Diet

[Rain]

5 hours 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. 
 

So I prayed about caffeine and felt right about stopping colas, but knew that was just for me and my health. So you would say I wasn't zealous because I didn't feel "more godly"? I actually felt it was something that helped my health as my kidney function tests went back to normal.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Rain

[Rain]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Also I think most people wouldn’t describe themselves as zealous.

That's why I said, "looking on your own heart".  By this I mean being truly open to what you are doing and willig to accept the things you are doing wrong.

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

 IMO most people put constraints on themselves because they truly believe those constraints are required. 

 

[Rain]

4 hours 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.

I know these things now and you wrote them above, but those were not in the official church materials I was looking at for a couple of decades. I had also looked up online definitions of "infusions" and most of the places listed infusions as a type of tea. (About 6 months ago, I looked and no longer found that to be the case.) I just searched for anything that could say yea or nay to herbal teas, not really because I thought it mattered - my gut feeling was herbal teas were fine, I just wasn't comfortable teaching/saying it was fine or not when there was nothing official I could point to.

At some point I just gave up - I don't like hot drinks (even chocolate or cider) so I just lost interest and when I taught I just said "tea" and didn't give direction for what that meant. 

It is odd (not that you're odd, just the concept for me) to me that you include the term "tea" (for a meal), because I've never run across anyone who thought the meal was against the WoW. Rather, I assumed the meal/snack was called "tea" because it was shortened for a meal where tea was served.  

Edited November 4, 2024 by Rain

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So I prayed about caffeine and felt right about stopping colas, but knew that was just for me and my health. So you would say I want zealous because I didn't feel "more godly"? I actually felt it was something that helped my health as my kidney function tests went back to normal.

That doesn’t seem like the religious zealously I was talking about.  Isn’t being zealous all about the intention? 
 

I might make a decision to cut out sugar because I want to lower my A1C.  Not zealous imo.  (Unless perhaps I don’t have any diabetic issues?  Maybe). But if I cut out sugar because it’s something I’m *reading into* the Word of wisdom, then I’m being  zealous, imo. 
 

When I was in college, my bishop told our ward that if any of us kissed with our mouth open, he would withhold a temple recommend.  This was a zealous point of view imo.  Now, if you don’t like spit swapping, that’s not zealously.  That’s just preference. But if you think God will punish you for it, it’s likely you’re going to zealously peck.  

I might be wrong about this,  I trust you more than me suddenly 😅
 

 

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That doesn’t seem like the religious zealously I was talking about.  Isn’t being zealous all about the intention? 
 

I might make a decision to cut out sugar because I want to lower my A1C.  Not zealous imo.  (Unless perhaps I don’t have any diabetic issues?  Maybe). But if I cut out sugar because it’s something I’m *reading into* the Word of wisdom, then I’m being  zealous, imo. 
 

When I was in college, my bishop told our ward that if any of us kissed with our mouth open, he would withhold a temple recommend.  This was a zealous point of view imo.  Now, if you don’t like spit swapping, that’s not zealously.  That’s just preference. But if you think God will punish you for it, it’s likely you’re going to zealously peck.  

I might be wrong about this,  I trust you more than me suddenly 😅
 

 

That's what I thought, but just clarifying.  

As and aside - do people without diabetes, or diabetic symptoms or other than a checkup really check their A1C? I didn't know this was a thing. 

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

That's what I thought, but just clarifying.  

As and aside - do people without diabetes, or diabetic symptoms or other than a checkup really check their A1C? I didn't know this was a thing. 

No.  That would be pretty zealous in the health department I believe. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

No.  That would be pretty zealous in the health department I believe. 

It’s apparently a thing now for healthy people to wear continuous glucose monitors and get worried about normal glucose “spikes” after eating. 
 

That is zealousness, imo. The monitors are not cheap and I can’t imagine insurance is paying for them. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It’s apparently a thing now for healthy people to wear continuous glucose monitors and get worried about normal glucose “spikes” after eating. 
 

That is zealousness, imo. The monitors are not cheap and I can’t imagine insurance is paying for them. 

