is being overweight a sin?

[askandanswer]

On 3/3/2016 at 2:59 AM, Traveler said:

I realize that there are some sins that are more spiritual damaging than others.  I do not ask this question to argue over what may be a much worse sin.  It is my understanding that if we know that something is good and we do not do it - that it is a sin (James 4:17).  Is it good to maintain a healthy body by keeping our weight disciplined and under control by covenant?  Should striving for one's ideal weight be inclusive in our personal covenant with G-d - or should it not be?

 

The Traveler

Starting with the idea that our bodies constitute some sort of temple, I'm reminded of the fact that there is a great diversity of size in our latter-day temples, from the huge Salt Lake, Washington DC and Cardston Temples, to the tiny Hong Kong and Manhattan temples, the plans and size of all of which were approved by prophet. If its good enough for one type of divinely approved temples to come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, then perhaps the same applies to the fleshy type of temples. 

I'm also reminded of the somewhat portly nature of Brigham Young, who probably did not engage in a great deal of sinful action, and the Primary song which so earnestly encourages us all to Follow the Prophet.    

And if it is a sin to be the wrong size, and we have a spouse who is not the right size, then that adds another layer of meaning to the teaching that we should hate the sin but love the sinner.

[Backroads]

Not going to read all the replies because I am only on the internet to pull up my lavender lemon bar recipe (how's that for this type of thread, eh?) and have a toddler pretending to be a baby on my lap.

To use the term sin loosely... gluttony is a sin, not attempting to care for our bodies is a sin, severe disrespect for healthy habits is a sin.

I think those of us who stick health and fitness way on the back burner because "it's just not as important as other things" are possibly sinning.

But being overweight in and of itself? Nah.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Backroads

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Backroads said:

lavender lemon bar recipe

I've always been afraid to try lavender-flavored things. I always think they must taste like soap. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I will remember this the next time I need to vomit... bummer

Uhm... Should I?...  Nahhh.

[Backroads]

4 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I've always been afraid to try lavender-flavored things. I always think they must taste like soap. 

I don't dare use lavender by itself... the one exception being a,lavender lemonade my friend serves at her restaurant. I like to use it with other flavors... play it safe. I also fear the soap effect.

[Maureen]

On 3/4/2016 at 7:33 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

...That said, I don't put it in the same category of alcohol (which involves the voluntary cession of my intellectual/emotional/moral faculties)...

That may happen if a person were to abuse alcohol but moderate drinking (one to two glasses per day) would not be detrimental to your intellectual, emotional or moral faculties.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

That may happen if a person were to abuse alcohol but moderate drinking (one to two glasses per day) would not be detrimental to your intellectual, emotional or moral faculties.

M.

Then, what's the point of drinking?   

I'm being flippant, I know; but isn't a major reason for alcohol at social occasions, that its consumption--in any degree--helps one to relax by loosening inhibitions and dulling immediate cares/concerns?

Edited March 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

That may happen if a person were to abuse alcohol but moderate drinking (one to two glasses per day) would not be detrimental to your intellectual, emotional or moral faculties.

As you perfectly well know, for one who has covenanted with God to avoid drinking alcohol, as most of us on this list have done, it would indeed be detrimental to our moral faculties to imbibe, moderately or otherwise. That is the LDS belief. Please don't preach against the restored gospel. That is not what this list is for.

[theSQUIDSTER]

14 hours ago, Maureen said:

That may happen if a person were to abuse alcohol but moderate drinking (one to two glasses per day) would not be detrimental to your intellectual, emotional or moral faculties.

M.

Maureen,  I know you're speaking from the perspective of a Protestant and not as an LDS member who is under covenant with God to abstain.  For many not under a covenant with God on this, moderation is usually the most reasonable course.  It was also what was preached in the time of Jesus and Paul.  For potential alcoholics, however, moderation is extremely difficult if not impossible.  For such, complete abstinence may be the only realistic option in order to live a healthy and happy life.  Sadly, they often only reach this conclusion after learning by sad experience how powerfully destructive alcohol can be on many different aspects of life.  My great grandfather, my grandfather and all of his brothers learned this way... by sad experience.  A number of them viewed their lives and health in a shambles after the ravages of alcohol and a few of them died of cirrhosis of the liver... not a fun way to go. As one coming from a family history of alcohol abuse on my mother's side of the family, I count myself as one of those "weakest of Saints" whom the Lord has warned and been able to bless for never having tried alcohol myself.  It's never been a problem for me because I never was raised with the idea that I might socially drink... which, given my family history, such might not have been possible for me, even if that had been my intention going in.  Again, though, the thing for us LDS which trumps everything is a promise to God not to partake of such things at all.  What kind of children would we be to our Father if we didn't keep our promises?  ... Or even try our best to...

