Future Preparations of the Church Against Pornography?

[Grunt]

Just now, Armin said:

What's so difficult to understand? It's based on covenants. When Emma (the prophet's wife) once found the tobacco dropping through their ceiling on the kitchen table (by all the meetings and smoking) she might have said to Joseph, that he shouldn't allow his followers to smoke any more. By the way, I find smoking one of the most disgusting, decadent, once learned from the South American primitives, and most self-destroying addictions, maybe obsessions. It's against God. One is tainting his temple if he smokes. I once did so, for twenty-five years, and I don't expect forgiveness. Not from my (granted) body that will surely never forgive nor than from Him, whose temple I dishonoured so much.

Sure.  Is it not also tainting his temple if you are 5'4 450 pounds?

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Armin said:

 One is tainting his temple if he smokes. I once did so, for twenty-five years, and I don't expect forgiveness. 

Dude, chill.

Forgiveness is available to everyone, even people who have smoked before. In fact, one could easily argue that the much greater sin is turning your back on God by declaring that you "don't expect" forgiveness. 

Seriously. King David had an affair. St. Paul of Tarsus killed someone. God forgave both men. I am constantly amazed at how many sins are considered "unforgivable". 

 

[person0]

There has got to be some stuff being lost in translation here.  

[clbent04]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Dude, chill.

Forgiveness is available to everyone

I think @Armin is just elaborating on the point that our bodies are sacred. I'm sure he believes in forgiveness, but he doesn't believe it's okay to defile our temples if we smoke or willingly let ourselves go and become obese

Edited August 20, 2017 by clbent04

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

Exactly. But I also mean that even foregiveness might be subject of some restrictions. And one of them is willingly obese.

 

ETA:  Just kidding.  Nobody delivers anything to my neck of the woods except manure and hay.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Grunt
edited again, because I don't think it was funny, just insulting.

[clbent04]

7 minutes ago, Armin said:

Overweight angels can't fly

hahaha

I'm glad we have diversity in this world. Other cultures can call each other fat and no one gets all uppity about it. You being fat is an attribute people just as easily describe as if they were saying you were tall or blond.  In Mexican culture, couples will sometimes even refer to each other as "mi gordita" or "mi gordito" meaning my little fat one 

[clbent04]

I actually found out today that the Phoenix, Arizona area has a program called "ARP", the Addiction Recovery Program. I asked the bishop if this was a stake initiative or church-wide. He said it was church-wide but it is implemented at the stake level, but even then, the program and how it's implemented is fairly consistent across the board.

I also asked if it's just a group of alcoholics and if I'd be the only one showing up with a pornography program. He said no, there's a lot of different type of problems for which someone would want to attend like infidelity and so forth.

[pam]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

Exactly. But I also mean that even foregiveness might be subject of some restrictions. And one of them is willingly obese.  If one would divide all overweight Americans into two persons, the population of the USA would increase maybe up to about 500 million. Surely a good surplus for the Democrats.

Did you wake up this morning and make a goal to offend as many people on the forums as you can today?  Because you are doing a great job.  And I mean that sarcastically. Between comments on this thread and link provided on another.  I'd be careful with the words you use.

[clbent04]

4 hours ago, person0 said:

A person who accidentally overeats and gains weight at a rate of 1 lb/month will gain 36 lbs in 3 years and almost 100 lbs in 8 years.  It is entirely possible that person is not aware of how much they are eating or what they should or shouldn't be eating.  Once again, imperfection, lack of knowledge, not necessarily a sin.

It just depends on what you consider a sin.  If you do accept obesity to be a sin for those who have a choice, then whether you become obese over a long period of time or short period time is irrelevant 

[person0]

13 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

It just depends on what you consider a sin.  If you do accept obesity to be a sin for those who have a choice, then whether you become obese over a long period of time or short period time is irrelevant 

I believe this:

Quote

. . . research suggests that obesity is not a simple matter of overeating and lack of self-control.
(Running Away from It All)

Whether or not being obese is sinful will be different for each person.  However, it is evident that being obese is an imperfection that affects many in this mortal life, as does diabetes and other health conditions.  A person can develop diabetes from bad habits, but diabetes can also be resultant from uncontrollable factors, the same applies to depression and various other conditions.  There are plenty of obese individuals who have no real justification for being obese.  However, each person's situation will differ, and I will trust the Lord to judge accordingly, and possibly to inspire those called to lead His flock to be inspired with the appropriate counsel.

