Does the LDS Culture Promote Obesity?

[_Mister Scratch]

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that governments and laws are due to "infantile culture", and mature adult don't need a government to tell them what to do. This suggest to me that you prefer our maturing as a culture to the point where govenrments and laws are no longer needed, and adults are no longer told what to do by governments and laws. To me, that smacks a bit of anachism,

No it doesn't, Wade. It smacks of adults who do not need a government or a Church to dictate their every little behavior. Let *me* make sure: Are you saying that people need the Church in order to know what to think?

I'm assuming you're an active member of the church. If not, it sure seems like you've suffered its indoctrination.

Your assumtion is correct, but there is some question whether your pejorative stereotyping applies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

C'mon, Wade. You are allowing yourself to be controlled again. The only thing that could possibly be seen as "negative" is the word "suffering." Would it make you happier if he'd said, "you've experienced its indoctrination"? Or is the fact of your indoctrination one of those facts which is so negative that you refuse to dwell upon and consider it? You know, since you "prefer to focus on the positive and the uplifting"?

[_Some Schmo]

With all due respect, each of your subsequent comments make it evident to me that your understanding is as incorrect as your guess. But, it is not worth arguing over.

True, it's not worth arguing over. I understand you want to avoid the real issue. It's all cool.

Now I'll answer your question with another: how is claiming that adults should be responsible for themselves even remotely related to anarchy?

I am puzzled that you would ask since you previously said: "Adults shouldn't have to be told what to do on matters like speed limits, controlled substances, marriage and divorce, etc. Adults that need to be told what to do are irresponsible (again, drawing a distinction between seeking advice, eg. divorce laws, and being told what to do). The very fact that things like, for instance, gambling, drugs, and prostitution are litigated at all is part of what leads to an infantile culture where people, who otherwise should be making choices like this for themselves are looking to the gov't to be told what to do."

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that governments and laws are due to "infantile culture", and mature adult don't need a government to tell them what to do. This suggest to me that you prefer our maturing as a culture to the point where govenrments and laws are no longer needed, and adults are no longer told what to do by governments and laws. To me, that smacks a bit of anachism, but I thought that rather than jump to any hard-and-fast conclusion, I would ask so as to make sure one way or the other. So, are you advocating anarchy or not?

Well then, let's just clear this up for you, shall we?

Laws are needed in order to protect people from each other. That's it. It's not really the government’s job to tell people what to do, but rather protect people from others who are looking to cause harm to them.

The government is stepping over the line when they punish people or litigate against things that do not harm others (ie drug use, gambling, prostitution, homosexual marriage, etc). In other words, it's not up to the government to impose their particular brand of morality on the citizens (at least, I'm saying it shouldn't be), because these are matters of personal responsibility. Protecting the citizen from harm, on the other hand, means litigating against things like theft, murder, rape, etc. I wouldn't consider that anarchy. It's not the gov't telling people what to do as much as it is providing consequences when people are irresponsible. In the case of drug use, gambling, etc, those things, if misused, lead to their own adverse consequences without the gov't getting involved.

And how is claiming that adults should be responsible for themselves telling them what to do?

If you aren't telling adults what they "should" do, then who are you telling what to do?

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. What the hell are you talking about? I'm stating an opinion on how I think adults should be, and that's it. The fact is, adults sometimes are and sometimes aren't.

I'm assuming you're an active member of the church. If not, it sure seems like you've suffered its indoctrination.

Your assumtion is correct, but there is some question whether your pejorative stereotyping applies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL... why do you interpret it as pejorative, I wonder?

And you've used this idea that I "stereotype" Mormons a couple of times now. You know, I was raised in the church. I know what they're about. I understand they aren't all completely identical, but the obedient ones typically are.

hehe

[_wenglund]

Well then, let's just clear this up for you, shall we?

Laws are needed in order to protect people from each other. That's it. It's not really the government’s job to tell people what to do, but rather protect people from others who are looking to cause harm to them.

The government is stepping over the line when they punish people or litigate against things that do not harm others (ie drug use, gambling, prostitution, homosexual marriage, etc). In other words, it's not up to the government to impose their particular brand of morality on the citizens (at least, I'm saying it shouldn't be), because these are matters of personal responsibility. Protecting the citizen from harm, on the other hand, means litigating against things like theft, murder, rape, etc. I wouldn't consider that anarchy. It's not the gov't telling people what to do as much as it is providing consequences when people are irresponsible. In the case of drug use, gambling, etc, those things, if misused, lead to their own adverse consequences without the gov't getting involved.

Okay, so you are more a libertarian instead of an anarchist, which means you are fine with the government telling adults what to do just as long as it protect one adult from harming another, though not in cases where the adults may harm themselves--assuming it is possible to harm oneself without aversely affecting others.

Now, if you are fine with compulsory organizations (such as the governments) telling adults what to do on that basis, then I don't see why it wouldn't be teasonable to grant the same for non-compulsory or volunteer organizations (such as religion, or businesses, etc.)?

I happen to agree that governments may rightly tell adults what to do on that basis, but I am inclined to take it a wee bit further, and suggest that governments (and Churchs, busineses, and other organizations) may, to some degree and in various ways, rightly tell adults what to do for the purpose of maintaining order, pragmatism, and to also best assure their citizens' enalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. This means that to me, the government can, to some extent, rightly tell the adults to pay taxes to fund societal infrastructure (roads, utilities, libraries, public school systems, etc.), whereas other organization like religions can rightly tell adults, by way of policy and procedure and counsel, to do things like pool their time and resources to feeding the hungry, care for the sick and afflicted, educating and raising our children, etc.

But, to each their own.

And how is claiming that adults should be responsible for themselves telling them what to do?