I knew that about cgms used as a diet method, but I had never heard of it with A1C. 

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I know these things now and you wrote them above, but those were not in the official church materials I was looking at for a couple of decades. I had also looked up online definitions of "infusions" and most of the places listed infusions as a type of tea. (About 6 months ago, I looked and no longer found that to be the case.) I just searched for anything that could say yea or nay to herbal teas, not really because I thought it mattered - my gut feeling was herbal teas were fine, I just wasn't comfortable teaching/saying it was fine or not when there was nothing official I could point to.

Sorry I was repeating myself. I've actually posted those exact same things in other similar threads over the years, because I'm trying to get the word out. The gospel according to Stargazer, perhaps, but as I've also said in this thread, I really get annoyed when we as church members start acting like Pharisees and invent rules for ourselves (and others), thus repeating the mistakes of the Rabbis and going well "beyond the mark" in our zealousness. I am reminded of Elder Quentin L. Cook's article in the March 2003 issue of The Ensign: "Looking beyond the Mark."

Sometimes it can be a mistake to look for "official" explanations. The problem with many "official" explanations is that too frequently one is looking at uninspired personal opinions in rabbinical clothing. 

I don't like to claim special inspiration (my patriarchal blessing admonishes me to be humble, and does so two times), but like you, when it came to "herbal teas" I felt that the Spirit was guiding me in understanding that unless they actually contained tea (i.e. "black tea") there was nothing wrong with them. As an aside, "black tea" is misleading, because the tea leaf is naturally green, and depending upon processing method the end result can be black, green, white, or yellow. I seemed to understand the idea that the issue was with that particular species of plant, not the method of preparation as a drink. 

Have you ever heard of "Mormon tea"? That's one of the common names of the plant Ephedra nevadensis. It's also known as "Brigham tea," after Brigham Young, of course. It "was used for food and medicine by indigenous people and for tea by Mormons." It is one of the few species of the ephedra plant that doesn't produce ephedrine, so consuming it is safe. It also has no caffeine. When I lived in Washington state, we used to visit eastern Washington where the plant grows in abundance in the wild, and bring home a quantity to use as infusions. Various health benefits are claimed for it, but I have no idea if any of the claims are true. The "tea" brewed from the stems (it doesn't have much in the way of leaves) is pleasant in taste.

10 hours ago, Rain said:

At some point I just gave up - I don't like hot drinks (even chocolate or cider) so I just lost interest and when I taught I just said "tea" and didn't give direction for what that meant. 

That's entirely reasonable. In my case, I've served a couple of times in congregational leadership, and because of the particular positions I have been asked for "official" explanations. Last Sunday I was asked how soon after payday one should pay one's tithing. Not wanting to give an "official" answer (because there really isn't one), I told the person "It's up to you." I am NOT going to be a rabbi.

10 hours ago, Rain said:

It is odd (not that you're odd, just the concept for me) to me that you include the term "tea" (for a meal), because I've never run across anyone who thought the meal was against the WoW. Rather, I assumed the meal/snack was called "tea" because it was shortened for a meal where tea was served.  

LOL, I am very odd!  

I've never run into anyone who thought the meal was against the WoW, either. I was just trying to take the idea that appending the word "tea" to a drink made the drink against the Word of Wisdom to the absurdity that calling a meal "tea" did so as well, in order to demonstrate why it does not work. 

Here's some more. Some years ago there was a post in a similar thread that said that the poster did not drink peppermint tea because it was against the Word of Wisdom. It did not occur to me at the time, but I could have asked the poster "Do you eat peppermint candy?" To which the answer would most likely have been "Yes." And the follow-on in the argument is to ask why does the form in which one consumes the item make a difference? Same thing when one asks if waiting until the "hot drink" becomes cold? Is it OK to drink the coffee or tea then? What if you eat the tea leaves raw as a salad with oil and vinegar dressing? Is that OK? Which should make it clear that it is not the method of preparation, or the temperature, but the substance itself that is at the heart of the matter.