[clbent04]

21 minutes ago, person0 said:

I believe this:

Whether or not being obese is sinful will be different for each person.  However, it is evident that being obese is an imperfection that affects many in this mortal life, as does diabetes and other health conditions.  A person can develop diabetes from bad habits, but diabetes can also be resultant from uncontrollable factors, the same applies to depression and various other conditions.  There are plenty of obese individuals who have no real justification for being obese.  However, each person's situation will differ, and I will trust the Lord to judge accordingly, and possibly to inspire those called to lead His flock to be inspired with the appropriate counsel.

I did specify I consider obesity to be sinful only to those who have a choice.  Are we not saying the same thing here?

[Guest]

I think it is interesting that the subject of obesity is coming up in a thread about pornography addiction.  I think the two are related.

Is it not true that pornography teaches us that only a certain body type is worthy of love and respect?  And, does it go without saying that, with the proliferation of pornography everywhere, we increasingly see attitudes, even among active LDS, that obese women are somehow less worthy?

A good example this week is Wife With a Purpose (the white supremacist LDS member who we all denounced) who apparently said something to the effect that LDS women have a duty to stay slim for their husbands.

I get it when people encourage someone who has decided they want to make healthy decisions.  That is OK.  But, I am uncomfortable when people want to essentially add to the gospel and say that obese people are living in sin.  Is this perhaps a side effect of the proliferation of pornography, seeping into (and warping) our values, making us less compassionate, less able to take care of people struggling with their weight, less able to see beyond the physical and into what really counts?

Just something to think about.

Edited August 21, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Grunt]

13 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think it is interesting that the subject of obesity is coming up in a thread about pornography addiction.  I think the two are related.

Is it not true that pornography teaches us that only a certain body type is worthy of love and respect?  And, does it go without saying that, with the proliferation of pornography everywhere, we increasingly see attitudes, even among active LDS, that obese women are somehow less worthy?

A good example this week is Wife With a Purpose (the white supremacist LDS member who we all denounced) who apparently said something to the effect that LDS women have a duty to stay slim for their husbands.

I get it when people encourage someone who has decided they want to make healthy decisions.  That is OK.  But, I am uncomfortable when people want to essentially add to the gospel and say that obese people are living in sin.  Is this perhaps a side effect of the proliferation of pornography, seeping into (and warping) our values, making us less compassionate, less able to take care of people struggling with their weight, less able to see beyond the physical and into what really counts?

Just something to think about.

In a link to LDS provided in response to an earlier question, it was said our bodies are a temple and we must keep them worthy, that is why certain things are not allowed.  Obesity has nothing to do with body image.  It has to do with health.  If the reason constantly thrown around for avoiding certain things is we are abusing our bodies which are a temple to Christ, then why does that not apply to everything we do that is bad for our physical form, to include obesity?

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

making us less compassionate, less able to take care of people struggling with their weight, less able to see beyond the physical and into what really counts?

That, and some people just naturally lack compassion-porn issues or not. They might think that showing or being compassionate in some ways makes them weak, or some might mistake "compassion" as "approving sinful behavior". 

[zil]

Just now, Grunt said:

Obesity has nothing to do with body image.  It has to do with health.