Edited March 6, 2016 by theSQUIDSTER

[LeSellers]

14 hours ago, Maureen said:

That may happen if a person were to abuse alcohol but moderate drinking (one to two glasses per day) would not be detrimental to your intellectual, emotional or moral faculties.

There are people who cannot stop at "one or two glasses per day".

Alcohol is a poison, that's why it's called "intoxication".

The day after I came home from my mission, my brother treated me to a Utah Stars (not Starzz) basketball game. I was in the old Salt Palace, and saw, for the first time, people carrying translucent cups of beer around. I thought they looked like specimen cups from the doctor's office.

When I was in the Army, we had "Hails and Farewells" where nearly everyone had a beer or two (or ten). During one of these parties, I set my 7-Up can down on my left side, reached across to the right to get a handful of peanuts, and picked up the green can, took a swig, and spat it out, peanuts and all, back into the can. Whether by my own mistake, or due to someone's "practical" joke, I had picked up a can of Foster's beer.

It tasted like it looked.

We call the liquid waste of horses "horse p***". Beer or wine or other alcohol is just "yeast p***".

Lehi

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Well, I'm not so sure I disagree with Maureen on this.  Yes, we need to keep in mind that it is different for us because of our covenants.  But for protestants like her, is there really a moral/spiritual risk of moderate drinking?

JAG,

Not to speak for Maureen, but to speak for some friends of mine who have commented on it: One reason they socially drink is that they really like how some drinks taste.  And due to the cost, they only do it infrequently.  So if they choose to imbibe only during some social occasions, that tends to keep the cost down.

I refuted that with my impression of the smell of beer.  And I've also drunk non-alcoholic wine and beer.  They didn't appeal to me.  Their argument was that it really doesn't taste the same.  It's like drinking soda with or without the carbonation.  It's just not the same thing.

ALSO there are other factors.

1) With beer, the taste is up to the individual.  But on a hot working day, nothing quenches your thirst like a cold one.  I argued alcohol - dehydration...  They didn't try to argue it.  All they could say is how they felt when they drink.

2) Wine alone is one thing.  But when you have the right wine with the right meal, the combination is just heavenly.  I supposed that was something I'd never understand.

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, there are the equivalent of six glasses of wine in a bottle; and (generally speaking--varies by body mass, other foods consumed, etc) half a bottle of wine gets you to a BAC of .08, or too intoxicated to legally drive.

If three glasses of wine gets one legally intoxicated, then - while subjective experience may differ - objectively speaking, I just don't believe that one or two glasses have no effect on one's intellectual/emotional/moral faculties.  Because one glass of wine has an average person 1/3 of the way drunk.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 Because one glass of wine has an average person 1/3 of the way drunk.

Not if one drinks it over the course of 7 hours.

[Maureen]

On 3/6/2016 at 2:30 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Then, what's the point of drinking?   

I'm being flippant, I know; but isn't a major reason for alcohol at social occasions, that its consumption--in any degree--helps one to relax by loosening inhibitions and dulling immediate cares/concerns?

The point of enjoying and appreciating alcoholic beverages is the same as appreciating good food. To fuel the body and wake up the taste buds.

To be intoxicated is not a major reason why people drink alcohol, it maybe one reason but it is not a major reason. Some drink alcohol because they enjoy it and it is possible to enjoy it without abusing it. When I have a glass of wine, it is because I like how well it goes with the food I am eating.

M. 

[Maureen]

On 3/6/2016 at 8:45 AM, Vort said:

As you perfectly well know, for one who has covenanted with God to avoid drinking alcohol, as most of us on this list have done, it would indeed be detrimental to our moral faculties to imbibe, moderately or otherwise. That is the LDS belief. Please don't preach against the restored gospel. That is not what this list is for.

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.