I think I need to clarify something here. I have been complaining about Phariseeism and rabbinicalism, but my complaint is not with Jews. It is with the extremities of "looking beyond the mark." For an example of the kind of extremity I'm referring to, have a look at this article about the kosher status of gelatin: What is Kosher Gelatin Revisited. Also this video about the Manhattan Eruv. I love Jews and Israel (in my youth I wanted to move to Israel and join the Israeli Defense Force, and I'm still fiercely pro-Israel). But the way their religious leaders have, over the centuries, made the straightforward Law of Moses into a convoluted mess of absurdities is... amazing.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry I was repeating myself. I've actually posted those exact same things in other similar threads over the years, because I'm trying to get the word out. The gospel according to Stargazer, perhaps, but as I've also said in this thread, I really get annoyed when we as church members start acting like Pharisees and invent rules for ourselves (and others), thus repeating the mistakes of the Rabbis and going well "beyond the mark" in our zealousness. I am reminded of Elder Quentin L. Cook's article in the March 2003 issue of The Ensign: "Looking beyond the Mark."

Sometimes it can be a mistake to look for "official" explanations. The problem with many "official" explanations is that too frequently one is looking at uninspired personal opinions in rabbinical clothing. 

I don't like to claim special inspiration (my patriarchal blessing admonishes me to be humble, and does so two times), but like you, when it came to "herbal teas" I felt that the Spirit was guiding me in understanding that unless they actually contained tea (i.e. "black tea") there was nothing wrong with them. As an aside, "black tea" is misleading, because the tea leaf is naturally green, and depending upon processing method the end result can be black, green, white, or yellow. I seemed to understand the idea that the issue was with that particular species of plant, not the method of preparation as a drink. 

Have you ever heard of "Mormon tea"? That's one of the common names of the plant Ephedra nevadensis. It's also known as "Brigham tea," after Brigham Young, of course. It "was used for food and medicine by indigenous people and for tea by Mormons." It is one of the few species of the ephedra plant that doesn't produce ephedrine, so consuming it is safe. It also has no caffeine. When I lived in Washington state, we used to visit eastern Washington where the plant grows in abundance in the wild, and bring home a quantity to use as infusions. Various health benefits are claimed for it, but I have no idea if any of the claims are true. The "tea" brewed from the stems (it doesn't have much in the way of leaves) is pleasant in taste.

That's entirely reasonable. In my case, I've served a couple of times in congregational leadership, and because of the particular positions I have been asked for "official" explanations. Last Sunday I was asked how soon after payday one should pay one's tithing. Not wanting to give an "official" answer (because there really isn't one), I told the person "It's up to you." I am NOT going to be a rabbi.

LOL, I am very odd!  

I've never run into anyone who thought the meal was against the WoW, either. I was just trying to take the idea that appending the word "tea" to a drink made the drink against the Word of Wisdom to the absurdity that calling a meal "tea" did so as well, in order to demonstrate why it does not work. 

Here's some more. Some years ago there was a post in a similar thread that said that the poster did not drink peppermint tea because it was against the Word of Wisdom. It did not occur to me at the time, but I could have asked the poster "Do you eat peppermint candy?" To which the answer would most likely have been "Yes." And the follow-on in the argument is to ask why does the form in which one consumes the item make a difference? Same thing when one asks if waiting until the "hot drink" becomes cold? Is it OK to drink the coffee or tea then? What if you eat the tea leaves raw as a salad with oil and vinegar dressing? Is that OK? Which should make it clear that it is not the method of preparation, or the temperature, but the substance itself that is at the heart of the matter.

I think I need to clarify something here. I have been complaining about Phariseeism and rabbinicalism, but my complaint is not with Jews. It is with the extremities of "looking beyond the mark." For an example of the kind of extremity I'm referring to, have a look at this article about the kosher status of gelatin: What is Kosher Gelatin Revisited. Also this video about the Manhattan Eruv. I love Jews and Israel (in my youth I wanted to move to Israel and join the Israeli Defense Force, and I'm still fiercely pro-Israel). But the way their religious leaders have, over the centuries, made the straightforward Law of Moses into a convoluted mess of absurdities is... amazing.

