is being overweight a sin?

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Oxygen intoxication is a real thing too.  Guess we should stop breathing.

One can live nicely without alcohol. Harder to do without oxygen.

 

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

And don't forget that even the Sacrament bread is full of yeast farts.

Oh, yeah, nice touch.

As you know, any analogy can be stretched past its usefulness.

And, as you say yourself:

7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Since there's no physiological need for alcohol or nicotine, …

Lehi

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Moderate alcohol intake would not be detrimental to a person's intellect. If a person were to make a religious covenant to not partake of alcohol but then break that promise and partake, it would not be the alcohol that caused the person's emotional or moral problems, it would be that person in breaking their promise that would be at fault.

Not only is this a silly hair to split, it is wrong. DRINKING alcohol would, indeed, be a moral failure for those who have covenanted with God not to do so. Which is exactly what I claimed.

So since you are wrong in "correcting" me, what exactly is your point?

[Vort]

57 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Because Mormons see alcohol as a one dimensional evil

Thanks for your expertise on the Mormon viewpoint. Funny, but many people here seem not to share in that viewpoint. It must just be them. You certainly can't be wrong.

[Guest]

It would be pretty disrespectful of me to go to a Seventh Day Adventist message board (assuming one existed) and talk about how delicious and wonderful meat is. I might not agree that it's necessary to abstain from meat, but what would be the point of going there and telling them so, and why?

[NightSG]

11 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

It would be pretty disrespectful of me to go to a Seventh Day Adventist message board (assuming one existed) and talk about how delicious and wonderful meat is.

AFAIK, the SDAs only strongly recommend vegetarianism.  The outright prohibition is only on treif meats.  So yes, it's not just the Jews who can somehow hold the belief that a loving God wouldn't let us have bacon.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, NightSG said:

AFAIK, the SDAs only strongly recommend vegetarianism.  The outright prohibition is only on treif meats.  So yes, it's not just the Jews who can somehow hold the belief that a loving God wouldn't let us have bacon.

Okay, then limit my point to bacon. It still stands.

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

You'd be surprised by the health benefits alcohol can provided. But that's an argument for a different thread.

There is no benefit to any alcohol that is not provided by other sources, and without the buzz.

In red wine, alcohol is not the beneficial agent, it's resveratrol. It's the same in all the others with purported health benefits.

Lehi

[Maureen]

49 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

It would be pretty disrespectful of me to go to a Seventh Day Adventist message board (assuming one existed) and talk about how delicious and wonderful meat is. I might not agree that it's necessary to abstain from meat, but what would be the point of going there and telling them so, and why?

Have I broken any forum rules? JAG commented (I am paraphrasing) that his being overweight might not be pleasing to God, so there's a chance it might fall into a "sinning" category but that he would not put his being overweight in the same category as alcohol because he thinks that alcohol will be the cause of his loss of power with regards to his intellectual, emotional, and moral faculties. Alcohol would not be to blame for the loss of those faculties, it would his abuse of alcohol that would be to blame. The same way people can't blame food for them being overweight. People are in charge on how they use food or alcohol. And if a person has made a promise to abstain from alcohol for moral reasons, it isn't the alcohol that is to blame, it is the person for breaking their promise.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

TFP is correct. Alcohol effect is determined by quantity, time duration, food intake and body size. Someone who is larger can drink more than someone of a smaller frame. Same as eating food, JAG I'm sure you can eat more food in a shorter amount of time than I could. If that is the case, does that mean your food is bad while my food is good? Probably not. It's like Traveler said, it's all about discipline. Are we disciplined enough to respect our bodies and treat them properly; with our choices of eating, drinking and activity?

M.  

Agreed that the factors you cite make a difference on how the body absorbs alcohol, but I think any (implicit) suggestion that one can drink alcohol and be fine, fine, fine, fine, fine--woops!  I guess I'm drunk now!--defies biology, chemistry, and common sense.  Rather, one's intellectual/emotional/moral faculties are being diminished, by degrees, with every sip.  It's just that at some point, the drinker reaches a threshold where (s)he decides that the impairment is no longer tolerable.

