Diet

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, JVW said:

I think this is a very good question. My mother was diagnosed earlier this year, at the age of 60, with stage 4 lung cancer and she's probably going to be dead by Christmas. During a conversation with her about a month ago she started crying a bit and asked me, "I've lived the word of wisdom all my life when my friends chose to make other choices. There's no history of cancer in my family, no smoking, drugs, or drinking, and the promise is to walk and not faint and have the destroying angel pass by. Why is this happening to me?" I didn't have an answer and I still don't.

But even ignoring this exceptional case, the word of wisdom is such a nebulous commandment, and the way it's taught is so different from the D&C, it's difficult to know if I'm even living it or not, and who knows what walk and not faint and destroying angel even means?

First of all I am so sorry about your mother. As a two time cancer survivor for me, and twice for my wife, I wonder about this. I lives the WoW most my life and still do really but for tea. I exercise and try to watch what I eat but there was time I was very overweight. I have also lost many friends at young ages to cancer.  My dad was a almost lifetime smoker and a heavy drinker and he never had a spec of cancer till 87 when he got lung cancer and dies quickly. I don't have an answer for your mother other than some things are just random and part of life. And I think the fact we live longer and we also are exposed to toxic chemicals and stuff in our food that comes with modern society. Again I am so sorry for you and for your mother. Virtual hugs for you and her.  

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

It used to be taught that diet soda raises causes insulin resistance due completely to it's sweet taste.  Now science is backing off on that and saying it's not true.  I think that half of our problem in this country is how screwed up our views of food are due to all the 'studies' about what is healthy and what isn't, and all the times those studies have been proven wrong later.

It is true nutritional studies are all over the place. Also, often studies, both now and in the past, are funded by food companies with an agenda. Control studies on what we eat and how it impacts us are also very difficult to do and take a LONG time. 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

No worries mate, I didn’t take it personally, but I see that my reply looks specifically defensive. I am genuinely interested in how foods are affecting me, And how maybe I don’t have to feel guilty with certain things. 
 

I have believed for some time that soy is terrible but recently learned that this might be false info.  
 

Remember when eggs used to be the worst thing you could put in your body? Or butter?  And now eggs are superfood providing the protein that is apparently the hottest trend. 
 

My husband recently saw a nutritionist. He was told to stop intermittent fasting, stop dieting, stop by identifying foods as good and bad, eat four food groups with every meal ( larger meals) and that eventually his cravings will go away, and he will lose weight and reduce his  cholesterol issues.

They didn’t even tell him to stop drinking his energy drinks.

 

 

My doctor told me last year that intermittent fasting was a great way to lose weight.  Even the professionals can't agree!  So annoying.

[MustardSeed]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My doctor told me last year that intermittent fasting was a great way to lose weight.  Even the professionals can't agree!  So annoying.

Agreed. 
I think from my husband specifically it’s a problem because when he skips, he makes up for it later. I am the other hand, when I skip a meal, I don’t make up for it so it serves well for weight loss.
 

[Doctor Steuss]

On 10/29/2024 at 4:14 PM, bluebell said:

My doctor told me last year that intermittent fasting was a great way to lose weight.  Even the professionals can't agree!  So annoying.

I read a meta-analysis on this a few weeks ago.  Hopefully enough of it is still fresh on my mind (I seem to have about a 72 hour recall on things I've read, before my brain starts jumbling it with everything else that's hoarded in there).

The ultimate thing that causes intermittent fasting to work for a lot of people is simply that it reduces overall caloric intake for the day.  There isn't some magical DNA gene attenuation happening, or other often overhyped mechanism or "hack" happening on a cellular level.  It's ultimately just the same thing that leads to weight loss in any successful diet -- fewer calories consumed than burned.  Most people can only eat so much food in a single sitting.  If you eliminate 1, or 2 (etc.) times that you would normally be consuming calories, you've essentially reduced your overall ability to intake calories for the day.