M.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Maureen

[Maureen]

23 hours ago, theSQUIDSTER said:

Maureen,  I know you're speaking from the perspective of a Protestant and not as an LDS member who is under covenant with God to abstain.  For many not under a covenant with God on this, moderation is usually the most reasonable course.  It was also what was preached in the time of Jesus and Paul.  For potential alcoholics, however, moderation is extremely difficult if not impossible.  For such, complete abstinence may be the only realistic option in order to live a healthy and happy life.  Sadly, they often only reach this conclusion after learning by sad experience how powerfully destructive alcohol can be on many different aspects of life.  My great grandfather, my grandfather and all of his brothers learned this way... by sad experience.  A number of them viewed their lives and health in a shambles after the ravages of alcohol and a few of them died of cirrhosis of the liver... not a fun way to go. As one coming from a family history of alcohol abuse on my mother's side of the family, I count myself as one of those "weakest of Saints" whom the Lord has warned and been able to bless for never having tried alcohol myself.  It's never been a problem for me because I never was raised with the idea that I might socially drink... which, given my family history, such might not have been possible for me, even if that had been my intention going in.  Again, though, the thing for us LDS which trumps everything is a promise to God not to partake of such things at all.  What kind of children would we be to our Father if we didn't keep our promises?  ... Or even try our best to...

theSQUIDSTER, I agree that alcohol abuse can be very detrimental to a person and anyone having a relationship with an alcoholic. But there are those who see alcohol as the evil substance no matter how it is used instead of understanding that it's not the alcohol all by itself that can cause problems; it's also up to the person. He or she can either respect it enough to appreciate it, or not respect it and abuse it or be extra cautious and abstain altogether.

M.

[Guest]

Is there a reason you're defending the virtues of alcohol to a bunch of Mormons?

[Maureen]

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, there are the equivalent of six glasses of wine in a bottle; and (generally speaking--varies by body mass, other foods consumed, etc) half a bottle of wine gets you to a BAC of .08, or too intoxicated to legally drive.

If three glasses of wine gets one legally intoxicated, then - while subjective experience may differ - objectively speaking, I just don't believe that one or two glasses have no effect on one's intellectual/emotional/moral faculties.  Because one glass of wine has an average person 1/3 of the way drunk.

Quote

Not if one drinks it over the course of 7 hours. 

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.  

[Maureen]

26 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Is there a reason you're defending the virtues of alcohol to a bunch of Mormons?

Because Mormons see alcohol as a one dimensional evil, when in fact anything that is abused (even food) can become bad for you.

M.

[Guest]

Mormons see alcohol as something forbidden in our theology, regardless of any arguments in its favor by non-believers. 

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Because Mormons see alcohol as a one dimensional evil, when in fact anything that is abused (even food) can become bad for you.

M.

That is true.

I've always felt that the LDS prohibition on alcohol was basically a way of providing a consistent guideline for everybody.  Some people handle alcohol just fine, some don't, but since there are very few (if any) real, measurable benefits to consuming alcohol, they don't outweigh the negatives so it's better to have everyone just avoid it.

[Maureen]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That is true.

I've always felt that the LDS prohibition on alcohol was basically a way of providing a consistent guideline for everybody.  Some people handle alcohol just fine, some don't, but since there are very few (if any) real, measurable benefits to consuming alcohol, they don't outweigh the negatives so it's better to have everyone just avoid it.

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

M.

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

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

M.

Yeah I have heard of those... But I suppose my rebuttal would be that studies have shown that, on average, Mormons live 11 years  longer than other Americans, so maybe those health benefits aren't all that profound

That said, in the 1800s the prohibition on tobacco use was also considered odd, with doctors at the time also praising tobacco's medical benefits.  The truth came out later, but at the time all the Saints had was their faith to justify avoiding smoking and chewing tobacco.

I think you're right though, maybe a new thread on the subject would be fun!

[NightSG]

On 3/6/2016 at 1:52 PM, LeSellers said:

Alcohol is a poison, that's why it's called "intoxication".

We call the liquid waste of horses "horse p***". Beer or wine or other alcohol is just "yeast p***".

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

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

[NightSG]

32 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I've always felt that the LDS prohibition on alcohol was basically a way of providing a consistent guideline for everybody.  Some people handle alcohol just fine, some don't, but since there are very few (if any) real, measurable benefits to consuming alcohol, they don't outweigh the negatives so it's better to have everyone just avoid it.

More likely, as with many other things, it's because people will abuse any command to do things in moderation.  I dated a 105 pound woman who claimed she only drank moderately, because she drank about as much as her 220 pound linebacker brother.  He drank to the point of a mild buzz, which was blackout drunk for her.  Since there's no physiological need for alcohol or nicotine, the only amount not open to personal interpretation is none.