I don't have facts as I feel no need to go find them and don't believe for a second that they would change anyone's opinion in modern America.  (I think this must be like the creation / evolution debate - no one is changing their minds on it, ever.)  But I'll recount this anyway...  I once watched a debate between different medical researchers on the topic of obesity.  It was very interesting.  A very credible case was made that the problem is not obesity itself, but rather activity levels and nutrition.  A person could be fat by today's standards (and all you have to do is look at a picture of a supermodel to recognize that 99.99% of us are fat by that standard), and still be perfectly healthy, or even healthier than a skinnier person.  (And yes, historical standards were part of the conversation.)  But our culture has redefined attractive and attached "health" to the new definition, and thus, even those who are perfectly healthy, but not as skinny as the world would have them be, are labeled "obese" and unhealthy.  It was also asserted that current standards (like BMI) were created because they were easy to apply and measure rather than because they've proven useful or accurate.

All kinds of surface-level judgements are quite popular in our culture - and make life sooo much easier (for the one doing the judging).  Comparisons are a great way to make yourself feel better about yourself. </sarcasm>  (This paragraph is a comment directed at our society, not at anyone in this thread, nor at @Grunt, even though I quoted him.)

Does health matter to the Lord?  Absolutely.  Can we mortals look at a person and determine what the Lord thinks of their efforts to be healthy?  Probably not.  Does the Church / doctrine teach us to make healthy choices?  Yes.  Do the members always do that well?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Is this the doctrine any given person should be most focused on right now?  That will vary from person to person.  I'm not prepared to make these judgements for anyone but me.

Given that there are only 24 hours in a day, the Church has to pick and choose which teachings get priority.  In my experience, this is done through the Spirit guiding the teacher in question, and it works surprisingly well.  Therefore, I personally am not going to question how much air time we give to health or other physical appearance issues.

[Grunt]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That, and some people just naturally lack compassion-porn issues or not. They might think that showing or being compassionate in some ways makes them weak, or some might mistake "compassion" as "approving sinful behavior". 

Wouldn't compassion or assistance for those who need it, particularly those not living their lives according to the gospel, be the best way to witness?

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Wouldn't compassion or assistance for those who need it, particularly those not living their lives according to the gospel, be the best way to witness?

Yup. 

[my two cents]

It appears as though not all seem to understand that obesity isn't always about eating too many doritos. For some, extra weight is a protection. If someone doesn't feel safe in the world, this is a way for their subconscious to change that. For others, they aren't getting proper nutrition, so they're body is actually in starvation mode and stores excess weight for survival. There's also the factor of foods being manufactured to create cravings. I could go on and I'm not defending poor choices but please be mindful that there are factors you may not be aware of or considering so it's best to 'judge not'.

"For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." - 1 Samuel 16:7

Edited August 21, 2017 by my two cents

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

I don't have facts as I feel no need to go find them and don't believe for a second that they would change anyone's opinion in modern America.  (I think this must be like the creation / evolution debate - no one is changing their minds on it, ever.)  But I'll recount this anyway...  I once watched a debate between different medical researchers on the topic of obesity.  It was very interesting.  A very credible case was made that the problem is not obesity itself, but rather activity levels and nutrition.  A person could be fat by today's standards (and all you have to do is look at a picture of a supermodel to recognize that 99.99% of us are fat by that standard), and still be perfectly healthy, or even healthier than a skinnier person.  (And yes, historical standards were part of the conversation.)  But our culture has redefined attractive and attached "health" to the new definition, and thus, even those who are perfectly healthy, but not as skinny as the world would have them be, are labeled "obese" and unhealthy.  It was also asserted that current standards (like BMI) were created because they were easy to apply and measure rather than because they've proven useful or accurate.

All kinds of surface-level judgements are quite popular in our culture - and make life sooo much easier (for the one doing the judging).  Comparisons are a great way to make yourself feel better about yourself. </sarcasm>  (This paragraph is a comment directed at our society, not at anyone in this thread, nor at @Grunt, even though I quoted him.)

Does health matter to the Lord?  Absolutely.  Can we mortals look at a person and determine what the Lord thinks of their efforts to be healthy?  Probably not.  Does the Church / doctrine teach us to make healthy choices?  Yes.  Do the members always do that well?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Is this the doctrine any given person should be most focused on right now?  That will vary from person to person.  I'm not prepared to make these judgements for anyone but me.