Keep up the good work my friend.  😇

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry I was repeating myself. I've actually posted those exact same things in other similar threads over the years, because I'm trying to get the word out. The gospel according to Stargazer, perhaps, but as I've also said in this thread, I really get annoyed when we as church members start acting like Pharisees and invent rules for ourselves (and others), thus repeating the mistakes of the Rabbis and going well "beyond the mark" in our zealousness.

This is kind of what I'm talking about.  If a person can only find the word "tea" then saying herbal tea is ok could be a different way of inventing a rule.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I am reminded of Elder Quentin L. Cook's article in the March 2003 issue of The Ensign: "Looking beyond the Mark."

Sometimes it can be a mistake to look for "official" explanations. The problem with many "official" explanations is that too frequently one is looking at uninspired personal opinions in rabbinical clothing. 

Yes, but there is a difference between living without a rule and teaching someone else what the rule is. So if I'm going to teach I want it clear what is official and what is not especially when it came to whether you could go to the temple or not.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't like to claim special inspiration (my patriarchal blessing admonishes me to be humble, and does so two times), but like you, when it came to "herbal teas" I felt that the Spirit was guiding me in understanding that unless they actually contained tea (i.e. "black tea") there was nothing wrong with them. As an aside, "black tea" is misleading, because the tea leaf is naturally green, and depending upon processing method the end result can be black, green, white, or yellow. I seemed to understand the idea that the issue was with that particular species of plant, not the method of preparation as a drink. 

See this is where I'll talking about our own rules.  Your rule is that species is not ok.  Please know I'm not trying to argue what is ok and what is not.  I don't care.  I don't believe in the church anymore. What I'm saying is you have a hard time with people making rules that go beyond the mark.  I had a hard time with people making rules (only black tea species for example) and criticizing people (not saying you are) for breaking their rule.

It really isn't about tea for me in this conversation. Its just that both side often can't see when we make our own rules when there is a lack of official rules. 

I also don't have a problem with people working things out on their own. In fact I wish the church allowed a lot more of that. It's only when the church sets rules, sort of, and then wanted me to teach those rules. 

 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Have you ever heard of "Mormon tea"? That's one of the common names of the plant Ephedra nevadensis. It's also known as "Brigham tea," after Brigham Young, of course.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It "was used for food and medicine by indigenous people and for tea by Mormons." It is one of the few species of the ephedra plant that doesn't produce ephedrine, so consuming it is safe. It also has no caffeine. When I lived in Washington state, we used to visit eastern Washington where the plant grows in abundance in the wild, and bring home a quantity to use as infusions. Various health benefits are claimed for it, but I have no idea if any of the claims are true. The "tea" brewed from the stems (it doesn't have much in the way of leaves) is pleasant in taste.

I have heard of it, but I also know the official rule for going to the temple and the word of wisdom was not set right away. I forget when exactly, but it doesn't matter.  What mattered for me is that if Brigham Young was drinking it before the WoW was official then it didn't really help me know if it was now part of the official WoW or not. Especially when you start tacking on words like medicinal and illegal 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's entirely reasonable. In my case, I've served a couple of times in congregational leadership, and because of the particular positions I have been asked for "official" explanations. Last Sunday I was asked how soon after payday one should pay one's tithing. Not wanting to give an "official" answer (because there really isn't one), I told the person "It's up to you." I am NOT going to be a rabbi.

LOL, I am very odd!  

I've never run into anyone who thought the meal was against the WoW, either. I was just trying to take the idea that appending the word "tea" to a drink made the drink against the Word of Wisdom to the absurdity that calling a meal "tea" did so as well, in order to demonstrate why it does not work. 

Here's some more. Some years ago there was a post in a similar thread that said that the poster did not drink peppermint tea because it was against the Word of Wisdom. It did not occur to me at the time, but I could have asked the poster "Do you eat peppermint candy?" To which the answer would most likely have been "Yes." And the follow-on in the argument is to ask why does the form in which one consumes the item make a difference? Same thing when one asks if waiting until the "hot drink" becomes cold? Is it OK to drink the coffee or tea then? What if you eat the tea leaves raw as a salad with oil and vinegar dressing? Is that OK? Which should make it clear that it is not the method of preparation, or the temperature, but the substance itself that is at the heart of the matter.