Naturally, there are of course exceptions.  There are some people who (like myself), with intermittent fasting, end up over-binging when it comes to their designated meal time(s).  I'm one of those people who can easily (and I do mean easily) consume upwards of 4,000 calories in a single sitting if I'm hungry.  For me, the best way to lose weight is prioritizing protein (thermic effect plus satiation) and fiber in at least 6 meals per day.  I tried intermittent fasting a few years ago.  I gained 10 pounds in 2 weeks.  *sigh*

Cliff Notes:  Intermittent fasting can be a great way to lose weight, if it causes your overall caloric intake during the day to decrease.

[Stargazer]

On 10/28/2024 at 10:17 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

The LDS do not drink tea, coffee nor alcohol. Alcohol I can understand, but tea and coffee not so much. So do you consume decafeinated tea and coffee ?

You forgot tobacco. 🙂 

As for decaffeination, the issue is not with caffeine. At least with many LDS. If the issue were caffeine, chocolate would be forbidden, and it's not. D&C 89 specifies "hot drinks" and at the time the "hot drinks" were coffee and tea -- and these were always drank hot. Hyrum Smith, the Prophet's brother, clarified that those two drinks, coffee and tea, were what was meant by "hot drinks."

So, hot or cold chocolate drinks, non-tea herbal infusions, and so on, are not included as things to avoid.

It might be useful to point out that the word "tea" refers to a particular plant, Camillia sinensis. While our culture tends to refer to any herb steeped in hot water as "tea," that only because of the resemblance in preparation. The actual word for steeping an herb in hot water is "infusion." The word for cooking or boiling an herb in water is "decoction." I mention this because some LDS have the mistaken idea that anything called "tea," e.g. peppermint tea, is forbidden by the Word of Wisdom. If this were actually the case, then any vegetable matter cooked in water could be called a "tea" and thus forbidden. In fact, in Britain it is customary to refer to any sit-down meal taken after breakfast as "tea". If you are asked "Would you like to stay for tea?" you are generally being invited to have a meal -- though it can refer to a smaller kind of meal with actual tea involved. For example, a "cream tea" is a small snack consisting of scones with clotted cream and jam, and something hot to drink, which might include tea or hot chocolate. Or it could be lemonade instead for that matter.

[Stargazer]

On 10/29/2024 at 5:08 AM, JVW said:

I think this is a very good question. My mother was diagnosed earlier this year, at the age of 60, with stage 4 lung cancer and she's probably going to be dead by Christmas. During a conversation with her about a month ago she started crying a bit and asked me, "I've lived the word of wisdom all my life when my friends chose to make other choices. There's no history of cancer in my family, no smoking, drugs, or drinking, and the promise is to walk and not faint and have the destroying angel pass by. Why is this happening to me?" I didn't have an answer and I still don't.

But even ignoring this exceptional case, the word of wisdom is such a nebulous commandment, and the way it's taught is so different from the D&C, it's difficult to know if I'm even living it or not, and who knows what walk and not faint and destroying angel even means?

My condolences for you and your mother! 

My own mother died at age 28 from breast cancer, my father died at 46 from a massive heart attack, but had survived cancer. They were not members of the church, and both were smokers, especially my father. I am not sure if smoking was to blame for my mother, but my father had a congenital heart situation, and would have lived longer if he hadn't smoked so much. He tried to quit several times, but could never make it stick.

My late wife died of cancer, too, at 75. She was a convert to the church at 26, but didn't fully stop smoking until she was 35. Her death certificate claims smoking as a contributing cause of her colon cancer. <- I have my doubts that smoking had anything to do with it, but what do I know.

I've never smoked or used tobacco in any form, though I was not born in the church. I joined at age 14, but had decided I would never smoke long before I met the friend who introduced me to the church. I do believe that I am susceptible to alcohol addiction, and I didn't have any youthful intention of being a tee-totaller. I liked to sneak wine and booze out of my parents' liquor cabinet, and alcoholism runs a bit in my family. So, my commitment to the WoW may have kept me safe from that particular behavior.

Here is what I am suggesting: the "destroying angel" refers to the consequences of behaviors that would not have happened or would not have happened so early if we had avoided those behaviors.

