Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here's your evidence, youtube below, and hopefully you'll be open to watching the full documentary on netflix. And here's another studyhttps://www.rxleaf.com/neuroblastoma-cells-are-killed-by-cbd-making-it-a-possible-cancer-treatment/?fbclid=IwAR30fkTCRuDja7kUmzJf1Owce3jaJWhrZ-8oMCakK_QPSyWZoui7yFRqf6c:  Also, as I've mentioned before, I'm on a FB group called, Cannabis Oil Success Stories. Recently a woman posted how it reduced her husband's tumor. Her post: 

I haven't been on here in a long time. Many months. But I have some REALLY GOOD NEWS and I want to share it with all of you.

My husband was diagnosed with liver cancer in August, 2017. All the doctors said he had "a few months, at best" to live. Because he was not eligible for a transplant or any other medical treatment other than chemo we agreed he would not go that route. So he has had zero medical treatments other than pain relief.

What we did do was start him on Cannabis oil. At first he took 1 capsule of thc oil combined with coconut oil twice a day. I am guessing it was about a gram total. The very day he started taking it he said the pain was better. He had a cutting, burning pain in his stomach, liver area and it was gone. However it would return after the medicine wore off. So over time we increased his dosage and now he is up to around 5 grams per day. That's a whole lot and it is very expensive which makes me so angry and sad., It should be given to everyone who wants to take it for treatment.

Anyway...my news is this. When he was first diagnosed with a liver scan they found the main tumor was 12.5 cm. Hospice insisted that he go have another scan because he has been a Hospice patient for 1.5 years. The results came back and THE TUMOR IS NOW 11.1 cm!!! None of the medical people can believe it! I have no investments and I do not sell or profit from what I am telling you. This is the absolute truth.

Of course I do not have any idea what the results would be for someone else. We have been on a healthy diet, but not to the extreme. The only thing he has done is take the oil and pain medication. I hope this helps someone out there. I was a skeptic. My husband was the one that thought it would help him. After the first dose and I could see the change in him I started to believe. Now after 2 years and with the news we got today about the tumor I am a firm believer.

Everyone who has someone they love who has cancer (and who doesn't at this point?) should contact their lawmakers and insist that Cannabis Oil be paid for by insurance and the Federal Government should change their schedule 1 of Marijuana. That is a big lie in itself. Vote for those who support Cannabis. And if you can find a way to get the oil or make it yourself (it's easy...look on Youtube) I believe it will help fight the cancer.

I don't know what the future holds. My husband is a long way from being cured. But the relief he has gotten from the oil and now the shrinkage of a cancer tumor is a big success.

I wish all of you the best.

 
 

 

If a bunch of UFO enthusiasts go up on a hill at night to spot UFOs they always see UFOs.

There is a reason controlled studies are the gold standard.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I struggle to believe these kinds of stories.  The last one that i read (where the guy went public teaching that marijuana cured his cancer), the guy died of the cancer he had cured two years later.  I appreciate that the woman, sharing her story, acknowledges that she has no idea what caused her husband's relief.   

In the end, anecdotes can't compete with actually scientific research and trials.  Science has shown that TCH helps a lot with some cancer-treatment related problems, but it's not a miracle drug.

Dr. Donald Abrams, one of the earliest pioneers of cannabis research in supportive care, Professor of Clinical Medicine at University of California San Francisco and general oncologist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, shared his clinical experience with medical cannabis in the state that first legalized it in 1996:

“As an oncologist in San Francisco for the past thirty-three years, I often say that I would venture to guess that the majority of the patients I have cared for have used cannabis during their treatment. Thus if cannabis cured cancer, I would have a lot more survivors. Granted, the plasma concentration of inhaled cannabis, as most of my patients have likely used in the past probably does not approach that which can be achieved with the highly concentrated oil preparations (no data available on this as of yet), but still, oncologists maintain that the plural of anecdote is not evidence! What saddens and disturbs me the most is when I see a patient in consultation with a potentially curable malignancy who is foregoing conventional cancer therapy in hopes that cannabis oil will be a kinder, gentler treatment. The fact remains that there is no evidence at this time to support such a decision.”