Given that there are only 24 hours in a day, the Church has to pick and choose which teachings get priority.  In my experience, this is done through the Spirit guiding the teacher in question, and it works surprisingly well.  Therefore, I personally am not going to question how much air time we give to health or other physical appearance issues.

Did you just slap me?

I guess it also depends on how you define obese.  I said 5'4, 450 pounds for a reason.  I'd be surprised if a doctor argued that was healthy.  I absolutely agree there are thin people who are walking basket cases.  I chose my example because it fit as an example of typically willful bad health.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, my two cents said:

It appears as though not all seem to understand that obesity isn't always about eating too many doritos. For some, extra weight is a protection. If someone doesn't feel safe in the world, this is a way for their subconscious to change that. For others, they aren't getting proper nutrition, so they're body is actually in starvation mode and stores excess weight for survival. There's also the factor of foods being manufactured to create cravings. I could go on and I'm not defending poor choices but please be mindful that there are factors you may not be aware of or considering so it's best to 'judge not'.

"For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for mak looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." - 1 Samuel 16:7

Sure.   There are factors for many bad behaviors.  

[zil]

Just now, Grunt said:

Did you just slap me?

I guess it also depends on how you define obese.  I said 5'4, 450 pounds for a reason.  I'd be surprised if a doctor argued that was healthy.  I absolutely agree there are thin people who are walking basket cases.  I chose my example because it fit as an example of typically willful bad health.

No.  I expect we actually agree mostly and that your intent is to focus on health, but you're using the world's simple measuring rod, and I'm not convinced that's the best way to address the problem of poor health.  I'm trying to present another perspective, in part because the side of the debate which actually focused on health (things like blood pressure, cholesterol, and whatever else we want to throw in here) and said weight per se and body fat percentage per se are not necessarily indicators of health, were very convincing and, frankly, seemed to present much more useful ideas on how to help people be healthy than the side whose primary argument was "everybody is too fat and needs to lose weight".

Certainly, how one defines "obese" matters - though there's a medical definition, so you should expect people to assume you're using that definition.  I just think it would be more useful to drop all reference to "obese", "fat", and "weight" and instead focus on the indicators of health and healthy behaviors (i.e. "exercise" is not the same thing as "lose weight"; "eat a nutritious diet" is not the same thing as "lose weight" - one may well lose weight if they exercise and eat healthy, but, IMO, that should not be the focus and is not even the most important thing to monitor; and yet the "lose weight" message gets a lot more air time than the "exercise" and "eat a nutritious diet" messages).  And yes, I think a big reason for society's focus is modern media training us to love looking at "pretty" and detest having to see "ugly".  I personally don't think God looks at any of his children and sees "ugly".

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

No.  I expect we actually agree mostly and that your intent is to focus on health, but you're using the world's simple measuring rod, and I'm not convinced that's the best way to address the problem of poor health.  I'm trying to present another perspective, in part because the side of the debate which actually focused on health (things like blood pressure, cholesterol, and whatever else we want to throw in here) and said weight per se and body fat percentage per se are not necessarily indicators of health, were very convincing and, frankly, seemed to present much more useful ideas on how to help people be healthy than the side whose primary argument was "everybody is too fat and needs to lose weight".

Certainly, how one defines "obese" matters - though there's a medical definition, so you should expect people to assume you're using that definition.  I just think it would be more useful to drop all reference to "obese", "fat", and "weight" and instead focus on the indicators of health and healthy behaviors (i.e. "exercise" is not the same thing as "lose weight"; "eat a nutritious diet" is not the same thing as "lose weight" - one may well lose weight if they exercise and eat healthy, but, IMO, that should not be the focus and is not even the most important thing to monitor; and yet the "lose weight" message gets a lot more air time than the "exercise" and "eat a nutritious diet" messages).  And yes, I think a big reason for society's focus is modern media training us to love looking at "pretty" and detest having to see "ugly".  I personally don't think God looks at any of his children and sees "ugly".