But I also feel that observance of the WoW is one of the things deliberately given to us to make us into a "peculiar people," much as the dietary laws under the Law of Moses made the Israelites a "peculiar people," and thus one of our hallmarks as a people devoted to God. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You forgot tobacco. 🙂 

As for decaffeination, the issue is not with caffeine. At least with many LDS. If the issue were caffeine, chocolate would be forbidden, and it's not. D&C 89 specifies "hot drinks" and at the time the "hot drinks" were coffee and tea -- and these were always drank hot. Hyrum Smith, the Prophet's brother, clarified that those two drinks, coffee and tea, were what was meant by "hot drinks."

So, hot or cold chocolate drinks, non-tea herbal infusions, and so on, are not included as things to avoid.

It might be useful to point out that the word "tea" refers to a particular plant, Camillia sinensis. While our culture tends to refer to any herb steeped in hot water as "tea," that only because of the resemblance in preparation. The actual word for steeping an herb in hot water is "infusion." The word for cooking or boiling an herb in water is "decoction." I mention this because some LDS have the mistaken idea that anything called "tea," e.g. peppermint tea, is forbidden by the Word of Wisdom. If this were actually the case, then any vegetable matter cooked in water could be called a "tea" and thus forbidden. In fact, in Britain it is customary to refer to any sit-down meal taken after breakfast as "tea". If you are asked "Would you like to stay for tea?" you are generally being invited to have a meal -- though it can refer to a smaller kind of meal with actual tea involved. For example, a "cream tea" is a small snack consisting of scones with clotted cream and jam, and something hot to drink, which might include tea or hot chocolate. Or it could be lemonade instead for that matter.

Sometimes I wonder what the zealous folks get out of being so zealous.  It’s beyond zealous sometimes, because it’s inaccurate zealousness.  Not to mention the inconsistency of it all.  
Sex, food, drink, medications, Sunday activity, etc- so much rigidity and harshness with rules that don’t need to be so.  I don’t get it. 
 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Sometimes I wonder what the zealous folks get out of being so zealous.  It’s beyond zealous sometimes, because it’s inaccurate zealousness.  Not to mention the inconsistency of it all.  
Sex, food, drink, medications, Sunday activity, etc- so much rigidity and harshness with rules that don’t need to be so.  I don’t get it. 
 

Neither do I, but there we are.

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Neither do I, but there we are.

Indeed.  It’s so hard as a therapist when I know marriages are suffering in the name of righteousness when I know it’s stupid dogma and false beliefs. 😩

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Sometimes I wonder what the zealous folks get out of being so zealous.  It’s beyond zealous sometimes, because it’s inaccurate zealousness.  Not to mention the inconsistency of it all.  
Sex, food, drink, medications, Sunday activity, etc- so much rigidity and harshness with rules that don’t need to be so.  I don’t get it. 
 

Humans have a particular failing, as it says in D&C 121:39

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

It's been going on since the beginning, from the Garden of Eden onwards. This includes taking rules and expanding them beyond the intentions of whatever law the rules pertain to, both human and divine. And adding to them, "in the spirit of" the rule -- supposedly. God gave the Hebrews a perfectly reasonable Law, but the Pharisees and their fellow travelers interpreted it out of all reasonableness and sometimes recognition. Half or more of the things that the Pharisees were complaining about with Jesus were things that their predecessors added to the Law. And this has continued to the present. 

And in human law we have situations where a police officer might be dealing with someone, and an uninvolved citizen might start videoing what's going on. Soon an officer comes to confront that uninvolved person to harass him or her, even though it's obvious to any reasonable person that they aren't interfering. And then claim that they have to ID and explain themselves. And perhaps get charged with a made-up crime. 

It's everywhere. 

