Vort

Sure you could. You could quote the part you find disrespectful and say, "This part right here is disrespectful." Then we could discuss it and figure out if anyone else agrees with you, or if perhaps you are misinterpreting it.

I was just going to make a poll about this.

Let's make it 100! [Vort laughs evilly, considering the interest he will earn in the 2222-year interim before he has to repay Dravin...]

But you haven't voiced what was "disrespectful" yet! You seem content just to assert that it was "disrespectful", as if everyone else would agree with you if they simply read the thread. Since that is not the case, why not explain what you found "disrespectful", instead of just continuing to make the assertion and then acting confused or hurt when others ask for clarification?

When you first posted to the board, I remember several people seemed to have a bit of a hard time getting past your living arrangement. Others came to your defense, if you want to characterize it as such. Other than that, I don't recall anyone attacking you at any time on this list. Can you provide some examples? Perhaps this is the problem. This is not a support board, nor is it a fighting arena. It is a discussion list. Support is often offered, and fighting occasionally occurs. But mostly, what you see is people stating their opinions and discussing their differences.

So it's the dark and evil spirits, then.

I think it will occur at 1:23 on April 5th of AD 6789. Shall we make a friendly wager?

See Dravin's answer. He got it right on all counts. Somehow, Dravin seems consistently to be able to divine my mysterious meaning from my convoluted, shadowy posts. Maybe he has a Urim and Thummim, or maybe he is in league with dark and evil spirits who make such foul things known to him.

Faith in a false thing is not faith. A thing must be true in order to have faith in it, if faith has any useful and saving meaning. I did not believe in Santa Claus growing up. My mother was emotionally distraught at learning the truth about Santa Claus, whom she deeply loved and revered, and determined that her children would not suffer the same fate. Interestingly, I enjoyed Christmas every bit as much as other children, and knowing the gifts from "Santa" really came from my parents didn't dilute my enthusiasm. When we married, my wife and I discussed Santa. She loved the tradition and wanted to carry it on with our (then-future) children. I told her that she could tell them whatever she wanted to, but that I would never lie to them, even about Santa. She didn't much like that, but in the end, we used Santa as a game with our kids rather than try to pretend it was true. Again, I don't see that our children have been harmed by our appalling lack of Santa.

It seems that way, but I have to think that the death rate for missionaries is significantly lower than for others in that age group. Maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better in the face of sending my son out in the next few months.

Indeed I have. When my wife and I first married, we lived in Provo and attended a family ward for about six weeks, until we fled to a married student ward. The people were nice enough, but the ward was utter pandemonium. Little children literally ran up and down the aisles during the sacrament meeting. People carried on conversations, more or less in normal tones, during the administration of the sacrament. I know I come across here to some people as ultraconservative, but in reality I consider myself fairly broadminded and slow to judge on a personal level. But in retrospect, I am appalled. What were people thinking? Again, I am amazed that such things even need to be said. I would think that civilized people would realized that civilized behavior is expected.

At least you told us that you were going to share, before deciding your piss was much too valuable to waste. Thanks for a valuable contribution.

Sheez. And people here think I'm blunt.

I am amazed that this even needs to be said. What's next? "Reverence includes avoiding standing up during sacrament meeting and conversing loudly with someone on the other side of the chapel"?

Yum.