Dr. Abrams concludes, “That being said, what we do know is that cannabis is truly an amazing medicine for many cancer and treatment-related side effects — nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia.”

And this. People lie on the Internet all the time. A preponderance of anecdotes is not evidence, especially when there are so many people with a vested financial interest in legalization. Add in a bunch of people who want it to be legal for personal reasons and you have a perfect environment for pseudoscience.

Always be extra skeptical of questionable evidence that supports something you want to believe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect, if stargazer is still with us in 40 years (107 ish years old per his profile) I don’t think he’ll be regretting it...

HA ! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would be surprised.

As much as I wish members were wise enough to make their own decisions in general we have a few who will run to anything that is not explicitly forbidden because “it cannot be that bad if it is not against the Word of Wisdom”. I literally heard that in church once. I pointed out that chugging Drano was not against the Word of Wisdom, just against Wisdom. I got a dirty look.

Isn't that part of the problem when the Church creates this list of what to do and what not to do?  The Church does the thinking for them so they don't have to decide for themselves.  It seems lazy to me.

Share this post


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

Isn't that part of the problem when the Church creates this list of what to do and what not to do?  The Church does the thinking for them so they don't have to decide for themselves.  It seems lazy to me.

It seems to me the issue is temple recommends and what is meant by the questions about the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom of the recommend interview seems clearly different in certain ways from D&C 89 although they're clearly related. Clarifying what is meant - particularly to new members - seems important to do. There's still tons of room to decide things for oneself. For instance do you eat chocolate cake in a restaurant? Most add ground coffee as part of the recipe. What about extracts or cherries preserved in alcohol? What about liquid over the counter medicines which typically have a lot of alcohol in them? What about sauces when eating out, most of which are made with wine or other alcohol. What about weight loss supplements, many of which have green tea. What about vinegar that has a certain amount of alcohol in (not a lot but some). What about koubacha which has alcohol in it? One could go on.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me the issue is temple recommends and what is meant by the questions about the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom of the recommend interview seems clearly different in certain ways from D&C 89 although they're clearly related. Clarifying what is meant - particularly to new members - seems important to do. There's still tons of room to decide things for oneself. For instance do you eat chocolate cake in a restaurant? Most add ground coffee as part of the recipe. What about extracts or cherries preserved in alcohol? What about liquid over the counter medicines which typically have a lot of alcohol in them? What about sauces when eating out, most of which are made with wine or other alcohol. What about weight loss supplements, many of which have green tea. What about vinegar that has a certain amount of alcohol in (not a lot but some). What about koubacha which has alcohol in it? One could go on.

 

And on and on and on....

And because it can go on and on, I do not press the issue with others and how the decide to live the WoW. I do not drink alcoholic beverages for recreation purposes; I do "drink" (intake by mouth and swallow) medicine which contains alcohol; I do eat beer-battered food.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me the issue is temple recommends and what is meant by the questions about the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom of the recommend interview seems clearly different in certain ways from D&C 89 although they're clearly related. Clarifying what is meant - particularly to new members - seems important to do. There's still tons of room to decide things for oneself. For instance do you eat chocolate cake in a restaurant? Most add ground coffee as part of the recipe. What about extracts or cherries preserved in alcohol? What about liquid over the counter medicines which typically have a lot of alcohol in them? What about sauces when eating out, most of which are made with wine or other alcohol. What about weight loss supplements, many of which have green tea. What about vinegar that has a certain amount of alcohol in (not a lot but some). What about koubacha which has alcohol in it? One could go on.

 

If you are worried about eating chocolate cake, perhaps you are focusing on the wrong things.  Why is a health code even a part of deciding ones worthiness to go to the temple?  Is any of those restrictions really. that important that it should keep one from attending?  Other than the fact that Church leaders have made it an issue of worthiness.  I just don't see standing before God and saying, "I never had coffee, so I deserve to get into heaven."  What do you think God's respone to that would be?