[Tacenda]

On 10/28/2024 at 11:08 PM, JVW said:

I think this is a very good question. My mother was diagnosed earlier this year, at the age of 60, with stage 4 lung cancer and she's probably going to be dead by Christmas. During a conversation with her about a month ago she started crying a bit and asked me, "I've lived the word of wisdom all my life when my friends chose to make other choices. There's no history of cancer in my family, no smoking, drugs, or drinking, and the promise is to walk and not faint and have the destroying angel pass by. Why is this happening to me?" I didn't have an answer and I still don't.

But even ignoring this exceptional case, the word of wisdom is such a nebulous commandment, and the way it's taught is so different from the D&C, it's difficult to know if I'm even living it or not, and who knows what walk and not faint and destroying angel even means?

I'm so sorry JVW, how horribly unfair for your mother and family. The only thing I can attribute it to is something in the environment. 🙏 Hugs and prayers. 

Edited November 3, 2024 by Tacenda

[JVW]

On 11/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, Stargazer said:

My condolences for you and your mother! 

My own mother died at age 28 from breast cancer, my father died at 46 from a massive heart attack, but had survived cancer. They were not members of the church, and both were smokers, especially my father. I am not sure if smoking was to blame for my mother, but my father had a congenital heart situation, and would have lived longer if he hadn't smoked so much. He tried to quit several times, but could never make it stick.

My late wife died of cancer, too, at 75. She was a convert to the church at 26, but didn't fully stop smoking until she was 35. Her death certificate claims smoking as a contributing cause of her colon cancer. <- I have my doubts that smoking had anything to do with it, but what do I know.

Thank you for sharing your story. How did the loss of your parents and your wife impact your relationship with God? So far my heart and mind have been changing for the better. I've taken the attitude that I can let the situation make me or break me, and I'm trying to work with God to make it the former, but it's not necessarily making it any easier to go through right now.

On 11/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, Stargazer said:

I've never smoked or used tobacco in any form, though I was not born in the church. I joined at age 14, but had decided I would never smoke long before I met the friend who introduced me to the church. I do believe that I am susceptible to alcohol addiction, and I didn't have any youthful intention of being a tee-totaller. I liked to sneak wine and booze out of my parents' liquor cabinet, and alcoholism runs a bit in my family. So, my commitment to the WoW may have kept me safe from that particular behavior.

I have an extensive history with tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, and most drugs. But I'm currently becoming a somewhat 'crunchy' person, becoming more aware of the poisons in processed food, and the double-edged sword that can be the multi-billion dollar healthcare industry. I don't think I'll live past my mid-70s because of how I lived until my mid-20s, but ultimately, someone could be the healthiest person on the planet and end up dead for any number of reasons well before the winter of their life.

On 11/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, Stargazer said:

Here is what I am suggesting: the "destroying angel" refers to the consequences of behaviors that would not have happened or would not have happened so early if we had avoided those behaviors.

I understand what you're saying, but phrased another way, "If you do good things, you get good consequences. If not, you don't" That's kind of a lame equivalent to destroying angel. It reminds me of Baptist flavor sermons that say, "If you do this you're going to hell. If you don't you'll go to heaven." It's an obvious conclusion and I don't know why the WoW would phrase it that way.

On 11/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, Stargazer said:

But I also feel that observance of the WoW is one of the things deliberately given to us to make us into a "peculiar people," much as the dietary laws under the Law of Moses made the Israelites a "peculiar people," and thus one of our hallmarks as a people devoted to God. That's my opinion, anyway.

I agree with this. I think there are many things that make us peculiar, but tea and coffee is an absolute one. It'd be nice if they added soda or energy drinks to the list because then all major beverage options are out, regardless of the country one resides in. Talk about being weird, we'd be constrained to milk and lemonade for alternatives to water.

[Rain]

On 11/2/2024 at 9:32 AM, MustardSeed said:

Sometimes I wonder what the zealous folks get out of being so zealous.  It’s beyond zealous sometimes, because it’s inaccurate zealousness.  Not to mention the inconsistency of it all.  
Sex, food, drink, medications, Sunday activity, etc- so much rigidity and harshness with rules that don’t need to be so.  I don’t get it. 
 

What is zealous though? People outside of the church might define members as zealous because they don't drink tea or coffee.