No, s_i_f. As has been evidenced this entire thread, you appear not to understand me, no matter how carefully I try to explain. Even if I start my response off by saying, "I can't speak to your particular situation," your response is something like "Why are you saying that I should be fasting?!" When I say "A" and you insist I mean "Not A", I don't know how to communicate in such a situation. Anyone "could be harmed by" a 24-hour fast, just as anyone "could be harmed by" a mosquito bite. "Could be harmed by" is a poor standard for judging whether people should fast. Using that standard, literally no one should ever fast. Nah. Pregnant women can fast if they feel up to it. As long as they are being properly nourished and are not under a lot of physical stress, a short 24-hour fast will harm neither them nor their baby. (The baby won't get harmed in any case; it's the mother that will feel the fast. The baby takes what it needs.) Nursing mothers have more of a case to avoid fasting than pregnant mothers, I think. Pregnant women nourish their (fetal-sized) child directly from their bloodstream; nursing mothers nourish their (usually much larger) child by turning the nutrients into milk, which then gets digested by the baby, a small percentage of it being retained. Nursing is a great deal less efficient and more energy-consuming than pregnancy (though by most accounts far less uncomfortable). The old adage about a woman losing a tooth for every child originates in the effects of nursing, not of pregnancy. This one is pretty obvious. Yes, some medications suggest or even require they be taken with food. Setting aside for the moment that our society is absurdly overmedicated, if you are supposed to take medication that requires or suggests food, this might limit your ability to fast 24 hours at a time. My diabetic uncle fasts. I don't think the reasons are as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose. Do you believe this? You think my teenage children should not fast, despite the clear teachings of the prophets, and despite the obvious spiritual growth they experience in learning to discipline their appetites? I disagree. I don't see "fasting.com" as any sort of reliable authority on the topic. Not to me. Take the "pregnant and nursing mothers" out of the picture, and the largest group is probably those with Type I diabetes, which represents 5% of 8.3%, or about 0.4% of the population. The second-largest group is probably those with AIDS, representing about 0.3% of the population. Yes, I would say this is a very small segment of the population. Not sure what to tell you, s_i_f. I despair at the idea of writing anything to you, knowing that you are almost sure to misunderstand what I'm saying. Yes. Like, anyone. But of course, anyone could be harmed by a mosquito bite or by eating a candy bar, too. The standard of "could be harmed by" is not useful. Just curious: Does it suck when someone tries to make another feel bad for trying to make others feel bad? How about false accusations? Do those suck? I gather you're rather easily offended. Not sure why you're telling me this. If you feel the need to explain your situation to me, you should perhaps reread the first sentence of my original response. Not that rereading it will do any actual good, of course... I assumed you wanted to know what you could do instead of fasting that would give you the same, or an equivalent, spiritual experience. I made this assumption based on what you wrote in your original post. If I write things that overtly attack others and seek to engender feelings of inadequacy and shame, that is my problem. If I explicitly disclaim some particular behavior and yet you insist on attributing that behavior to me despite my words, that is your problem. And if I write my opinions on a discussion board and you dislike my opinions, then expect me to shut up because you don't like what I say, you might want to rethink the dynamics of participation on a discussion board. Seriously? Who are you to judge whether I am "unloving"? Rather than wrongly condemning me for actions you insist on attributing to me despite my clear denial of them, why can't you accept that not everyone shares your worldview? That I don't agree with you doesn't make me bad, or mean, or unkind, or even <gasp> wrong.

You use the phrase "repentance process" like it's some kind of step-by-step list you run through. This may not be what you mean, but I have found many in the Church to think exactly that; witness how often we hear lessons on repentance that feature the "Five Rs" (or six, or seven, depending on who wrote the list). In the most recent General Conference, President Eyring noted that justification means a divine forgiveness of sin, whereas sanctification means a removal of the effects of sin. When you say repeatedly that you have "gone through the repentance process", I assume that means you have repented of this heinous sin. If so, you have achieved justification. You now need to work toward sanctification, the removal of the damaging effects of the sin. Then again, it's possible that you have not yet truly repented, despite having "gone through the repentance process", and this is what is holding you back. It could not hurt to talk with your bishop about this. He may be able to guide you along the path you need to take. Just some ideas for you to chew on.

Not sure what there is to untangle. I didn't hide any deep meanings in my writing. Pretty much WYSIWYG. How do you know this? I don't believe it. On the contrary, throughout human history, people who are damaged by a short, 24-hour fast typically don't survive long enough to reproduce. In other words, they die out quickly. We who live today come from a very, very, very long line of ancestors, almost all of whom were perfectly capable of fasting for 24 hours without any harm whatsoever. Do you have any evidence of this? Not really. But you certainly have the right to take offense wherever you wish. If you wish to take offense at a non-offensive statement like "most people can fast 24 hours without suffering any lasting harm", I think it's an unwise thing to do, but do as you wish.

"So if ya haven't got the McGinnies to shower like a man, this isn't the soap for you!"