In all fairness, I never even questioned any of this when I was a member.  It is just what we did.  But maybe our focus on what the Gospel of Christ really was got lost in all the rules.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


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

If you are worried about eating chocolate cake, perhaps you are focusing on the wrong things.  Why is a health code even a part of deciding ones worthiness to go to the temple?  Is any of those restrictions really. that important that it should keep one from attending?  Other than the fact that Church leaders have made it an issue of worthiness.  I just don't see standing before God and saying, "I never had coffee, so I deserve to get into heaven."  What do you think God's respone to that would be?

In all fairness, I never even questioned any of this when I was a member.  It is just what we did.  But maybe our focus on what the Gospel of Christ really was got lost in all the rules.

I think you missed the point of that list which is even clear commands have unclear boundary cases. For the record I don't care about restaurant cake, cherries, or sauces typically. And I'll occasionally drink kobacha and vinegar for the effect on gut flora.

As for worthiness, if part of this life is learning obedience to God, then some commands that we don't fully understand may be important to follow. If everything were obvious it wouldn't be much of a test nor a way to develop our character in a place of ignorance.  

As to why God does that, I think he's trying to teach us something. I'm constantly reminded of the old story of David Lee Roth of Van Halen. He'd make a list of demands for a venue and one of the demands would be the ridiculous one of a bowl of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed. He'd actually check this every time. It turned out that the reason he did this was because their shows had a lot of dangerous special effects where people could and did get injured if things were prepared right. The test was to see how careful and conscientious the staff at the venue were. If they didn't do the M&Ms because they didn't understand what was going on, they almost certainly wouldn't do properly all the rigging and so forth. The particular test of obedience was arbitrary but was ultimately more about something deeper.

While some elements of the Word of Wisdom really were practical and about health, I think in practice it is to help us have something obvious and easy to learn obedience. Not, as with Roth, as a way for God to know if we have that character, but for us to come and understand. It's developing a key aspect of our personality in the midsts of a biological personality and ignorance.

For the record, I'm convinced that "hot drinks" in the original D&C 89 was about literally hot drinks and thus would include hot possum and other such things. However I think how the Word of Wisdom became transformed in the 1920s & 30s was both about the danger of conspiring minds using alcohol, tobacco and so forth (all mostly demonstrable IMO) but also creating separation signifiers for our community. What had once separated us had mostly disappeared (primarily marriage and economic orders) and we had something to replace it. I think that also was and remains an important element. (I think garments function in a similar way although I think they have other functions)

In saying all that I recognize that for many, especially of the upcoming generation, the very idea of obedience as a good is intrinsically denied and sometimes found repellant. I disagree and think culturally we're coming to have to problematic attitudes. People are coming to see only what is immediately useful to the Individual in an obvious way as of value.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Isn't that part of the problem when the Church creates this list of what to do and what not to do?  The Church does the thinking for them so they don't have to decide for themselves.  It seems lazy to me.

This whole issue is somewhat indicative of laziness:

Why is the Church adding things to the WoW without any hint of them being revealed?  We're taking a revelation and adding to it with the philosophies of men.  Why?  I dunno... maybe so that we can use it as an easy way to tell our children (and fellow members) that they can't partake of certain things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me the issue is temple recommends and what is meant by the questions about the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom of the recommend interview seems clearly different in certain ways from D&C 89 although they're clearly related. Clarifying what is meant - particularly to new members - seems important to do. There's still tons of room to decide things for oneself. For instance do you eat chocolate cake in a restaurant? Most add ground coffee as part of the recipe. What about extracts or cherries preserved in alcohol? What about liquid over the counter medicines which typically have a lot of alcohol in them? What about sauces when eating out, most of which are made with wine or other alcohol. What about weight loss supplements, many of which have green tea. What about vinegar that has a certain amount of alcohol in (not a lot but some). What about koubacha which has alcohol in it? One could go on.

 

"Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?"

That's all that asked and we're instructed not to add to it. It's up to the members to use their knowledge, faith, and testimony to answer it.

Technically, the answer is irrelevant.  It's not a commandment so a "no" answer to that question isn't (in and of itself) a reason to deny a recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

...hot possum....