And, here's another thing:  As a drinker, one doesn't know where one's limits lie until one has exceeded them.  In other words, at some point someone got to a point where alcohol undeniably did impair their intellect/emotional/moral capacity; and then--rather than say "gee, that was awful.  I'm staying away from that junk!", they came back with "well, maybe next time I'll have a leeetle bit less . . ."  I don't think, as a philosophical matter, God is terribly fond of our experimenting to find out just how much risky behavior we can get away with. As Unixknight and LeSellers point out--at least we have a legitimate reason to go back to food.  In this era of clean water supplies, we have no such need for alcohol.

Also, I've never stood up in court next to a defendant whose gluttony resulted in the neglect of their children or got a third party killed.  I've done quite a bit of that with alcohol drinkers, though.  And, every single one of them was at some point sure that their alcohol use was not impairing their parenting abilities or their driving skills--some of them, right up until their parental rights were terminated or they were escorted off to prison.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Have I broken any forum rules? JAG commented  . . .

These sorts of issues are perhaps best addressed via private messages, not open forum discussion. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled flame war, already in progress.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

TFP is correct.

TFP was being snide.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

Because Mormons see alcohol as a one dimensional evil

This is not true.

[David13]

I have only been a member of the church for one year.

But I have not consumed any alcoholic beverages for more than 30 years. 

And, of course, I do associate with alcohol drinkers on a regular basis.  To an extent.  That is, I don't visit bars only or anything like that.  I do eat in places where alcohol is served.

I generally would not associate with anyone who would over do the alcohol, and usually at a dinner or something I would leave after dinner and after any of them had two drinks.

However I cannot impose my morality and now my religious prohibitions on them.

That is to say I understand  and can appreciate Maureen's point of view here.

The chief, or a big time Rabbi of American Jews was asked about the prohibition on pork.  He did not talk about the benefit or detriment of pork.  He simply said they refrain from eating pork "because God said so".

And I think it's the same here.  It's a prohibition.  Our (and for a long time my) prohibition.

I agree that alcohol does not taste good.  Nor does it do too many good things.  But I also understand the point of view of many Americans who can in an evening, when they are not driving, have two drinks.

Wine.  If any of you want a nice grape flavor with an Italian meal, try grape juice.  I drink unsweetened natural grape juice a lot and I will tell you from experience, I believe it has a much better flavor than wine.

And no side effects.

dc

[David13]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is not true.

The statement may or may not be true.  I don't know.  I do know that the Mormons I have encountered don't drink alcohol.

Neither do I. 

However, reading some of the responses on this thread, I could easily believe that some on this forum do believe that any and all alcohol is an evil. 

I only see alcohol abuse as an evil.  I'm neutral on any benefit of the limited use I see in America today.

dc

Edited March 7, 2016 by David13

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, David13 said:

The statement may or may not be true.  I don't know.  I do know that the Mormons I have encountered don't drink alcohol.

Neither do I. 

However, reading some of the responses on this thread, I could easily believe that some on this forum do believe that any and all alcohol is an evil. 

I only see alcohol abuse as an evil.  I'm neutral on any benefit of the limited use I see in America today.

To be specific, David: Any and all drinking of alcoholic beverages by a 21st-century Latter-day Saint is evil. I personally believe that alcohol consumption is never of any significant good, and almost always of at least some evil. But I recognize that those not under covenant likely won't see things that way. I doubt I would if I were not a Latter-day Saint. So there is no universal condemnation suggested.

[Just_A_Guy]

While I'd consider alcohol consumption wrong, unwise, a violation of a covenant (for a Mormon), and on the whole (which was my primary point in this thread) more problematic than gluttony--I don't know I'd go so far as to call it evil.

But, I can't really articulate why I wouldn't go that far.  It may be that I'm just being a bit of a squish.

[The Folk Prophet]

29 minutes ago, David13 said:

The statement may or may not be true.  I don't know.  I do know that the Mormons I have encountered don't drink alcohol.

Of course faithful Mormons don't drink alcohol. What I'm saying isn't true is related to the "one dimensional" part.