I didn't drink herbal teas for most of my life because the church only officially said "tea" and in section 89 it says "hot drinks".  The church has also taught not to justify wrong doing.  So when is drinking herbl tea zealous and when is it just following official teachings? When is drinking herbal tea ok and when is it justifying? I think its really only something you can figure out by looking on your own heart. (Note: I never judged people as justifying when they drank herbal tea.)

Edited November 4, 2024 by Rain

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

What is zealous though?

I consider zealousness as expanding beyond given guidelines of any pursuit.
 
No doubt outsiders see those who don’t drink tea/coffee as zealously pursuing righteousness in an odd way.  
Within the church, I’d say putting limits on one’s self and others outside the church guidelines, and believing they are therefore being more Godly is zealousness. 
 

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I consider zealousness as expanding beyond given guidelines of any pursuit.
 
No doubt outsiders see those who don’t drink tea/coffee as zealously pursuing righteousness in an odd way.  
Within the church, I’d say putting limits on one’s self and others outside the church guidelines, and believing they are therefore being more Godly is zealousness. 
 

Also I think most people wouldn’t describe themselves as zealous.  IMO most people put constraints on themselves because they truly believe those constraints are required. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Thank you for sharing your story. How did the loss of your parents and your wife impact your relationship with God? So far my heart and mind have been changing for the better. I've taken the attitude that I can let the situation make me or break me, and I'm trying to work with God to make it the former, but it's not necessarily making it any easier to go through right now.

As for the loss of my parents, there was no impact at all on my relationship with God. I was only seven when my mother died, and as my parents had been rather areligious, and we never attended any church at all, God wasn't even a question at the time. I received my initial instruction in theistic matters through living temporarily with my great grandmother after my mother died, who read the Bible and Bible stories to me. She even sent me to her local church occasionally -- she couldn't go because she had no transportation and her health didn't permit her to walk the distance. By the time my father passed away, when I was 25, I had been a Latter-day Saint for 10 years, had served a mission, and had a strong testimony. His passing made me sad, but I never questioned where he had gone. By the time my wife passed away when I was 64, there were no doubts whatsoever. I'm not keen on dying, but in some senses I look forward to it, as it will reunite me with her. 

3 hours ago, JVW said:

I have an extensive history with tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, and most drugs. But I'm currently becoming a somewhat 'crunchy' person, becoming more aware of the poisons in processed food, and the double-edged sword that can be the multi-billion dollar healthcare industry. I don't think I'll live past my mid-70s because of how I lived until my mid-20s, but ultimately, someone could be the healthiest person on the planet and end up dead for any number of reasons well before the winter of their life.

Oh, yes, that is certainly true. Through healthy living (WoW, again) I'm in fairly decent shape for my age, though I'm getting creakier all the time. It doesn't help that I am very much overweight, but for some reason there's no serious impact from it that I can see. I might live into my mid-80s if nothing serious, like cancer, intervenes.

On the other hand, I've deftly avoided being killed in automobile accidents several times. So, tomorrow might be the time I say "Perhaps it IS a good day to die!"

3 hours ago, JVW said:

I understand what you're saying, but phrased another way, "If you do good things, you get good consequences. If not, you don't" That's kind of a lame equivalent to destroying angel. It reminds me of Baptist flavor sermons that say, "If you do this you're going to hell. If you don't you'll go to heaven." It's an obvious conclusion and I don't know why the WoW would phrase it that way.

Yes, I recognize that it seems kind of a lame equivalent. I don't insist on it.

When you read the Book of Revelation, God does send out angels who apparently cause actual destruction. Perhaps that is what is meant -- that keeping the WoW will help one avoid getting destroyed by one of those angels when that time comes. But until that day when tribulation is poured out generally, perhaps that angel (or angels) of destruction are going about the same business on a more personal level.

3 hours ago, JVW said:

I agree with this. I think there are many things that make us peculiar, but tea and coffee is an absolute one. It'd be nice if they added soda or energy drinks to the list because then all major beverage options are out, regardless of the country one resides in. Talk about being weird, we'd be constrained to milk and lemonade for alternatives to water.

