The COVID-19 Vax & the WOW

While I think they could do better at encouraging vaccination, the First Presidency did make a statement in January encouraging vaccination (emphasis added):

Individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. In making that determination, we recommend that, where possible, they counsel with a competent medical professional about their personal circumstances and needs.

DJ this is my point: individuals can & should make their own decisions regarding whether to take the vaccine or not. Along the same vein, shouldn’t we have the same right to define for our selves, the application & practice of the Word of Wisdom as we sit for a TR interview?

In balancing whether to take the covid vaccine or not has the potential for having a bigger impact then whether or not to drink coffee & tea.

DJ this is my point: individuals can & should make their own decisions regarding whether to take the vaccine or not. Along the same vein, shouldn’t we have the same right to define for our selves, the application & practice of the Word of Wisdom as we sit for a TR interview?

In balancing whether to take the covid vaccine or not has the potential for having a bigger impact then whether or not to drink coffee & tea.

For sure! :clap:

I agree it does. My only thoughts around this are that the WoW is seen by most as a commandment (even though it says it’s not) and while I’d love to see less emphasis on it (in such things as TR interviews) the reality is it’s here to stay for at least a while. The last time there seemed to be rumors about relaxing it a bit the church doubled down (particularly regarding tea). While I don’t personally see any harm in an occasional wine with dinner or holiday meal or an ice cold beer on a hot summer day and would answer that I live the WoW if I did indulge, I don’t think that’s the prevailing thought (although I know active members who agree with me).

The other reality is that we’re all free to make out own decisions about anything church related or not. However, if we choose to have an occasional cuppa and then say in a TR interview that we don’t live the WoW there will likely be the consequence of no TR (although leadership roulette comes into play). And, if someone really is addicted to a substance there are natural consequences. But we are free to choose, fear of consequences or not.

I don’t think we can conflate vaccination with the WoW and we’ve been warned a couple times recently not to add to it. The WoW is seen as a commandment, vaccination is not.

My final thought on the subject is I don’t want any more commandments from the prophet. Even about vaccination. For the record, I was one of the first vaccinated because of my work. I would have chosen to be vaccinated anyway. I also don’t believe vaccination is as effective as we’re being led to believe, except that my risk of death from COVID is apparently very much reduced.

The original wording in Section 89 stresses that the prohibitions are not the ideal; rather, they are “adapted to the weakest of the weak” because of “the evil that does and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men”. I see this as saying that the “strong” (those who could use the substances responsibly) have a moral obligation to avoid using those substances in order to protect others who would be hurt most by those substances.

In that sense, I believe there is a direct correlation to COVID and vaccination. I do NOT believe everyone should be required to be vaccinated, since there are conditions for which getting a vaccination would be dangerous – but I am convinced, based on my own study of history, social studies, and medical issues, that those cases are rare and that the “strong” (those who would not be killed or hurt terribly if they tested positive) have a moral responsibility to get vaccinated (and follow basic guidelines) in order to protect those who are “the weakest of the weak” (those who would die or have serious complications if they tested positive). In plain terms, the “right” to use certain substances or refuse to be vaccinated or refuse to follow basic restrictions is less important than the responsibility to help protect others who would be hurt by doing so.

For example, I know of one particular case involving juvenile leukemia. They cannot be vaccinated, since it literally would kill them. Due to their condition, if they so much as catch a common cold, they could die. Therefore, extreme precautions must be taken in order to keep them alive until the leukemia is eliminated and their body is able to fight off infections. Obviously, nobody can enter their care units who have not been vaccinated, and everyone must wear masks and social distance when possible.

I know that is an extreme case, but here is the main point:

Prior to their diagnosis, nobody knew about their condition – so they were HIGHLY susceptible to unintentionally getting COVID and dying from it. Wearing masks and social distancing were and still are important to them staying alive. The virus protections, in my mind, are for those like them who are most in danger of serious consequences without everyone knowing that. They literally are examples of the principle explained in Section 89, even if the specifics are radically different.

If they introduce phone vaccine passes into our chapel, I’m off. I have strokes and heart trouble all over both sides of my family and am at high risk – Covid, on the other hand does little to me. I also do not agree with the electronic tracking pass thing on principle and would not agree to it outside these times. I know they want to bring this in permanently.

If they introduce phone vaccine passes into our chapel, I’m off. I have strokes and heart trouble all over both sides of my family and am at high risk – Covid, on the other hand does little to me. I also do not agree with the electronic tracking pass thing on principle and would not agree to it outside these times. I know they want to bring this in permanently.

I don’t know if “they” is the British government (I assume it is) but things are very different in this regard in the USA.

It’s being introduced in a hundred countries in some form or another. Israel already has these things and it is causing chaos there, meaning lecturers are being blocked from entering their own universities. It’s obviously not the decision of any one country but decided in some shady international conference that our supposedly “democratic” governments forgot to tell us about.

It is being brought in by mission creep in many places… It starts with travel, then sports games and concerts, then night clubs. We’re going to need these freaking things to leave our house next. I know if they come in we’ll never get rid of them.

I suspect the USA will be resistant to these things, but a lot of other developed countries are not. I know it is in a watered down form in some parts of the States already (although you can present a card rather than have the tracking app on your phone)

One of our bishopric downloaded the voluntary version last year. If it becomes compulsory, I’m afraid I’ll have to boycott. I’m already taking names down when people come into the chapel. Bit I’m not gping to endorse a kind of surveillance even East Germany couldn’t have come up with.

Our area started meeting in person again shortly before the peak of the pandemic late last year. When the peak happened the governor issued limits on indoor gatherings but we had just gone back to in-person meetings and apparently we weren’t willing to make the sacrifice again so we ignored the restrictions. Flat out ignored them.

After the peak we quickly relaxed guidelines for wearing masks and social distancing and even started singing hymns again. Now with covid infections doubling each day there’s talk of the governor issuing guidelines to wear masks indoors again. I don’t expect my ward to go back to mask wearing. The cat is out of the bag now.

The tide has turned. The push to return back to normal at church is now greater than any concern for public health.

But what was the original topic? Oh yeah, the covid vaccine and how it relates to the WoW. 🙂 :angel:

One difference is that in one case you’re telling people to do something that they don’t want to do and in another case you’re telling someone that they can’t do something that they may want to do.

Politically, taking a strong position on tea and coffee doesn’t raise any eyebrows with people in church. It’s a well established expectation, it’s easy for leaders to take the strong position because it’s not a very controversial issue for memebers.

Meanwhile vaccines have become supercharged politically. There’s virtually no upside to taking a strong position because no matter what position you end up taking, people on the other half of the debate are going to be super upset and it will cause division.