Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

The WoW has become an obedience test, not a law health.  That's my only point.

That and the ongoing issues with assumption of revelation vs. revelation.

EqualFarGoldenretriever-mobile.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know if this was a joke that went over my head or just a change in a link- but this link does not seem to go where you intended.

Edit:

Well knowing you I should have guessed and I guess I did sort of...  ;)

My daughter heard the song come on from the other room and she said "Did you get Rick rolled"??

Augh!  Got me!

I do not speak Millenial very well....  ;)

Glad I got someone and I AM NOT A MILLENIAL! I went outside as a child.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

EqualFarGoldenretriever-mobile.jpg

True.

Green tea can be extremely healthy for you AND forbidden as unhealthy by a policy.  Soda can be the greatest nutrition crisis on earth and still be acceptable to a gospel standard of health.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True.

Green tea can be extremely healthy for you AND forbidden as unhealthy by a policy.  Soda can be the greatest nutrition crisis on earth and still be acceptable to a gospel standard of health.

To be fair though green tea is disgusting and forbidding it is an act of kindness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You have no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of coffee consumed is brewed. Many (1/3) drink that black. Those that add sugar add a teaspoon or two. A 12 ounce root beer has 11 teaspoons of sugar!

And Panda Express orange chicken contains quarts of sugar per wok batch...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True.

Green tea can be extremely healthy for you AND forbidden as unhealthy by a policy.  Soda can be the greatest nutrition crisis on earth and still be acceptable to a gospel standard of health.

That is what gets me, energy drinks weren't even mentioned in the latest from the news room. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is what gets me, energy drinks weren't even mentioned in the latest from the news room. 

They've actually been fatal.  Boggles the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, jpv said:

You're my favorite, so it make me sad to see you saying the same talking points as exmos re: soda/coffee.

You know, I want to address this too.  I don't think it's anti/apostate to disagree with doctrine.  I disagree with many current doctrinal positions of the Church.

If I fought against, disobeyed, badmouthed etc maybe.  But I follow the rules and keep my differing opinions to myself at Church.  It's still God's Church, this is still the last dispensation, and God will put the Church back in order in his own good time.

So no Ex-mo here.  Not planning on ever being one either.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is what gets me, energy drinks weren't even mentioned in the latest from the news room. 

 

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They've actually been fatal.  Boggles the mind.

 

Why does anything unhealthy need to be in or added to the Word of Wisdom?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

 

 

Why does anything unhealthy need to be in or added to the Word of Wisdom?

It doesn't.  But it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which semi-healthy things we slap with the sin label while embracing truly unhealthy things as morally ok.

Last I checked hypocrisy was a sin too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It doesn't.  But it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which semi-healthy things we slap with the sin label while embracing truly unhealthy things as morally ok.

Last I checked hypocrisy was a sin too.

 

I don’t see what the WoW has to do with morality though.  It’s not immoral to drink alcohol, for example. 

From my perspective, remembering why we were given the WoW helps me recognize that hypocrisy has nothing to do with how it is practiced. 

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It doesn't.  But it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which semi-healthy things we slap with the sin label while embracing truly unhealthy things as morally ok.

Last I checked hypocrisy was a sin too.

How is that hypocritical?  Don't mind you disagreeing with the Word of Wisdom restrictions. It seems to me we should be healthy in most ways but that the Word of Wisdom just designates a few things that are particularly dangerous when used recreationally. As you noted earlier, part of this is obedience. Which kind of undermines the whole hypocrisy charge. While I get you think only things with immediate negative consequences should be "sins" historically that's just not been the case in religion. God, whether you agree with him or not, asks people to not do certain things. Sometimes without us fully understanding why. I'd add that a rather neglected part of D&C 89 is the conspiracy theory aspect: "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days". So it need not be just about immediate health of the natural item. I'd add secondarily that the history of the Word of Wisdom is the history of people attempting to add or remove things from it. (Caffeine being one obvious example, but sugar has been too)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How is that hypocritical?  Don't mind you disagreeing with the Word of Wisdom restrictions. It seems to me we should be healthy in most ways but that the Word of Wisdom just designates a few things that are particularly dangerous when used recreationally.