Oh yeah! YUM! ;);)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?"

That's all that asked and we're instructed not to add to it. It's up to the members to use their knowledge, faith, and testimony to answer it.

Technically, the answer is irrelevant.  It's not a commandment so a "no" answer to that question isn't (in and of itself) a reason to deny a recommend.

Historically Bishops have withdrawn recommends when they know someone is violating in big ways the Word of Wisdom. That may not be as common at present but it certainly was common when I was younger. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Historically Bishops have withdrawn recommends when they know someone is violating in big ways the Word of Wisdom. That may not be as common at present but it certainly was common when I was younger. 

Fortunately, I never had anyone say "no" to that question so I don't know how I would have handled it.  I would have had to follow the Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Isn't that part of the problem when the Church creates this list of what to do and what not to do?  The Church does the thinking for them so they don't have to decide for themselves.  It seems lazy to me.

It is but the members demand it and, in the case of a youth trend like vaping, I can see being a little more explicit. The judgement center in teen brains is still in the oven and not quite done.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If you are worried about eating chocolate cake, perhaps you are focusing on the wrong things.  Why is a health code even a part of deciding ones worthiness to go to the temple?  Is any of those restrictions really. that important that it should keep one from attending?  Other than the fact that Church leaders have made it an issue of worthiness.  I just don't see standing before God and saying, "I never had coffee, so I deserve to get into heaven."  What do you think God's respone to that would be?

In all fairness, I never even questioned any of this when I was a member.  It is just what we did.  But maybe our focus on what the Gospel of Christ really was got lost in all the rules.

I think if you stood before God and said that his response would be to ask how you did on the other commandments. When you point out the ones you did not keep perfectly he would ask if that failure led you to Christ’s atonement.

While obedience to the commandments is important it is even more important that the attempts to keep those commandments lead you to the Savior. Anyone who seriously and honestly attempts to keep all the commandments finds themself coming up short. This can lead to despair or to a true understanding of the atonement and how the commandments are set up in a way so that only with the Savior’s help can we ever keep them. I do wonder if the simple questions in the Temple Recommend process are designed that way for this reason. They are not difficult to answer one way or the other. If you asked me if I was sufficiently bearing the burdens of my neighbor or whether I was filled with charity for God and all men I would have to think a lot and probably answer no. Instead we have some commandments that are relatively simple and concrete yes/no inquiries. Maybe the Temple Recommend questions are more of a test of: “Are you trying to live the commandments sufficiently to tackle the simple ones so that you will/are/have turned to Christ to make you whole and capable of obeying all the commandments?” The Law of carnal commandments is still the schoolmaster to Christ even if it is not as strict and time consuming as the Law of the Torah from Sinai.

As to how random the commandments seem I suspect that this world is the only one in all of creation that fell this far. It is oddball. It should feel constricting and almost nonsensical. It almost explains why so many who come here are so debilitated. I will stop before I veer off into probable heresy. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Historically Bishops have withdrawn recommends when they know someone is violating in big ways the Word of Wisdom. That may not be as common at present but it certainly was common when I was younger. 

Bishops can deactivate recommends electronically now and it does happen occasionally.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you look back in 40 years and say "oops, I wish I had not used it...." will you regret it?

I'm 100+ lbs overweight. Do I regret this? Yes. Will I regret using caffeine in 40 years? Nope. I'll be dead and possibly resurrected by then. I'd be 107 years old if I survived 40 years, and that would actually militate for caffeine having not been a problem after all.

What could make me regret it, though? Absent a health sensitivity which I don't have, damage from moderate intake of caffeine isn't cumulative like smoking, for example. As far as I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

After about 90 he will probably wish he drank more to hurry up passage through the veil. I know I probably will.

After my wife died I wouldn't have minded following her quickly. Now not so much, as I have someone to live for again.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

After my wife died I wouldn't have minded following her quickly. Now not so much, as I have someone to live for again.

I envy you. As much as I like my sugar gliders they alone are not an enticement to long life. Oh boy, am I becoming the male equivalent of a crazy cat lady?