You can add as many other substances to your personal list as you like -- you just can't teach your list in Church, to require others to conform to it.

The Word of Wisdom permits us to make decisions for ourselves; you'll note that it says "To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom..." In my opinion, the fact that we as a Church have accepted abstinence from the Four Horsesubstances of the Apocalypse (coffee, tea, tobacco, strong drinks) as a requirement for full activity in the Church, does not raise the WoW to a commandment or constraint, generally. By the way, I do fully sustain the WoW 4 as a requirement for full activity. 

The 5th element of the WoW, sparing consumption of meat, doesn't get much traction these days, though. 

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Also I think most people wouldn’t describe themselves as zealous.  IMO most people put constraints on themselves because they truly believe those constraints are required. 

In my journey when I quit all the guilt as an active strongly believing LDS, I use to beat myself up constantly for not doing enough in my faith. I am much more calmer and feel almost closer to the Divine/Saviour since my beliefs changed. I don't want to completely leave the church, I just am glad to not feel like I use to. I'm sure this isn't the case with most in the church though, being guilt ridden or feeling like they're not doing enough to "hold onto the rod".

Edited November 3, 2024 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

35 minutes ago, Rain said:

What is zealous though? People outside of the church might define members as zealous because they don't drink tea or coffee.

I didn't drink herbal teas for most of my life because the church only officially said "tea" and in section 89 it says "hot drinks".  The church has also taught not to justify wrong doing.  So when he is drinking herbl tea zealous and when is it just following official teachings? When is drinking herbal tea ok and when is it justifying? I think its really only something you can figure out by looking on your own heart. (Note: I never judged people as justifying when they drank herbal tea.)

Hyrum Smith said that the "hot drinks" in the Word of Wisdom meant coffee and tea. 

And despite what everyone understands, "herbal tea" is not tea. "Tea" is a common name for a plant, camellia sinensis, that originated in the Far East. The other common name for the plant is "chai." See this "Name Explain" video about the subject: The Real Reason Tea Only Has Two Names.

Peppermint tea is not tea. Neither is chamomile tea. The correct term for an herb steeped in hot water is infusion. The term tisane is also used. Nowadays it is commonplace to refer to all leafy herbs steeped or infused in hot water as "tea," because tea is the most familiar herb that is infused into water. If you have an infusion of tea leaves, according to the common (incorrect) usage this should be called "tea tea". Which is absurd.

Don't get me started on "worm tea."

If you lived in the United Kingdom, you would be breaking the Word of Wisdom every time you sat down to eat lunch or dinner, because those meals are routinely referred to as "tea"! When I first lived here in England, I visited a member family, and when the lady of the house invited me to have tea with them, I declined in some dismay because I was trying to keep the Word of Wisdom -- and wondered if the LDS in the UK had a different version of the WoW that allowed them to drink tea! No, that isn't how it works. She was inviting me to eat the evening meal with them! Calling something "tea" doesn't make it tea. Now living in the UK with my British LDS wife, when she calls out "Tea's ready!" I understand she is calling me to dinner. I also understand that the meal is called "tea" because for hundreds of years tea was routinely drank at every meal, including breakfast.

If herbal tea were against the Word of Wisdom, then you would be breaking the Word of Wisdom by cooking spinach leaves and then drinking the cooking water or eating the leaves. Because it would be spinach tea! This would also be the case if you made chicken soup and added parsley leaves to it. It would be parsley tea with chicken broth! There goes your temple recommend! 😞 

I know I'm sounding pedantic for which I apologize. I just object to phariseeism in the Church, which is adding needless rules according to private interpretation.

[Tacenda]

On 10/28/2024 at 11:09 PM, JVW said:

On a side note did you know it's more healthy to drink non-diet sodas than it is to drink diet sodas? This is because if you ingest real sugar you brain can reach a point in which it gets "sugared out" but if you ingest fake sugars your body processes it like real sugar, but you can just keep drinking it without ever getting sick of it.