No, actually, my response implied nothing of the sort. Rather, you inferred those things. Let me address them: I agree with this. This particular piece was neither implied nor inferred; it was stated openly. No, I disagree with this. Specifically, the "regardless of the consequences" part is foolhardy; God certainly does not expect us to die to fulfill the law of the fast, for example. But I would agree with a statement more like, "Many people think that fasting will harm them, when in fact it will not do them any harm past getting a headache or feeling bad for a while." Right reservation noted, and you have indeed misstated President Woodruff's point. I interpreted it as more along the lines of "Fasting won't kill you, so fast even if it gives you a headache." Glad that we have that misunderstanding straightened out, then. So your opinion is that my opinion offends you? I'm offended. I doubt I have any such magical ability. And I also doubt that the tiny minority of people for whom a short, 24-hour fast presents physical danger are going to rush to fasting because they read the opinion of some random guy on the internet and a single quote by a prophet with little context. As for the much larger portion of Saints who don't fast because it makes them feel bad, many of whom perhaps claim some physical handicap as their excuse -- if my words somehow "guilt" them into fasting, then that can only be a good thing. Right? Actually, I don't agree. I'm not much into motivation by guilt, at least if the guilt is coming from an external source. (God excepted -- he's allowed to "guilt" anyone he wants, with no correction from Vort.) Again, you mean that you took offense at my opinion. How offensive!

See my previous post for a rehash and, hopefully, clarification for you.

I assume you mean the following question: I don't want to misunderstand you Vort, but are you basically saying that I probably could fast if I really wanted to? So I gave you clarification. I instructed you to reread my first sentence. Now you're saying that did not clarify things. Can you explain which parts you don't understand and that are contributing to your confusion? Let me try to explain what I am implying or trying to say, using the following bullet-pointed list: In general, fasting makes everybody sick until they get used to it.Too many people give up on fasting without ever really giving it a chance.For the vast majority of us, our overall health could only improve by avoiding food for a day.If people fasted once a month, they would see real health benefits.I think the law of the fast is specific to food, and don't believe there is any Lent-like substitute for fasting, like giving up TV or sex or phone conversations for 24 hours.Hope that clarifies things for you. I would guess that fewer than 1% of people would be harmed by a 24-hour fast, if done correctly. Probably far fewer. Remember, we are the end product of thousands of generations of people who often had to go a day or more without eating. Those who keeled over when they couldn't eat for a day didn't reproduce much and probably are not well-represented in our ancestry. Ironically, I answered your questions in my original post on the matter, so your demand is redundant. But in the spirit of brotherhood, I have met it yet again for your benefit. Hope this helps clear things up in your mind.

My uncle, a diabetic, fasts regularly. Those with diabetes need to be much more careful, but it is untrue that diabetics can't fast. As for pregnant women, there is no physical reason why an otherwise-healthy pregnant woman could not fast. But if she chooses not to, it's no skin off my nose. I think nursing mothers are probably less able to fast than pregnant women. My wife, who is not large, ate like a horse when she nursed our children. This is a good idea, one we have used with our own children when they wanted to start fasting. I don't know why it might make you feel guilty, either. And you are probably right; it is almost certainly the case that fewer than 100% of those not used to fasting get sick when they fast. But it is extremely common that those who fast when they are not used to it get feeling bad. My use of "everyone" was an example of hyperbole used to establish a point.

If you really and truly don't want to misunderstand me, please reread the first sentence of my previous post.

How far do you extend this idea? Is an old man's life worth $200,000 per week? Per day? Per hour? Remember, this money has to come from somewhere. We can't just print it up -- or more correctly, we dare not do so. When people approach the moment of death, often they (and/or their survivors) will pay any price to delay the moment itself. The fear of death is utterly overwhelming, pushing out all rational concerns. Today, we have the means to delay death, sometimes in impressive fashion. But this is very much a two-edged sword, with the technology being used to prolong life past the point that most would consider reasonable. This is a complex topic. I cannot possibly discuss it in detail in a single discussion list posting. Suffice it to say that thirty-second blurbs, even heartfelt ones like yours quoted above, fail to capture the essence of the topic. Worse, they reduce a complex topic to overly simplistic terms, and in doing so destroy the real topic and replace it with a strawman, such as "Life good! Death bad!" It is time that we as a society grew up, quit cowering in mortal fear (heh, heh) of the topic, and faced both the issues and their consequences head on. And that starts with accepting the ultimate reality of death and the financial undesirability of maintaining life at any cost. Cost/benefit analyses seem so immorally cold when applied to such situations, but that is exactly what we need. Sometimes, cool rationality really is the most useful tool.