Salt Lake Tribune Trashes LDS for Serving too Much

[Pyreaux]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/06/26/gordon-monson-some-latter-day/

Quote

Gordon Monson: For some Latter-day Saints, exhaustive service does more harm than good
Sometimes the person you most need to help will be yourself.
(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Latter-day Saint volunteers help clean up debris and fallen trees caused by a hurricane in Florida.

June 26, 2025, 2:00 p.m.

This is a warning to those inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and any other church or organization, who regularly preach sacrificing self to serve others - as though that’s the golden ticket to heaven.

That premise is huge for Latter-day Saints. I could pay a ton of tithing if I had five bucks for every time I’ve heard that sermon delivered to congregants.

Give, give, give until it hurts. And if it doesn’t hurt, then the service isn’t being offered quite right or often enough or thoroughly enough.

That’s what Jesus would do, right?

Maybe it is, but is it what Jesus would have you do?

Ignore yourself. Concentrate on others. How’s the Good Book put it? “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

Yeah, that’s it.

I’ve seen enough good service from people inside the church to sing their praises all day long. From the very significant to the slightly insignificant. Caring individuals bearing burdens that weren’t theirs, but they took them on anyway. I’ve seen the elderly aided by the young, the young aided by the elderly, not in some occasional token way, rather in ways that took time, effort, patience and sacrifice.

Back in the day when wards in various regions secured modest patches of land for congregants and congregations to have gardens, to work the land and reap the benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables grown, I once saw three men harvest together some of that produce in the early hours before their normal workdays. One was the CEO of a large chemical corporation; another an attorney at a top firm; and yet another a school janitor. There they were, laughing and laboring, shoulder to shoulder, sweating in the swelter of a buzzard-hot, humid morning — only because they thought they should serve.

All good.

But there are limits to that service, or should be, even as regular pressure is put on Saints to sacrifice as they serve. Hence the warning.

Gordon Monson, a longtime columnist, known for takes often critical of the LDS Church, is attempting a nuanced position here. As he actually acknowledges and praises the incredible acts of service and unity among Latter-day Saints. And there is a valid point: Some members do feel overwhelmed, undervalued, or spiritually burned out trying to "earn heaven" through sheer busyness.

He seems to suggest that is what the church "sermons" teach. President Nelson himself has warned against this in Come Unto Me, and Elder Holland has said, "You can’t run faster than you have strength." The Church does not officially teach that heaven is earned by checklist. Grace and the Atonement of Jesus Christ are central. If people feel like they're not doing enough. It’s appropriate to ask in prayer: “Lord, what would Thou have me do today?” Sometimes the answer might be “help your neighbor,” and sometimes it’s “rest, heal, and let Me take care of you.”

Quote

Almost everyone has personal and familial responsibilities that need tending. That’s part of life. On top of that, in the Latter-day Saint tradition, there are church chores to fill, from bishop to hymn coordinator, from Relief Society president to Sunday school teacher. It’s a lay church, so keeping it functioning is the duty of the members who are taught to “magnify” their callings, to embrace voluntary service, to undertake it with their might and strength. To scrub toilets and to minister to others, come what may. They get no monetary reward for their efforts but are promised something so many of them believe is better — eternal blessings.

The trouble with those endeavors is they sometimes come at a great cost.

Fathers who skip parental responsibilities to fulfill priesthood assignments. Mothers and single women who wrongly feel like they’re not doing enough, even as they look outward, not inward, to lend a helping hand, here, there, everywhere.

Just as neglectful are individuals who forsake paying attention to and taking care of themselves in order to bless the lives of others. But such seemingly noble selflessness can be almost as harmful as shameful selfishness.

If pure selfishness is on one side and complete selflessness is on the other, maybe the devil is on the outer edge of both extremes. True discipleship, the place where the angels sing and where steady self-care is found, is somewhere in the middle.

I know of and was close to a Latter-day Saint woman who read her scriptures and prayed daily, who sought to follow Jesus, who fulfilled her callings with enthusiasm, who was a wife to a husband, a mother to adult kids, some of whom had extra challenges with which they had to deal, a grandmother who helped care for her grandchildren.

She was almost always looking out for others. Everyone but herself. Problem is, it led her not just the wrong way but eventually to her own demise.

She had physical ailments, one of them having to do with her heart. She ignored her symptoms, busy as she was tending to the needs all around her. As a result, she put off visiting her doctor week after week, and, as it turned out, month after month. She felt she was pulled to serve. She would get around to taking care of herself later. She was subsequently hospitalized, in part suffering from the stress she shouldered.

She died two weeks later.