NOOOO, say it ain't so! I always thought that my diet Dr. Pepper habit, while still bad, was way better than drinking the sugar laden Dr. Pepper pop. 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my journey when I quit all the guilt as an active strongly believing LDS, I use to beat myself up constantly for not doing enough in my faith. I am much more calmer and feel almost closer to the Divine/Saviour since my beliefs changed. I don't want to completely leave the church, I just am glad to not feel like I use to. I'm sure this isn't the case with most in the church though, being guilt ridden or feeling like I'm not doing enough to hold to the Rod. 

We Latter-day Saints have nothing on Catholics for feeling guilty: Catholic guilt. This is even enshrined semi-officially on the Lay Cistercians website: What is Catholic Guilt? One of the surgeons my wife worked with as a theater nurse was Catholic, and he talked about his guilt quite a bit, she says.

The LDS who get all wrapped around the axle with guilt are not doing themselves any favors. 2 Nephi 2:25 -> "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." Unless you're guilty of some serious unresolved sin, it is a mistake to be in a unjoyful state because of your perceived guilt. 

We are all in state of progression. Not even Russell M. Nelson has arrived to the point of perfection. Guilt has a function, but its function is to help you along in your journey of progression -- and too much self-assumed guilt can have the opposite effect, and retard you in your progression. Use necessary guilt as a spur, and reject unnecessary guilt as a sheet-anchor to your growth.

This probably isn't much help, but Tacenda you need to be reasonable with yourself. You are a good person, and it shines through in every thing you post. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

We Latter-day Saints have nothing on Catholics for feeling guilty: Catholic guilt. This is even enshrined semi-officially on the Lay Cistercians website: What is Catholic Guilt? One of the surgeons my wife worked with as a theater nurse was Catholic, and he talked about his guilt quite a bit, she says.

The LDS who get all wrapped around the axle with guilt are not doing themselves any favors. 2 Nephi 2:25 -> "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." Unless you're guilty of some serious unresolved sin, it is a mistake to be in a unjoyful state because of your perceived guilt. 

We are all in state of progression. Not even Russell M. Nelson has arrived to the point of perfection. Guilt has a function, but its function is to help you along in your journey of progression -- and too much self-assumed guilt can have the opposite effect, and retard you in your progression. Use necessary guilt as a spur, and reject unnecessary guilt as a sheet-anchor to your growth.

This probably isn't much help, but Tacenda you need to be reasonable with yourself. You are a good person, and it shines through in every thing you post. 

Thanks, that is so kind.

[Stargazer]

On 10/29/2024 at 5:09 AM, JVW said:

On a side note did you know it's more healthy to drink non-diet sodas than it is to drink diet sodas? This is because if you ingest real sugar you brain can reach a point in which it gets "sugared out" but if you ingest fake sugars your body processes it like real sugar, but you can just keep drinking it without ever getting sick of it.

Actually, it doesn't process it like real sugar -- it doesn't have the metabolic hit as with real sugar. I used to worry about the effect of tricking the body into reacting as if carbohydrate had been ingested, with a release of insulin possibly running into a problem with diabetes. But when I looked into that, I found that there's no evidence that artificial sweeteners help cause diabetes.

On 10/29/2024 at 1:12 PM, MustardSeed said:

And then what? Like if I drink one diet soda per day, what is that doing? 

I believe it’s bad because I’ve been told so but don’t know why it’s bad. 

Well, despite my drinking diet soda a lot, I used to think it was bad, too. And then I found that it isn't. There's some disagreement out there, but checking the Mayo Clinic and the UK's National Health Service websites they don't indicate any real problems. I found one online source that came up with a list of things that suggested otherwise, but I am not sure about their conclusions.

Since I found these informative (learned me a thing or two), here's some links (first two are OK with sweeteners; third not so much):

• The Truth About Sweeteners (National Health Service)
• Artificial sweeteners and other sugar substitutes (Mayo Clinic)
• What Happens to Your Body When You Eat Artificial Sweeteners (Eat This! Not That!)