I think what happened is I have limited examples due to my ignorance of so many things about the Mormon church.  I chose obesity because more often than not it is a fairly good representation of health.  Unfortunately, it is also a sore spot for many people.  As a result, we end up arguing about the example I used, not the actual point I was making or question I was asking.

[person0]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

why does that not apply to everything we do that is bad for our physical form, to include obesity?

Edit:  It appears others have beat me too it but this is my perspective:

It does apply to obesity, but not necessarily for everyone.  That is where personal interpretation, revelation, and application of the law is expected.  A verse from the Doctrine and Covenants and another from the Book of Mormon are applicable to this question:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
(D&C 58:26-27)

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.
(Mosiah 4:29)  emphasis added

We have the Word of Wisdom as a guideline.  Certain of those guidelines are of higher importance.  If you are fat because you choose to sit on the couch and eat Cheetos all day, then you are doing a number of 'sinful' things, including being slothful.  In most areas of our lives, it is still the responsibility of each individual to judge for themselves regarding things not directly commanded/revealed.  Overeating and obesity are two areas where, for the most part, we are individually responsible to ourselves and to the Lord.  Likewise, under-eating, bulimia, and anorexia are applicable as well, but on the opposite end of th   Tobacco and alcohol are revealed areas where we are responsible to our fellow man, as is chastity.  The Church is not directed to govern in all things.  For the most part we are to be taught and to learn the doctrine (i.e. our body is a temple) and govern ourselves.

In my understanding, the Word of Wisdom, and even the Law of Chastity, are more important to live because of how they will affect us spiritually, than how they affect our physical bodies.  Both of those laws contain core precepts which, when broken, can inhibit and deaden our spiritual sensitivities severely.  This can certainly happen in many other ways as well, such as simply not getting enough sleep; however drugs, pornography, alcohol, etc, are very clear and obvious mechanisms whereby this can happen.  In regard to the commandments we have received, I like to consider them in light of the following passage from the Doctrine and Covenants:

Quote

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.  (D&C 29:34) emphasis added

We ought to be treating our temples the way we should treat any of our other most prized possessions, including avoiding obesity, where possible.  However, the Lord has not dictated that the Church should specifically make judgement in this particular matter.

Edited August 21, 2017 by person0

[Snigmorder]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

We ought to be treating our temples the way we should treat any of our other most prized possessions, including avoiding obesity, where possible.  However, the Lord has not dictated that the Church should specifically make judgement in this particular matter.

Ask any faithful Mormon "would you want the temple vandalized" and they'll say "of course not."

The temple is a holy place. But why is it holy? Because of the holiness of Him who's house it is. And who is "Him?" He is the Man of Holiness, the everlasting God. And He has a body of flesh and bones.

[estradling75]

43 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Ask any faithful Mormon "would you want the temple vandalized" and they'll say "of course not."

The temple is a holy place. But why is it holy? Because of the holiness of Him who's house it is. And who is "Him?" He is the Man of Holiness, the everlasting God. And He has a body of flesh and bones.

Interesting comment...  Did you know that we have HUGE temples... we also have some small temples.  we have temples that stand tall into the air and others that stay close to the ground... we have some that look alike and some that look different...  In all their various shapes and sizes the one thing they all have in common is that they are a temple of God in spite of how different they look.  The choice for those shapes and sizes were all made by the people who had the stewardship from God.

And sometimes the people with the stewardship will shutdown the temple for renovation and repairs and it that is all good.

Do you know who the true vandals are? Those people who are not the stewards who try to make changes to it. Those who because of arrogance, pride or simple misunderstanding think that their stewardship of their temple means that all other temples should be just like theirs.  They demand that other temple can't be bigger or smaller, or stand taller or shorter... and if they are then clearly they can't be a House of God.  They are so busy declaring that they know better then God's duly appointed stewards of other temples that they miss that the bigger sin of unrighteous judgement that has take root in their temple

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by estradling75