MarginOfError

Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, Molloy E, Castellanos FX: Brain Imagingof attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2001; 931:33–49 Himelstein J, Newcorn, JH, Halperin JM: The neurobiology ofattention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Front Viosci 2000; 5: D461–478 Stefanatos GA, Wasserstein J: Attention deficit/hyperactivitydisorder as a right hemisphere syndrome. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2001; 172–195 Barkley RA, Grodzinsky G, DuPaul GJ: Frontal lobe functions inattentiondeficit disorder with and without hyperactivity: a review and research report. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1992; 20(2): 163–188 Filipek PA, Semrud-ClikemanM, Steingard RJ, et al.: VolumetricMRI analysis comparing subjects having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with normal controls. Neurology, 1997; 48:589– 601 Castellanos F, Giedd JN, Marsh WL, et al.: Quantitative brainmagnetic resonance imaging in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Arch GenPsych, 1996; 53:607–616 Casey BJ, Castellanos FX, Giedd JN, et al.: Implication of rightfrontostriatal circuitry in response inhibition and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. JAmAcad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 1997; 36:374–383 Rubia K, Overmeyer S, Taylor E, et al.: Hypofrontality in attentiondeficithyperactivity disorder during higher-order motor control: a study with fMRI. Am J Psychiatry, 1999; 156:891–896 Rubia K, Overmeyer S, Taylor E, et al.: Functional frontalisationwith age: mapping neurodevelopmental trajectories with fMRI. Neuroscience Biobehav Rev, 2000; 24:13–19 MacMaster FP, Carrey N, Sparkes S, et al.: Protonspectr oscopyin medication-free pediatric attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Bio Psychiatry, 2003; 53(2):184–187 KorkmanM, Kirk U, Kemp S: NEPSY: A Developmental NeuropsychologicalApproach. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 1998 Woodcock R, Johnson N,Woodcock-Johnson PsychoeducationalBattery-Revised. DLM Publishers, 1989 Miller BL: A review of chemical issues in1H NMRspectroscopy:N-acetyl-L-aspartate, creatine, and choline. NMR Biomed, 1991; 4:47–52 Levitt J, Ke Y, Thomas MA, Curran JG, et al: MR imaging andspectroscopy in children with developmental psychiatric disorders. Radiology, 1995; 97(P): 196 Then there are the 7,217 references given in Pubmed for "ADHD", 2,074 for "Effects of ADHD", 3,551 for "Treatment of ADHD", and 4,102 for "Diagnosis of ADHD". As for diagnostic measures, there is very little consistent support for a pathological diagnosis. But as mentioned before, diagnoses can be made using behavioral cues. In fact, there are well established similarities in behavior in people exhibiting ADHD. As I mentioned before, if ADHD is not present, treating with stimulants should cause a spike in hyperactive behavior. If the stimulant curbs they hyperactive behavior, then it's a good chance ADHD is present. The difference between behavioral diagnosis and pathological diagnosis is merely the difference between inductive and deductive logic. But then, what did logic ever have to do with this?

Actually, it sounds more like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. How people with the behavioral disorder differ from those without it is quite well documented. What the statement says is that simple Mendelian genetics doesn't explain the occurrence of ADHD. Surely someone with as much knowledge and interest in genetics as yourself understands the complexity of genetic interactions and the insufficiency of Mendelian genetics in modern science.

You'll have to forgive me for not citing a reference right away, but the book I am basing my statement on is at home. According the the American Academy of Pediatrics, children are naturally quite selfish up until age four or five. Thinking outside of their own experience requires a level of abstract thinking that children don't develop until a little later. So if your 3 year old seems a little selfish, it may be more developmental than parental. When you're making the list of what to give family and friends with your son, don't be surprised if he wants to give everyone the things that he wants to receive. (Caring for Your Baby and Young Child: Birth to Age 5) But I like your approach. As his mind develops, he should adapt to selfless thought quite easily.

Try checking out these two threads. I'm not sure we really have a consistent opinion on the boards. One of those things that isn't well-defined in the literature I guess. Baptism for Paradise? Ordinances necessary for Spirit Paradise