And some that are not: coffee and tea come to mind.  So Section 89 doesn’t seem to be exclusively about things that endanger our health. 

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As you noted earlier, part of this is obedience.

Agreed.  So if it is about obedience, why do we continue to feel the need to add things to it without revelation?

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Which kind of undermines the whole hypocrisy charge. While I get you think only things with immediate negative consequences should be "sins" historically that's just not been the case in religion. God, whether you agree with him or not, asks people to not do certain things.

Yes... so let’s stick to letting God do that rather than adding in our own philosophies on the matter. 

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Sometimes without us fully understanding why. I'd add that a rather neglected part of D&C 89 is the conspiracy theory aspect: "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days". So it need not be just about immediate health of the natural item. I'd add secondarily that the history of the Word of Wisdom is the history of people attempting to add or remove things from it. (Caffeine being one obvious example, but sugar has been too)

So let’s put an end to that habit of adding and removing things to Section 89. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Agreed.  So if it is about obedience, why do we continue to feel the need to add things to it without revelation?

How do you know it's done without revelation?

I think *individuals* can take the principle taught in D&C 89 about health and then on their own using the latest scientific evidence try to figure out what they should or shouldn't consume. People will frequently disagree both because of the dire state of dietary science but also because most people can't tell what journals are good or how to statistically interpret results.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So let’s put an end to that habit of adding and removing things to Section 89. 

I think it would be fruitful to clarify that somethings are directives of our latter-day prophets and not properly part of D&C 89. But let's also be clear that tea and coffee are included because of D&C 89.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

How do you know it's done without revelation?

I think it would be fruitful to clarify that somethings are directives of our latter-day prophets and not properly part of D&C 89. But let's also be clear that tea and coffee are included because of D&C 89.

 

If a revelation was given to modify (add, delete, clarify) that revelation should be brought forth and given to the body of the church.  And if we are to adhere to it, it should be accepted through common consent. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

 

Why does anything unhealthy need to be in or added to the Word of Wisdom?

They have been published about in church magazines for about 15 years now and counsel given to avoid them. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Glad I got someone and I AM NOT A MILLENIAL! I went outside as a child.

Well I speak German and am not German either.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The WoW has become an obedience test, not a law of health.  That's my only point.

That and the ongoing issues with assumption of revelation vs. revelation.

And most Starbucks customers don't actually like coffee.  You're right, it's all about the sugar and cream.  I just dislike using hypocritical standards to push a policy while simultaneously claiming it's God's updated word.

Just be honest and admit it's an obedience policy, not a revelatory health law any more.

I don't disagree, but it does also still serve as a social barrier between us and those nasty gentiles out there.

Whether that is good or bad is not for me to judge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/17/2019 at 2:51 PM, Calm said:

She alsgot a hold of a book "The Cure for All Cancers" by some whackjob biochemist named Hulda Clark.  And yes, the woman was an actual PhD biochemist, so she should have known better.  Either that or she was delusional.  Anyway, this whackjob wrote this book, and my wife was going to follow her program, which included a "medical device" that could be bought on the internet (or built yourself if you could do basic electronics assembly). So I read the first chapter of the whackjob's book: it was complete and utter crap.  But, to give credit where it is due, it was well-written, sounded scientifically literate (she was a PhD, after all), included lots of nifty diagrams, and looked quite believable.  IF, and this is a really big IF, you were unable to look things up on the internet and were critical-thinking impaired.  As apparently quite a few people are.“

My Mom is one of them, though it was more experimental than swear by it. She believed you could find truth anywhere so she assumed truth was everywhere. And if the person was sincere and told a story of overcoming odds, well she trusted because she is a good woman with a good heart and can’t imagine why someone would scam others in her gut even if intellectually she accepts it.  She kept herself functional by focusing the n the basics of good nutrition and keeping physically active. The other stuff she tried to see if it would help make things easier just as she would try what the doctors suggested.  She went the route of alternative as well because some of what traditional treatments went horribly wrong.  I think I finally dumped the machine she gave me for getting rid of the parasites (yeah, I argued it would work, but she is not trained in science so someone nice telling her it did work meant as much...especially since she had miracles occur with priesthood blessings which science would say wouldn’t work either and yet did.  That plus the mistakes science trained doctors made on her, she knew science didn’t know everything. 

