given the the earliest history that does not make sense.

I just read an address by Brigham Young in which he as Church president clarified and defined what is meant by “hot drinks” in the Word of Wisdom section. Is his instruction as Church president in the early Utah period of Church history not part of the “historical construct”? If not, why not? Also, why wouldn’t the gradual implementation of the Word of Wisdom under the discretion of Church leaders, revered by the people as prophets, not be part of the “historical construct”?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But they don’t weigh in on each and every choice. They don’t forbid the consumption of “energy drinks,” for example. Or set hard limits on meat consumption. Or “weigh in” on an infinite number of behavioral matters that are left up to individual discretion based on correct principles. 

Saying the Church “micromanages [its] members far more than the Pharisees even thought about” is overwrought in the extreme.  

 

In your opinion.  One I don't share.  It would be an interesting exercise to list all the rules the Pharisees had the Jews following and a list of all the rules Church leaders have proclaimed and see which one is longer.  

So here is a challenge.  If you list all the things the Pharisees did to control the behavior of the Jews not found in the scriptures, I will list all the things Church leaders have done to control members behavior not found in scriptures.  We can see which one is longer.  Maybe you will prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, california boy said:

In your opinion.  One I don't share.  It would be an interesting exercise to list all the rules the Pharisees had the Jews following and a list of all the rules Church leaders have proclaimed and see which one is longer.  

So here is a challenge.  If you list all the things the Pharisees did to control the behavior of the Jews not found in the scriptures, I will list all the things Church leaders have done to control members behavior not found in scriptures.  We can see which one is longer.  Maybe you will prove me wrong.

According to Bible.org and other sources I consulted, the Pharisees had a system of 613 laws (not merely advice nor homiletic counsel, but strict laws) that governed the behavior of followers. I’m not going to list them all right now, because I don’t believe you can come up with 613 “things Church leaders have done to <control> members behavior not found in the scriptures” (emphasis mine).

I’ll concede the dozen or so requirements in the temple recommend interview, even though some are open-ended (such as “be honest in your dealings with your fellow men”) and thus not comparable to the specific and rigid pharisaical laws, but beyond that, you are on your own. And bear in mind that, by your own stipulation, these have to be things “not found in scripture.” Also bear in mind that they can’t just be counsel and advice. By your own definition they have to be efforts “to control members’ behavior.”

So go to. When you have come up with 613 separate items that honestly fit the parameters, I’ll try to find a source that specifies all 613 Pharisaical laws. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Can church members not be trusted, so church leaders have to step in and weigh in on each and every choice?

The eternal complaint of the child: Don't you trust me, Dad? Do you really have to weigh in on everything I do? Why can't I make my own choices?

As I said above, we really don't want God to be our Father.

And sometimes we REALLY hate the older siblings who've been tasked with relaying Dad's latest messages and warnings ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The eternal complaint of the child: Don't you trust me, Dad? Do you really have to weigh in on everything I do? Why can't I make my own choices?

As I said above, we really don't want God to be our Father.

And sometimes we REALLY hate the older siblings who've been tasked with relaying Dad's latest messages and warnings ...

As one author put it, we want an amiable Grandpa in Heaven who doesn’t want to put anybody out, who just wants to see the young folks enjoy themselves and whose sole purpose is to see that in the end, “a good time was had by all.”

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As one author put it, we want an amiable Grandpa in Heaven who doesn’t want to put anybody out, who just wants to see the young folks have a good time and whose sole purpose is to see that in the end, “a good time was had by all.”

That's one option. Another seems to be a very limited, almost robotic, God, whose sole job post-creation is to repeat the same message over and over again lest anyone feel unduly burdened by His present concern.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

In your opinion.  One I don't share.  It would be an interesting exercise to list all the rules the Pharisees had the Jews following and a list of all the rules Church leaders have proclaimed and see which one is longer.  

So here is a challenge.  If you list all the things the Pharisees did to control the behavior of the Jews not found in the scriptures, I will list all the things Church leaders have done to control members behavior not found in scriptures.  We can see which one is longer.  Maybe you will prove me wrong.

What is the comparable rule in specifity/details to only walking a certain number of steps on the Sabbath or having two different sets of dishes to avoid cross contamination (kosher practices that may even have two separate kitchens)

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484235/jewish/How-far-am-I-allowed-to-walk-on-Shabbat.htm

There are apparently rules on how to establish a temporary home away from home so you can walk further on the Sabbath.  Also rules on how close two towns must be to be considered one town (since leaving the city boundaries counts in the calculation)

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/82658/jewish/Separating-Meat-Dairy-and-Pareve.htm

kosher involves not only what to eat and what not to eat (comparable), but also extensive and at times costly rules of how to prepare the food as well (not comparable)

(In no way am I ridiculing the strictness of this type of Jewish practices.  I can see great benefit at times creating sacred spaces in one’s life by following precise rules.  It can turn one’s entire life into a sacred ritual dedicated to God).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is the comparable rule in specifity/details to only walking a certain number of steps on the Sabbath or having two different sets of dishes to avoid cross contamination (kosher practices that may even have two separate kitchens)

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484235/jewish/How-far-am-I-allowed-to-walk-on-Shabbat.htm

There are apparently rules on how to establish a temporary home away from home so you can walk further on the Sabbath.  Also rules on how close two towns must be to be considered one town (since leaving the city boundaries counts in the calculation)

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/82658/jewish/Separating-Meat-Dairy-and-Pareve.htm

kosher involves not only what to eat and what not to eat (comparable), but also extensive and at times costly rules of how to prepare the food as well (not comparable)

(In no way am I ridiculing the strictness of this type of Jewish practices.  I can see great benefit at times creating sacred spaces in one’s life by following precise rules.  It can turn one’s entire life into a sacred ritual dedicated to God).

Perhaps I could help him out a bit here by saying some priesthood ordinances, particularly those associated with the temple, require exactness in wording and action, both by the one administering the ordinance and the one receiving it. 

However, even these don’t fit his parameter of being efforts to “control members’ behavior” as participation in them is altogether voluntary. With the exception of baptism and confirmation, they’re not even required for Church membership. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just read an address by Brigham Young in which he as Church president clarified and defined what is meant by “hot drinks” in the Word of Wisdom section. Is his instruction as Church president in the early Utah period of Church history not part of the “historical construct”? If not, why not? Also, why wouldn’t the gradual implementation of the Word of Wisdom under the discretion of Church leaders, revered by the people as prophets, not be part of the “historical construct”?

Sec89, as given by JS, is perfectly cut and dry with no need for presumption, implication or further sub categorization. 

Also...I drink cold brewed tea and cold brewed coffee. Neither a hot drink in any way. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Sec89, as given by JS, is perfectly cut and dry with no need for presumption, implication or further sub categorization. 

Also...I drink cold brewed tea and cold brewed coffee. Neither a hot drink in any way. 

But the same beverages that were most always drunk hot at the time the revelation was given, a point made by Brigham Young in the discourse I cited earlier. 

Furthermore, we in the Church of Jesus Christ are not bibliolaters or holders to any sort of sola scriptura dogma. That is, we don’t worship books or other written records. We believe that living prophets are subject to ongoing revelation that might from time to time alter or adapt instruction that was given in the past. I’m not embarrassed by that belief. On the contrary, I celebrate it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

On the contrary, I celebrate it. 

As do I! Silent (or embarrassed) prophets and/or dead gods are certainly more convenient in many ways, but I revel in our living God and living prophets.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...