Did you talk to them about black tea candy? How about black tea salad? I have no idea if these things exist, but I have never been to Asia so they might. But if not talking about black tea candy this just shows you may have been leading them to your rule, not necessarily a church rule. 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think I need to clarify something here. I have been complaining about Phariseeism and rabbinicalism, but my complaint is not with Jews. It is with the extremities of "looking beyond the mark." For an example of the kind of extremity I'm referring to, have a look at this article about the kosher status of gelatin: What is Kosher Gelatin Revisited. Also this video about the Manhattan Eruv. I love Jews and Israel (in my youth I wanted to move to Israel and join the Israeli Defense Force, and I'm still fiercely pro-Israel). But the way their religious leaders have, over the centuries, made the straightforward Law of Moses into a convoluted mess of absurdities is... amazing.

And my complaint is not herbal tea. It's deciding for others when they went beyond the mark. Or when they didn't make it to the mark. Again, it's really a personal thing where you have to look on the heart.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Rain

[MustardSeed]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is kind of what I'm talking about.  If a person can only find the word "tea" then saying herbal tea is ok could be a different way of inventing a rule.

Yes, but there is a difference between living without a rule and teaching someone else what the rule is. So if I'm going to teach I want it clear what is official and what is not especially when it came to whether you could go to the temple or not.

See this is where I'll talking about our own rules.  Your rule is that species is not ok.  Please know I'm not trying to argue what is ok and what is not.  I don't care.  I don't believe in the church anymore. What I'm saying is you have a hard time with people making rules that go beyond the mark.  I had a hard time with people making rules (only black tea species for example) that other people made and criticizing people (not saying you are) for breaking their rule.

It really isn't about tea for me in this conversation. Its just that neither side often can't see when we make our own rules when there is a lack of official rules. 

I also don't have a problem with people working things out on their own. In fact I wish the church allowed a lot more of that. It's only when the church sets rules, sort of, and then wanted me to teach those rules. 

 

I have heard of it, but I also know the official rule for going to the temple and the word of wisdom was not set right away. I forget when exactly, but it doesn't matter.  What mattered for me is that if Brigham Young was drinking it before the WoW was official then it didn't really help me know if it was now part of the official WoW or not. Especially when you start tacking on words like medicinal and illegal 

Did you talk to them about black tea candy? How about black tea salad? I have no idea if these things exist, but I have never been to Asia so they might. But this just shows you were leading them to your rule, not necessarily a church rule. 

And my complaint is not herbal tea. It's deciding for others when they went beyond the mark. Or when they didn't make it to the mark. Again, it's really a personal thing where you have to look on the heart.

This is why I wish there was more (and there is starting to be) emphasis on getting our own answers.

Historically the church has (imo) Been so prescriptive and detailed about what we shouldn’t shouldn’t do, what we can and can’t do that imo we have become fairly dependent on leadership to define what will save us and what will damn us.  We like to know so that we can go right up to that line.  (Giving us an inch of shoulder and the uproar that followed is a great example) - 

 

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is why I wish there was more (and there is starting to be) emphasis on getting our own answers.

Historically the church has (imo) Been so prescriptive and detailed about what we shouldn’t shouldn’t do, what we can and can’t do that imo we have become fairly dependent on leadership to define what will save us and what will damn us.  We like to know so that we can go right up to that line.  (Giving us an inch of shoulder and the uproar that followed is a great example) - 

 

Or being rebllious because you felt like you were being constantly told what to do which was my bigger problem till I spent years working on myself to know that doing what I felt was right is good even if others are telling me I have to do that thing.

It's that "sort of" that I included in an answer above. Being prescriptive on many things, often little things, and then on other things just letting them float. And then being prescriptive on some things and later saying, "well, in this case, it's allright."

Edited November 4, 2024 by Rain

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

It really isn't about tea for me in this conversation. Its just that both side often can't see when we make our own rules when there is a lack of official rules. 