This could so easily spiral out of control. The basic question we are trying to answer is on what should we be paying tithing? If we go with the scriptural answer, then we say we pay tithing on our increase. But go asking around the Church what 'increase' means and you'll get bombarded with explanations, all of which have some sort of inconsistency. If we consider increase to be any form of compensation, then things like gift cards should be tithed. But on the other hand, gift cards are a restricted commodity in that we may only use them in places where they are accepted. I can't pay tithing on my gift card with my gift card. So I have to deduct funds from somewhere else in my accounts to pay the tithing on my gift card. Ideally, I could then use the gift card to buy whatever I would have bought with the cash deducted from my account, but that really only works if it's something I would have bought anyway. But if my brother buys me a $50 gift card to Olive Garden, I could pay $5 tithing on it, but then I can't use the gift card to buy the gallon of milk I would otherwise have used the cash for. Come to think of it, what if my brother paid his tithing before he bought the gift card? Isn't it already tithed then? Is it tithed with respect to him, but not with respect to me and needs to be tithed again? What if I pay a tithe on the gift card and then give the gift card to someone else? Should I only pay tithing on a gift card if the person giving it to me has not paid their tithing? When trying to determine if you should or shouldn't pay tithing on something, I find it best to focus on what tithing is intended to teach us. Tithing is in place so that we may contribute to the building of the Kingdom of God. It is in place to help us remember what blessings we have received from the Lord, and to help us express gratitude for what we have received. Ultimately, the Law of Tithing is to the Law of Consecration what the Aaronic Priesthood is to the Melchizedek Priesthood--a preparatory commitment. If the ultimate goal is to be willing to give anything you possess to God's Kingdom, then the definition of 'increase' is much less important than the willingness and sincerity with which you give whatever tithe you give. Also, let's not forget the Fast Offering. If you feel you have a lot of gray area items that you aren't sure if you should tithe or not, then perhaps that's a time when you can give a more generous fast offering. Tithing may be what determines one's worthiness for the temple, but it's the willingness and generosity (relative to one's ability to give) of the Fast Offering that really determines the quality of the individual. So I'm with Palerider...give what you feel is right to give. If you feel good about the tithe you pay, then hold your head high when you declare yourself a full-tithe payer. If you're not so sure, talk it over with your Bishop and get his counsel. But don't sweat the small stuff. There are plenty of noble pursuits in the world that are in greater need of that sweat than tithing on gift cards. As for the $2.00 for your children, again, it's what you feel is right. If it were my children, I would opt to have them pay tithing for no other reason than to help them develop a familiarity, to take the opportunity to explain why we pay tithing, where the money goes, and to give them the opportunity to talk with the Bishop each year about tithing and to make their own declaration of their tithing status. But this is based in my belief that they won't gain a testimony of tithing if they don't pay tithing. Just my take, and I won't be offended if you disagree.

May not have been hateful, but try telling the merchants in the temple it wasn't destructive. The question that remains was the rage displayed in your quote hateful? It is pretty clear that Smith would have preferred peace. This statement is more like saying, "if you declare war on us, we'll fight back, we'll win, and we'll win in a fashion that will ensure you never declare war on us again." Furthermore, the objectivity of this affidavit can be questioned, as it was given in the midst of Thomas B Marsh apostacizing. The quote Marsh made about the next Mohammed comes with no context, nor is there any indication of when it was made. There is nothing to substantiate the account, so far as I am aware. By the time Marsh gave this affidavit, he had been increasingly displeased with the Church since April of that same year. Ill feelings had been brewing for six months already. When I get home I can pull out the History of the Church and see if there was any official comment on the affidavit.

"The broad selection of targets indicates that ADHD does not follow the traditional model of a "genetic disease" and should be viewed as a complex interaction among genetic and environmental factors. Even though all these genes might play a role, to date no single gene has been shown to make a major contribution to ADHD." Wikipedia -- ADHD Again, you can't use this as a justification that it can't be a valid and accepted condition. Your beloved fertility clinic won't imply that it can prevent ADHD when it has no way of doing so. Your logic to obtain your conclusion is overly-simplistic and lacks the ability to reflect reality.

Quite simple...even Christ had a temper at times. Judicious use of anger and force is Christ-like.

That might explain the paranoia

Oh, I know! They'll call my dad! Straight from the High Council of a Midwestern Stake to the Quorum of the Twelve!

My father is the only person in my line of authority who wasn't an Apostle. That was helpful wasn't it! (I guess it's safe to say that you probably haven't heard of my father).

It is correct to say that ADD and ADHD are not mental illnesses. They are behavioral disorders. That's a distinction that many people don't make. Behavioral science is the red-headed bastard child that psychology wants to pretend it never fathered. Part of the dispute over ADD/ADHD is that the cause and/or impetus for the behavioral disorder is not well understood. Many people want to say, "if we can't see what causes it, it must not exist." This runs contrary to the fact that you have a group of roughly 4% of the population that exhibits these symptoms, and when you put this group on stimulants, they become less hyperactive. This is the opposite response you would expect under normal conditions. So it follows that because it behaves consistently when manipulated, it must have a common impetus. ADD/ADHD do not appear on medical forms because the presence of these behavioral disorders are not known to affect the outcome of treatment. Medication for these disorders may have an affect on treatment, but that's covered in the question about medications you are currently taking. It wouldn't appear on donor forms because the hereditary nature of it is still in dispute (perhaps rightfully so). So to say that the condition must not be real because it isn't on medical forms is a fallacious extrapolation. It isn't on the medical form because it is not known to affect the expected response to treatment.