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is but the members demand it and, in the case of a youth trend like vaping, I can see being a little more explicit. The judgement center in teen brains is still in the oven and not quite done.

Is this sufficient reason for hijacking the Word of Wisdom and claiming it says something that it doesn't?

I ask because the prevailing attitude here seems to be:

1)  If something isn't necessarily unhealthy but is prohibited by the WoW, than it's just something the Lord is asking us to do for reasons that are His.

And 

2)  If something is unhealthy and/or addictive, it obviously falls under the prohibitions of the WoW.

 

Section 89 is a revelation from the Lord.  If He wants to add something to it, isn't He capable of doing that?

And, if something is unhealthy and/or addictive, aren't we capable of abstaining (and teaching our children to abstain) without it needing to be a part of the WoW?

 

[I welcome responses to these questions from anyone.  Genuinely curious of others' thoughts on this.]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is this sufficient reason for hijacking the Word of Wisdom and claiming it says something that it doesn't?

I ask because the prevailing attitude here seems to be:

1)  If something isn't necessarily unhealthy but is prohibited by the WoW, than it's just something the Lord is asking us to do for reasons that are His.

And 

2)  If something is unhealthy and/or addictive, it obviously falls under the prohibitions of the WoW.

 

Section 89 is a revelation from the Lord.  If He wants to add something to it, isn't He capable of doing that?

And, if something is unhealthy and/or addictive, aren't we capable of abstaining (and teaching our children to abstain) without it needing to be a part of the WoW?

 

[I welcome responses to these questions from anyone.  Genuinely curious of others' thoughts on this.]

The Word of Wisdom is an evolving thing. Of course God could add directly to it. He has chosen not to.

Plus, quite honestly, vaping is tobacco use in the body. It was already prohibited.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Word of Wisdom is an evolving thing.

It is?  And the Lord said that where?

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Of course God could add directly to it. He has chosen not to.

I agree.  So why do we keep adding to it...

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Plus, quite honestly, vaping is tobacco use in the body. It was already prohibited.

Vaping is not tobacco.  Many (most?) vape juices have nicotine, but not all.

So if the Lord has chosen not to add to the WoW, why are you?  And why is the Church doing so in the New Era and through the Newsroom?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I envy you. As much as I like my sugar gliders they alone are not an enticement to long life. Oh boy, am I becoming the male equivalent of a crazy cat lady?

Well, hey!  At least you have sugar gliders! :huh: :unknw: 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is?  And the Lord said that where?

I agree.  So why do we keep adding to it...

Vaping is not tobacco.  Many (most?) vape juices have nicotine, but not all.

So if the Lord has chosen not to add to the WoW, why are you?  And why is the Church doing so in the New Era and through the Newsroom?

He said it through his prophets who clarified it.

When I said God did not directly change it I mean he did not directly change the text. I believe he is behind changes.

Fine, vaping is a fun way to dodge the letter of the law and the loophole was closed.

I did not say the lord did not alter the command. I said he did not alter the text.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, hey!  At least you have sugar gliders! :huh: :unknw: 

One of them was really bitey today. I must have ticked him off somehow.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He said it through his prophets who clarified it.

Where?

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When I said God did not directly change it I mean he did not directly change the text. I believe he is behind changes.

So you acknowledge that it has changed?

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fine, vaping is a fun way to dodge the letter of the law and the loophole was closed.

Huh?  Who is talking about dodging anything?  What loophole?

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I did not say the lord did not alter the command. I said he did not alter the text.

So the Lord did not alter the text but you just said he is behind the changes. 

So you are saying that Section 89 hasn’t changed?  I agree. 

But that the WoW has changed?  If the Lord changed it, how do we know?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where?

So you acknowledge that it has changed?

Huh?  Who is talking about dodging anything?  What loophole?

So the Lord did not alter the text but you just said he is behind the changes. 

So you are saying that Section 89 hasn’t changed?  I agree. 

But that the WoW has changed?  If the Lord changed it, how do we know?

We know he changed it because the prophet changed it. You could pray about it I suppose if you think it is the next blood atonement.

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...