Vort

I think you probably are missing something, yes. But then, you may also be right. Is it possible for someone to eat a healthy selection of food that still leaves him malnourished, and yet still gain weight? If this is possible, then I concur with your scenario. Otherwise, it is clearly false. By definition, a "healthy" amount of food is the amount required for proper and healthy functioning of the body. Any less than this amount is "too little food", and will lead to ill health. You are suggesting that it is possible to eat "too little food" (so that you are malnourished) and yet still gain weight; otherwise, the overweight person has but to cut his food consumption. I believe that, at most, only a tiny percentage of people are actually required to eat themselves into fatness in order to remain properly nourished. I suspect that tiny percentage is actually zero, but I concede that there may be the very rare individual who simply cannot get proper nourishment from a reasonable amount of food, and therefore must eat until he is obese to get that nourishment. But certainly for the 99.999% of us who are fat, our problem is not diabetes or thyroid whatever. Our problem is that we eat too darn much.

I am sure that many Latter-day Saints do think you're bypassing something that happened in the Garden. In the end, does it matter whether the atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross? The point is, the atonement took place. I have given some reasons why I find cross-focused worship perhaps a bit distasteful. But the bottom line is, I am uncomfortable with the symbol of the cross because that is not how I have been brought up, and those that do use the cross as a symbol of worship have too often been the same people to denigrate my beliefs. That's ultimately the only reason I can think of.

Okay, whatever. If you want to think you can gain weight in some manner other than eating food, then good luck with that theory.

Folks, you appear to be missing the point completely. People gain weight because they eat stuff. If they don't eat, they don't gain weight. Period. (That's "full stop" for you Brits.) No exceptions. This is true, even if they have diabetes, a thyroid condition, sleep apnea, and a nagging boss. So if you see someone who is 200 pounds overweight (or 20 pounds, or 2 pounds), then you know beyond all doubt that those 200 (20, 2) pounds entered that person's body through his or her mouth. That is the only possibility. Ergo: No eaty food, no gainy weight.

Isn't this obvious? After all, which of us is worthy by merit or by nature to exercise God's Priesthood? It is only through his grace that we can enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood at all. The Priesthood is given to imperfect men to use, and they use it to their own salvation or damnation. Hill-Billly's idea that Priesthood authority was lost in the early to mid 20th century because of improper wording on conferral and ordinations is absurd on its face and, I am confident, will be immediately rejected by all those who don't have an ax to grind.

I agree with Traveler. If the basis of global warming can be shown to be false or manufactured, how can we possibly believe that it's a real phenomenon? And why would anyone short of an insane person or a megalomaniac want to pass laws based on such a far-reaching false premise?

In my opinion, focusing on the cross gives undue emphasis to Christ's physical suffering. It seems to turn any worship service into a virtual viewing of what I imagine Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was like. Christ is not dead. He is alive. A focus on the empty tomb would, in my mind, be far more appropriate. I would note in passing that Latter-day Saints don't have a particular focus on Gethsemane any more than they do on the cross.

How can thyroid disease cause a person who eats 1500 Calories of food and expends 1500 Calories in metabolic activity to magically become fat?

Funny thing is, when I discipline my young children (and my older ones), I always expect them to look me in the eye when I'm talking.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas -- the Chuck Jones animation, not the loathsome live-action abomination of a few years ago. This is the definitive Christmas TV special. Nothing else even comes close. (Well, okay, maybe a really good A Christmas Carol comes close. That would not include the Mr. Magoo version.)

I have found that black men from an urban environment take it badly when you make eye contact with them as they talk. They take it as some sort of threat or challenge. They will typically look downward while someone talks to them. The person being spoken to is supposed to look elsewhere. Don't know why, and I'm sure it's not universally true, but that is my observation.

Yes, I have exactly the same problem, except for the pecs and shoulders thing.

I don't mean the medical definition of obesity. I mean people who are more than a few pounds overweight -- the normal idea of "fat folks". For that matter, anyone who is five pounds overweight (or underweight) is at that weight due to eating habits. If eating habits have nothing to do with being overweight, as you seem to believe, can you explain how else someone who doesn't eat anything, or who eats only exactly as much as he burns off in metabolic activity, can ever possibly become fat?

Elders quorum and high priest group could take turns. The young women could help out occasionally, too. If your leadership approves it, the young men could take a turn, though this would be frowned on in many areas.

Sure about that? Your saying that genetics or illness has nothing to do with it....ever?Yes, I am sure. Genetics or illness might very possibly influence obesity, and it is even possible that for some very few people, the alternative to obesity would be even more severe disability or death. Nevertheless, the statement is true as written.

His actual quote was, "He died, and she did, and it was a total and complete waste of time. There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation." Fwiw, I do not believe that Elder McConkie's point was to pass personal judgment on this man. I think he was attempting to make a humorous yet true point that those who openly reject the gospel in this life don't suddenly have the slate wiped clean at death.

Thales of Miletus and Solon of Athens come to mind. The third was probably Hugh Nibley of Provo.

Your point is true but irrelevant. Excessive soda pop consumption is clearly a violation of the spirit of the word of wisdom, even though it is clearly not a violation of the letter of that law. This fact is true, even if stated by an obese chain smoking syphilitic heroin addict with open sores.

The point of temple work is to do the work for those whose work is not done. It is not for us to judge whether a person got a sufficient opportunity during his or her lifetime, however much we may be tempted to make that determination.

I hate to disagree with one of my favorite posters, but the bolded statement above is clearly false. Consider: Would a person who ate nothing ever become fat? Of course not. All fat people become so by eating more than their metabolism requires. There are no exceptions. Now, this does not mean that no people have medical conditions that predispose them to obesity, and it most certainly does not mean that fat people are morally weak or somehow spiritually unclean before God. It is entirely possible, in fact highly likely, that two people could have similar or even identical eating habits, yet one is slim and in good shape while the other is fat. This unfair situation is a part of the cold reality of being, and it says very little about someone's moral state. But to say that people's obesity has "little or nothing to do with their eating habits" is absurd.

You are missing Pam's point. If the young man was baptized and never excommunicated, you can't do a proxy baptism for him because he is already baptized. Technically, I suppose Pam is wrong. You could do a proxy baptism for him. It would simply be extraneous and pointless.

Agreed. Ultimately, however, this is beside the point. The whole discussion is an academic exercise, nothing more. We Latter-day Saints don't use the cross as a common symbol in our worship for historical, social, and doctrinal reasons, but when it comes right down to it, we don't use that symbol because our prophet leaders have not used it. That's really the bottom line. Everything else is just talk.

I choose to believe "insightful commentary". :)

I am so sorry for your loss. I hope never to experience what you have gone through. I do not know the answer to your question, but it makes sense to me that if part of the reason we experience mortality is to win mastery over our physical selves, the loss of the physical self could impede gaining that mastery. But that is just my viewpoint, not a doctrine of the Church. As for temple work, I assume that you may do his temple work any time. I can't see why this would not be the case.

Common misspelling or insightful commentary?