My wife didn't want to spend the money for buying a ready-made Zapper (yes, that is what Dr. Clark called it), so since I was an electronics technician before I was a programmer, I got the components and built one for her from scratch, according to the published plans.  This happened long before the cancer was diagnosed, by the way.  The Zapper was nothing more than a square-wave generator operating at the frequency of 528 Hz.  This frequency is sometimes called the "Love Frequency" and has been claimed to be able to clean water of bad stuff, make people feel good, and you name it.  It's complete and utter pseudoscience.

People make money with this stuff, if you Google it you can find plenty of retailers online selling these and other devices for which outlandish claims are made.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, rockpond said:

If a revelation was given to modify (add, delete, clarify) that revelation should be brought forth and given to the body of the church.  And if we are to adhere to it, it should be accepted through common consent. 

Why? (Not trying to be snarky - genuinely curious) I should note that I don't think this applies in the current WoW case since it's clearly just clarifying existing practice. There's really nothing new here. Just people hoping coffee would be taken off the list. 

The reason I think it's less clear than you seem to is the history of how it became more dominant. At first it became a criteria for leaders. That is people who weren't keeping the Word of Wisdom weren't considered for leadership. That seems the way a lot of this develops. It's not necessarily a requirement for everyone in the sense of being a general restriction but it's looked at as something that's been warned about in talks and then people are seen as less problematic. That seems an unavoidable aspect. So say while racism has been condemned in conference and arguably you could point to scriptures with that implication, there's nothing talking about inappropriate jokes. (Which is on a blurry line) Yet if a GA knew a person told inappropriate jokes they would probably not be considered for a calling.

Part of the key issue seems to be temple worthiness. Historically that's been a complex judgment. You see that in how it became an issue with the Word of Wisdom. Originally Bishops just judged who was worthy without clear criteria. WoW was strongly suggested as something to consider but not really a criteria until 1921. 

It seems to me that the issue is these worthiness interviews and the relationship to scripture. I recognize some really don't like worthiness interviews - particularly the way Bishops have a fair bit of leeway.

I think that in practice the other issue is simply the problem of the early Church. What is or isn't inspired is a bit unclear when records weren't always kept in a systematic way. Even if you think they should be treated systematically you have the problem of what to do with 19th century teaching. Clearly that's how the priesthood ban came into effect. There's a de facto burden of proof going against existing practice simply because one isn't clear what is or isn't inspired versus merely trying to run things as best one can. This gets into the fact that as a practical matter a leader has to figure out what do to to try and guide the church, even when there's no clear revelation on a subject.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It doesn't.  But it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which semi-healthy things we slap with the sin label while embracing truly unhealthy things as morally ok.

Last I checked hypocrisy was a sin too.

But that's covered elsewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, rockpond said:

If a revelation was given to modify (add, delete, clarify) that revelation should be brought forth and given to the body of the church.  And if we are to adhere to it, it should be accepted through common consent. 

Inspired interpretations and counsel needn't be brought forth for common consent retrospectively. We do that proactively, as when we sustain those who come up with them. One can still choose his own interpretation (inspired or not) when answering whether he keeps the Word of Wisdom, and those he answers to sustains that yes-or-no answer. Unless they are inspired otherwise...

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And Panda Express orange chicken contains quarts of sugar per wok batch...

Maybe, but it is wonderful!

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I speak German and am not German either.  ;)

 

Not a German eh? Well, we have ways to make sure of that:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They've actually been fatal.  Boggles the mind.

One of my bishops told me his father almost died after drinking too many Monsters.  Which is my favorite energy drink, at least the "Monster Assault" flavor. 

I don't know what "too many" was in this case, however.  When I drink the things I restrict myself to no more than 2 per day, and that rather seldom.

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...