I also don't have a problem with people working things out on their own. In fact I wish the church allowed a lot more of that. It's only when the church sets rules, sort of, and then wanted me to teach those rules. 

I understand the problem, of course. 

 

[The Nehor]

On 10/28/2024 at 5:17 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

Sugar for instance: a totally unnecessary and dangerous substance.

Wait, what?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, what?

I am assuming he means refined or added sugars just as he identified refined flours.

You can live a good life without refined sugar, I have done that a number of times in my life and if I could get the rest of my family on board, I would probably have been living without it for decades.  Sugar on the other hand…got to have my fruit which has lots of sugar in it.  Then there’s milk, sweet potatoes, tomato paste…I could go on and on with the necessity of sugars to a good life.   
Maple syrup is not defined as a refined sugar so the one food I would eat solely for its sweetness still doesn’t push me out of my no sugar/actually no refined sugar zone. (I will never give up waffles as they qualify as my ultimate comfort food and therefore must be able to continue to include maple syrup into my approved list, but I could eat them sweetened with maple syrup in the batter instead of on top.)

Edited November 8, 2024 by Calm

[longview]

On 11/7/2024 at 6:26 PM, Calm said:

I am assuming he means refined or added sugars just as he identified refined flours.

You can live a good life without refined sugar, I have done that a number of times in my life and if I could get the rest of my family on board, I would probably have been living without it for decades.  Sugar on the other hand…got to have my fruit which has lots of sugar in it.  Then there’s milk, sweet potatoes, tomato paste…I could go on and on with the necessity of sugars to a good life.   
Maple syrup is not defined as a refined sugar so the one food I would eat solely for its sweetness still doesn’t push me out of my no sugar/actually no refined sugar zone. (I will never give up waffles as they qualify as my ultimate comfort food and therefore must be able to continue to include maple syrup into my approved list, but I could eat them sweetened with maple syrup in the batter instead of on top.)

I have read in a few places that those fruits and vegies contain complex sugars which is better for the body. The kind of sugar in pastries and candy and such are simple sugars. They are over processed and more addictive which is bad for the body.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, longview said:

I have read in a few places that those fruits and vegies contain complex sugars which is better for the body. The kind of sugar in pastries and candy and such are simple sugars. They are over processed and more addictive which is bad for the body.

Yep…they also contain other nutrients that are good for you, vitamins and minerals, fiber.  Complex sugars consist of more sugar molecules, longer chains and therefore take longer to break down and digest…which is good in most cases as it’s more likely to be filling.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325171

Btw, there appears to be no “sugar rush” with simple sugars like soda, rather it’s more of a slowdown.

Quote

The initial spike in energy is responsible for the so-called “sugar rush” that people have long believed follows the consumption of certain simple carbohydrates, such as a chocolate bar or a sugary drink.

However, a 2019 review of studies that included 1,259 participants found no evidence for this, with carbohydrates producing no immediate elevations in mood or activity levels. Instead, the review found a reduction in alertness and increase in fatigue after 30 to 60 minutes

 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

I thought this video discussing the topic to be somewhat interesting to those who have been responding here.

 

[MustardSeed]

“We judge others righteousness based on the fences we have” - so accurate .  And sometimes we don’t really even understand why we have the fences that we have. We’re just on automatic pilot.

[Rain]

On 12/13/2024 at 6:21 AM, Stargazer said:

I thought this video discussing the topic to be somewhat interesting to those who have been responding here.

 

Bruce talks about a fence prophets put on the Word of Wisdom - tea and coffee.  What's interesting to me is they go on and speak about other fences that people put up, but were put up by prophets first or as well.  For example Brigham Young and Joseph F Smith spoke against playing cards. 

Caffeine is one that gets talked about a lot. It wasn't till 10 years ago that my dad told me why our family stopped drinking caffeined sodas. President Kimball said in a solemn assembly in the temple my dad went to that caffeined sodas were against the Word of Wisdom. So if all those leaders spread that to stakes and wards and if there were other solemn assemblies where that happened it wouldn't take long to spread.

I do think people put up their own fences, but I also think fences get put up by church leaders more than we might know.

Edited December 14, 2024 by Rain