[Guest]

Apart from what others have said here, I see another "evil" of alcohol... and coffee for that matter.  Even for those who imbibe moderately I found so many friends who said that they'd love to be a Mormon.  They love so much about it.  But they could never give up their (beer, wine, coffee...).  And they were serious.

So, even though they only consume moderately, they are addicted to the point that they would rather have that than what they perceive as a great lifestyle choice, if not eternal salvation.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

Have I broken any forum rules

You're quite good at not doing that. 

I was honestly wondering what the point of advocating drinking on an LDS site is. I think it's not  respectful of our beliefs. I think it's strange. It makes me question your intentions. But no, technically I see no rules being broken, nor did I ever say you had.

[Guest]

OK.  I just had two very large meals today with plenty of fluids.  And I weighed myself with my clothes on.  I've lost two pounds.  

[Traveler]

I believe the point of the Word of Wisdom is specifically intended to separate Mormons from the world and worldly values.  I believe it is structured for the purpose of discipline.  That anyone that finds the rigors of the Word of Wisdom (including alcohol) to be overwhelming will find themselves unsuited for the discipline intended and necessary for a saint of the latter-days.

 

Those that criticize the WofW as not being all that evil are correct.  It is not that evil in the grand scheme of things – it is a simple, minor and very easy principle intended to filter out those with minimal skills and little desire or intent to serve G-d.  I had a friend when asked why he lived the Word of Wisdom (especially the alcohol thing) – his response was both interesting and humorous to me.  He said that if he was going to blow away his eternal salvation it was not going to be something little and petty like the WofW (alcohol) but something much more exciting and worth it; like adultery.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, Maureen said:

 Alcohol effect is determined by quantity, time duration, food intake and body size. Someone who is larger can drink more than someone of a smaller frame.

 100% correct on this one Maureen. You can eat a full meal and drink two glasses of wine and feel little effect. That doesn't mean I think it's right-I support church teachings on this. 

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe the point of the Word of Wisdom is specifically intended to separate Mormons from the world and worldly values.  I believe it is structured for the purpose of discipline.  That anyone that finds the rigors of the Word of Wisdom (including alcohol) to be overwhelming will find themselves unsuited for the discipline intended and necessary for a saint of the latter-days.

 

Well, I find it overwhelming and challenging on a daily basis. I guess that does me in. Yikes! 

Notice though-I didn't say if I followed it or not-just that I find it overwhelming and incredibly challenging to do so.

Maybe it's the convert thing. Yes, I'm sure there are converts who think "Well, I'm LDS now, so I will never have the urge to drink, smoke, or do anything else again." But that's a good way to disappoint yourself.  I'm sure that are lifelong LDS who think that it's "easy" to ignore those urges. It's not. 

None of this is pejorative-I just said I support the church 100% and it's teachings. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[David13]

On the contrary, Gator, it's been easy for me.

Carborendum

I actually wonder about that myself.

I knew of the church in 1964 from a visit to the Temple in SLC.  And I had a Book of Mormon delivered to me in 1985.  However I did not join the church til last year.

While I did not consciously join the church, but was called in in some way, I did consciously not further investigate the church in 1985 knowing that I'd have to give up coffee.  (Not based on that knowledge, but just knowing it.)   I had always been a big coffee drinker.  Not to excess, but that essential one cup in the morning, black, no cream, no sugar.

However, in 1985 I was unaware of the concepts and all else that is offered in this church.  I just sort of thought it would be like my Catholic childhood.  Mass on Sunday and that's it.

Coming into the church now, I almost immediately found that I had stage 4 cancer of the blood causing severe anemia.  Coffee or any caffeine aggravates that anemia.

So now I am of medical necessity sworn off coffee forever.  And it has been totally easy to do so.  I have no urge, no craving, no desire for coffee.  But I have none such for alcohol either.  Nor cigarettes and I had casually smoked for a few years long ago.

But, is it possible I avoided joining the church in 1985 because I didn't want to give up coffee?  Possible yes.  But I think there was more to it at that time, foremost being I had no real concept of what the church is like from the inside.

dc

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by David13

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, David13 said:

On the contrary, Gator, it's been easy for me.

 

 

Glad it has for you-I'm being serious. It hasn't been easy for me at all, and I am sure there are coverts who think the same.