If you aren't telling adults what they "should" do, then who are you telling what to do?

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. What the hell are you talking about? I'm stating an opinion on how I think adults should be, and that's it. The fact is, adults sometimes are and sometimes aren't.

I guess we understand the word "should" differently, and that's okay. When I hear someone say "adults should do such and such", I interpret them to be telling adults what they should do. But, again, to each their own..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[quote="The Nehor"] Anyone who needs Church Leaders to make decisions for them is NOT going to be exalted.....see Brigham Young quote above.

Bullroar. The thousands of times members hear "follow the prophet" Trump's your measley little quote. Besides, BY also said that if you disagree with a leader you must get on your knees and pray until you agree. Mormonism "exalts" people for doing, not being, and anyone who does everything they are supposed to do has nothing to worry about.

[_The Nehor]

Anyone who needs Church Leaders to make decisions for them is NOT going to be exalted.....see Brigham Young quote above.

Bullroar. The thousands of times members hear "follow the prophet" Trump's your measley little quote. Besides, BY also said that if you disagree with a leader you must get on your knees and pray until you agree. Mormonism "exalts" people for doing, not being, and anyone who does everything they are supposed to do has nothing to worry about.

Mormonism 'exalts' no one, God 'exalts' people. They are exalted because of their thoughts, words, and actions. That sounds to me like 'being' not just 'doing'.

It Trump's nothing. I don't hear "follow the prophet" nearly as much as you seem to think I do. Note I did not say do not follow the Prophet. I said it isn't enough JUST to follow the Prophet. I'm also told regularly and often not to drink alcohol. This does not make that the end-all and be all of what I should be doing. Critics latch on to following the Prophet and try to turn it into the shining creed of Mormonism and the highest law given by it which I can say that it is NOT. Read my blog where I talked about this quite a bit in a very rambling fashion. ;)

[_Some Schmo]

Okay, so you are more a libertarian instead of an anarchist, which means you are fine with the government telling adults what to do just as long as it protect one adult from harming another, though not in cases where the adults may harm themselves--assuming it is possible to harm oneself without aversely affecting others.

Now, if you are fine with compulsory organizations (such as the governments) telling adults what to do on that basis, then I don't see why it wouldn't be teasonable to grant the same for non-compulsory or volunteer organizations (such as religion, or businesses, etc.)?

I happen to agree that governments may rightly tell adults what to do on that basis, but I am inclined to take it a wee bit further, and suggest that governments (and Churchs, busineses, and other organizations) may, to some degree and in various ways, rightly tell adults what to do for the purpose of maintaining order, pragmatism, and to also best assure their citizens' enalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. This means that to me, the government can, to some extent, rightly tell the adults to pay taxes to fund societal infrastructure (roads, utilities, libraries, public school systems, etc.), whereas other organization like religions can rightly tell adults, by way of policy and procedure and counsel, to do things like pool their time and resources to feeding the hungry, care for the sick and afflicted, educating and raising our children, etc.

But, to each their own.

You're not listening. (I'm not surprised anymore, if I ever was). I don't think it's right for the gov't to tell people what to do. It's only right for them to provide consequences for when an adult's irresponsibility causes harm to another.

I do also believe they're responsible for the country's infrastructure, and that has to be funded somehow. Being a responsible adult means contributing your share (ie paying your taxes).

It suddenly occurs to me that you (given the way you talk here) have an external locus of control. I recommend you think about internalizing your sense of control. It will make you more happy.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_wenglund]

You're not listening. (I'm not surprised anymore, if I ever was). I don't think it's right for the gov't to tell people what to do. It's only right for them to provide consequences for when an adult's irresponsibility causes harm to another.

I do also believe they're responsible for the country's infrastructure, and that has to be funded somehow. Being a responsible adult means contributing your share (ie paying your taxes).

It suddenly occurs to me that you (given the way you talk here) have an external locus of control. I recommend you think about internalizing your sense of control. It will make you more happy.

Hope this helps. Thanks, -Some Schmo-

With all due respect, I am finding it increasingly more difficult to derive even a modicum of entertainment value from your posts. But, I suppose if that is all you have to offer, I should at least be grateful for that. So...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

With all due respect, I am finding it increasingly more difficult to derive even a modicum of entertainment value from your posts. But, I suppose if that is all you have to offer, I should at least be grateful for that. So...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See? You continue to demonstrate you're not listening. When did I ever say I was trying to appeal to the Mormons? In fact, I explicitly pointed out that Mormons likely wouldn't find me funny.

Maybe it isn't a listening problem as much as it is a comprehension problem. It's hard to say. Whatever the case, you should do some serious introspection and come to terms with this failing of yours in order to address it. Solid communication with others can only benefit you in the long run.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_wenglund]

With all due respect, I am finding it increasingly more difficult to derive even a modicum of entertainment value from your posts. But, I suppose if that is all you have to offer, I should at least be grateful for that. So...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See? You continue to demonstrate you're not listening. When did I ever say I was trying to appeal to the Mormons? In fact, I explicitly pointed out that Mormons likely wouldn't find me funny.

Maybe it isn't a listening problem as much as it is a comprehension problem. It's hard to say. Whatever the case, you should do some serious introspection and come to terms with this failing of yours in order to address it. Solid communication with others can only benefit you in the long run.

Hope this helps. Thanks, -Some Schmo-

I think that even as a Mormon I would have had a greater appreciation for your kind of "entertainment" back when I was in junior high. So, mea culpa.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

I think that even as a Mormon I would have had a greater appreciation for your kind of "entertainment" back when I was in junior high. So, mea culpa.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmmm, I doubt it. You don't seem to understand it now. What makes you think you would have 50 years ago?

Hope this helps.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-