The holes in your logic are large enough you could drive a traveling circus with a band of monkeys through them. By stating that you'd rather have a nun with a ruler disciplining second grade boys, you acknowledge that you want people to submit to that same artificial set of behavioral standards. So apparently all we're debating is the best method for obtaining that submission. So here's the big question: do we want to medicate people into submission? or do we want to beat them into submission? Such incredible options you present us, Fiannan. Surely one such as yourself, who is so well versed in all things psychological, must have some knowledge of the long term effects of abuse on children. Perhaps you could dig up some of those studies that show that boys who are subjected to corporal punishment are more inclined to rely on physical aggression in their personal relationships. Perhaps you can find some references that show that it isn't uncommon for such children to turn into spouse and child abusers. Yeah, let's beat our children into submission. What a great idea! Someone tell my wife that because she has ADD, Fiannan has now authorized me to slap her knuckles with a ruler when she doesn't wipe the counter after dinner. So let's never offer a child judicious use of medication to help him or her learn self-control without fear of punishment. Let's never work compassionately with a child so he or she can learn true discipline that fosters positive relationships with authority. Remember, no pain, no gain. What you are so proudly displaying as 'discipline' is nothing more than abuse.

Nope, it's much better to 'discipline' them into submission to an artificial set of behavioral standards. Or are you advocating anarchy? It's hard to tell.

Are you saying that medicating for one's convenience and medicating to develop proper function are equivalent and condemnable? Many of us have stated throughout this thread that medications can be wisely and judiciously used to assist in learning to cope with various adversities. I can't remember anyone here condoning the use of medications as a lazy man's way to a simple outcome. "[ADHD] affects about 3-5% of school aged children." I'm not sure that 3-5% qualifies as common. Statistically speaking, this is right on for a rare, random condition. 95% of the population should be what is considered normal ('typical' is actually a better word here) if the condition is to appear at random. Is acceptance that God created mankind a necessary and sufficient condition for God personally placing every physical or psychological adversity in our mortal bodies? Must we automatically reject the notion that random error can creep into the gene pool? Or if one accepts evolution, are we to assume that every trait as common as 3-5% is here to help us survive as a species? Mind you, about 3-4% of the population carries the label of homosexual. Under your current statement, that trait is also around to help us survive as a species. How about, "not solely prescription diet pills." Some individuals bodies many not produce enough of the necessary hormones and chemicals required to metabolize what they eat. In such cases, diet pills would be a necessary aid to their health. No one here is implying that diet pills should entirely replace diet and exercise. That implication is a creation of your own fantastical mind. What are you trying to say here? You haven't really tied together male aggression and play with their perceived abnormality in school.

The way you phrase that makes it sound like activity, callings, and tithing are required to receive welfare assistance from the Church. I just want to clarify that this isn't true. In fact, you don't even have to be a member or the Church to receive assistance from it's welfare services.

No offense taken DS. It's a good point. I only know of one family that went bankrupt because they chose to pay their tithing. It was my own. My dad was running his own business for a while and it went under. The debts piled up and my parents were getting into trouble financially. They consulted with a consumer credit counseling service in order to avoid bankruptcy. The counseling service looked over their expenditures and said, "Oh, if you didn't pay all this money to your church, you'd have enough money to pay all your bills and you wouldn't go bankrupt" (I've since been told that it was incorrect for them to say so, and borderline illegal--individuals aren't required to stop making expenditures that are required of their religion). My parents said that wasn't acceptable to them, so the service turned them away and refused to help them. My parents went bankrupt shortly after. My dad ended up having to take a job that paid less money. It was a government job, that then headed toward privatization. When the government realized that he was actually turning over a profit, they refused to follow the privatization plan. He recently was offered a job elsewhere for a significantly better salary. When starting this job he had very little saved to retirement, but between pensions, current investing, and current salary, he'll have about two-thirds of what he needs saved up in just 10 years. He did say an interesting thing to me about tithing once. It was a couple years before he got his new job, and he had just written a tithing check. He said, "When I first joined the Church [some 25 years earlier] my bishop told me that if I paid my tithing I would be greatly blessed. The tithing check I just wrote was for the same amount as my annual salary the year I joined the Church." Yes, paying tithing might drive a person into bankruptcy. But from having watched my parents, I've learned that bankruptcy is a small price to pay for the blessings of a Full Tithe.