The Mayo Clinic said this about that big scare with saccharin causing cancer:

"Sugar substitutes also are not linked to a higher risk of cancer in people. Studies dating back to the 1970s linked the artificial sweetener saccharin to bladder cancer in rats. Since then, research has shown that those findings don't apply to people."

[webbles]

58 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Hyrum Smith said that the "hot drinks" in the Word of Wisdom meant coffee and tea. 

And despite what everyone understands, "herbal tea" is not tea. "Tea" is a common name for a plant, camellia sinensis, that originated in the Far East. The other common name for the plant is "chai." See this "Name Explain" video about the subject: The Real Reason Tea Only Has Two Names.

Peppermint tea is not tea. Neither is chamomile tea. The correct term for an herb steeped in hot water is infusion. The term tisane is also used. Nowadays it is commonplace to refer to all leafy herbs steeped or infused in hot water as "tea," because tea is the most familiar herb that is infused into water. If you have an infusion of tea leaves, according to the common (incorrect) usage this should be called "tea tea". Which is absurd.

Don't get me started on "worm tea."

If you lived in the United Kingdom, you would be breaking the Word of Wisdom every time you sat down to eat lunch or dinner, because those meals are routinely referred to as "tea"! When I first lived here in England, I visited a member family, and when the lady of the house invited me to have tea with them, I declined in some dismay because I was trying to keep the Word of Wisdom -- and wondered if the LDS in the UK had a different version of the WoW that allowed them to drink tea! No, that isn't how it works. She was inviting me to eat the evening meal with them! Calling something "tea" doesn't make it tea. Now living in the UK with my British LDS wife, when she calls out "Tea's ready!" I understand she is calling me to dinner. I also understand that the meal is called "tea" because for hundreds of years tea was routinely drank at every meal, including breakfast.

If herbal tea were against the Word of Wisdom, then you would be breaking the Word of Wisdom by cooking spinach leaves and then drinking the cooking water or eating the leaves. Because it would be spinach tea! This would also be the case if you made chicken soup and added parsley leaves to it. It would be parsley tea with chicken broth! There goes your temple recommend! 😞 

I know I'm sounding pedantic for which I apologize. I just object to phariseeism in the Church, which is adding needless rules according to private interpretation.

Brazil is similar.  Breakfast is called "café da manhã" which literally translates to "morning coffee".  I had "morning coffee" every day on my mission but never actually had coffee.  And when we taught the word of wisdom, we had to explicitly point out that "chá" (the word for tea in Portuguese) only meant "chá-preto" (black tea) because the word "chá" covers more things than just tea.

[Calm]

Examine.com summarizes up to date research quite well, imo. 
 

https://examine.com/foods/artificially-sweetened-beverages/

While it used to be speculated that drinking diet sodas caused weight gain (iirc it was said those who drank diet sodas typically gained 1-5 lbs a year more than those who didn’t), better more recent studies seemed to have established this is correlation rather than causation…iow, diet soda drinkers are doing other things that are causing such weight gain and those things are likely why they drink diet soda…this is assuming the correlation still stands in the research and as far as I can tell without more than a minute’s effort, it does not. 
 

Possible drawbacks:

Quote

While the majority of the evidence seems to support the safety of ASBs at moderate intake levels, there may be some negative aspects to their consumption. Infants born to mothers who consumed ASBs throughout pregnancy had an increased risk of being overweight according to BMI at 1 year of age. With childhood obesity on the rise, this is a concerning association, although this link is not necessarily causative.^[13]

It is theorized that ASBs may impact the gut microbiome, causing changes in appetite regulation and weight, but this is not yet supported by research. In fact, some studies found that sugar-sweetened beverages can have more impact on the gut than ASBs. More research is needed to understand the effect of ASB intake on the gut microbiome.^[14]

While some research has found an association between the intake of artificial sweeteners and cardiovascular disease, this could be related to lifestyle choices and confounding factors; there is no clear evidence that ASBs cause cardiovascular disease.^[15][8][16

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Calm