I think sometimes we focus so intently on Tithing that we forget that tied very closely to Tithing is Fast Offering. The discussion of whether or not those in poverty should be paying Tithing is misdirected. They absolutely should pay Tithing. And if for any reason, their paying Tithing prevents them from meeting the other essential financial obligations, they may seek out assistance from the Bishop. The Bishop may offer them assistance through the Fast Offering fund and other Church Welfare Services. Tithing and Fast Offering are intended to work together, to allow each individual the spiritual blessings given to those who keep their covenants while providing for the temporal needs for which those resources are required. The Lord really knew what he was doing when he put the two concepts together.

PRESENTS! I'm so stoked for the backpack I'm getting for Christmas that somehow isn't my Christmas present anymore and I'm using before Christmas even gets here! WOO HOO

NOOOO...how can he do this to me? He was the only person in my line of authority who didn't serve as President of the Church (with the exception of my father). I was counting on him to make it to the top! He was a neat character. But, as sad as his passing is, I'm sure he's happy to meet up with some old friends. Farewell Elder Wirthlin.

Please see my comment about medication and spiritual inhibition above.

you're right...my conscience is getting to me. Statement retracted. Apologies offered.

Hey look ma! I can stick my foot in my mouth!

I haven't looked at the rest of the celiac.com website, but if the rest of it is as bad as the article you linked to, you may want to look for a new doctor. The author of the article you posted is a school teacher in Canada trying to interpret medical studies of celiac disease done in Germany and Poland. As far as I can tell, the authors of the medical studies are making no connections between celiac disease and ADHD. It is the school teacher, who admits no experience in reading EEG's, who tries to tie them together. Am I the only one who is questioning credibility here? There is no empirical evidence here that gluten and ADHD are related. Furthermore, celiac disease is a gastro-intestinal condition that "occurs in genetically predisposed people of all ages from middle infancy. Symptoms include chronic diarrhea, failure to thrive (in children), and fatigue...". It is a condition that is exacerbated by gluten, not caused by it. Again, many of the conditions you are alluding to are exacerbated by diet. They are not necessarily caused by diet. While nutrition is an exceptionally important part of medical and health care, it is neither the ultimate cause, nor the ultimate cure, for the overwhelming majority of medical conditions. Diet and nutrition are vehicles of health maintenance, not repair. This conflict of interests is precisely why drug companies have a limited role in clinical trials and drug development. Quite often, it is a clinical physician who proposes a new drug. After small trials under federal approval, the pharmaceutical companies step in with the chemists, engineers, and sponsorship to drive a larger study. To conduct a trial, several institutions will recruit and treat patients; the patients are seen by physicians designated by the institution (not the pharmaceutical), and data is collected and analyzed by an independent data collection center. The pharmaceutical companies aren't allowed to see the data until after it is submitted to the FDA. So yes, it is true that it is better for the pharmaceutical company if you are sick. But you aren't being treated by the pharmaceutical, you're being treated by your doctor. And if your doctor wants you to constantly be sick, find another doctor.

Whether a not a person can or cannot feel the Spirit while on the medication will vary from person-to-person, from medication-to-medication, and very much involves the interaction of the two. I know people who when on medication for depression or physical ailments were quite capable of feeling the Spirit. In fact, in some cases, it was the medication that made it possible for the individual to feel the Spirit. Categorically labeling medication as a Spiritual Inhibitor is a sure sign of an ignoramus. This is not, however, to say that medications are a fail-safe for our problems. Pam has given the perfect example of how medications should be used. They are a tool to help us cope with problems and struggles that could otherwise be overwhelming. We might start an individual on a medication, but when we do, we should have the intent of getting off of medication. Using ADHD as an example, we might put an individual on a medication to help him or her manage the symptoms. As the coping mechanisms become more proficient, the dosage is lowered until medication is no longer necessary. This may take weeks, months, or years, depending on the individual or the severity of the case. The problem we see with medication--and this is really the problem that some are railing against--is that people are lazy. It's easier to be on medication than to learn to cope with the adversity of a condition. This is the practice a practice we should discourage. But at the same time we need to understand that people who suffer from such conditions require a great deal of compassion, without judgment, in order for them to perfect themselves. Some of the statements given in this thread could easily make a medicated person self-conscious, which can make it difficult to feel the Spirit as well. Let's avoid making universal statements that can cause such feelings, lest we receive our own chastisement.