This part of the article shifts from gentle critique to a deeply emotional warning, using a personal story to make a point: self-neglect in the name of service can be fatal. President Russell M. Nelson has urged us repeatedly to receive personal revelation, to care for our bodies, and to protect our spiritual and physical well-being. These are not side notes. They are core doctrines of discipleship.

Yes, we’re taught to give. But not without wisdom. The scriptures themselves say: “See that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength.” (Mosiah 4:27)

Quote

I asked her physician, a noted cardiologist, in the aftermath what happened and why. He said her death was, the word he used, “needless.”

“If she had come in when she first had symptoms,” the doctor said, “she would easily have survived.”

That news was frustrating. She didn’t delay going in for treatment because she was afraid. She didn’t put off the visit to the physician for any reason other than she was busy, preoccupied with helping and worrying about everyone else. They needed her. But she needed to take care of herself first.

At her funeral, a Latter-day Saint service, multiple speakers talked about her beautiful selflessness, the aid she freely offered, the way she gave and gave and gave.

She didn’t just give and give and give until it hurt. She gave and gave and gave until it killed her. And praise was heaped upon her for the very trait that did her in.

That’s an extreme case. The point is: to all those who want to serve, to those who feel like it’s their duty to serve because of what they are taught at church, hit pause. Pause to think of yourself and to give yourself what you need.

Serving others, feeling overwhelming pressure to do so, might not prove fatal. It probably will help feed your soul, but beware that it doesn’t rob you of time to nourish yourself. There’s nobility in that, too. Perhaps one of the “least of these,” from time to time, is … you. Doing good for yourself, then, is doing good for your God.

Indeed, her death shouldn't have been the price of discipleship. In this Church, we believe in covenants. We believe in consecration. But those sacred principles were never meant to be twisted into chronic exhaustion, guilt, or martyrdom. The scriptures don’t say, “Give until you die of stress.” They say, “Let virtue garnish thy thoughts,” and, “Be temperate in all things.”

What eternal reward is there for ignoring the Spirit when it prompts, “Go to the doctor.” We cannot pour living water into others if our own well runs dry.

[Calm]

On 6/26/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pyreaux said:

Quoted:  That news was frustrating. She didn’t delay going in for treatment because she was afraid. She didn’t put off the visit to the physician for any reason other than she was busy, preoccupied with helping and worrying about everyone else. They needed her. But she needed to take care of herself first.

 

What I want to know is how he was so certain she didn’t delay treatment because she was someone who wouldn’t accept illness in herself out of an underlying fear of being weak or perhaps as a refusal to need others or just didn’t want to put the mental effort in that comes with having to change habits or combo of all of the above?  My dad was that way imo, he did the minimum he thought he could get away with and was wrong on occasion.  For example, hurt himself in the hospital after surgery because he wouldn’t wait for a nurse to help him out of bed to use the toilet.  Being independent was a huge point of pride for him, but he had also seen his father consumed with the genetic disorder that is the bane of our family, restless legs syndrome, and no way did he want to end up like that…but his solution was to find something that worked and then ignore it (which led to a great aggravation of his issues towards the end of his life that he might have been able to avoid if he had just been willing to stay one extra day and go to a doctor’s appointment I had arranged for him, but he wouldn’t even talk with me about his own symptoms or possible better medications and was dismissive when I bought out actual expert info on the problems with the drugs he was taking).

Dad often used the excuse he was too busy to pay deeper attention to his health.  But he ignored it when he had free time too, so I didn’t buy it.  He was always able to make time for what he thought was important.

My mom was much more practical.  She was always serving, but she also looked for and accepted help for her health.  It didn’t always go well because her health was complicated (which likely contributed to Dad not being willing).  Mom’s response to stories of those who died in service or for their families (like a woman who refused cancer treatment so she could have one last child even though that left her children, including the newest without a mother) was ‘sometimes it’s harder to live for people than die for them’, recognizing that going against one’s natural instincts and investing effort in being more effective overtime was often the better way.

There is nothing in church doctrine that demands we sacrifice our health though we often seem to glorify those who do, ignoring the longterm suffering that may end up causing for short term gains.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/26/2025 at 8:14 PM, Pyreaux said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/06/26/gordon-monson-some-latter-day/

Gordon Monson, ..............................

Monson is spewing nonsense.  Latter-day Saints are among the most well-balanced people I know of.  I never hear them preach or testify that active caring for others is a "golden ticket to heaven."  They do nice things out of love for others, and they are not overburdened.  Indeed, with fewer Sunday mtgs along with modern technology, getting something done is far easier now than ever.  Are there foolish and irresponsible Latter-day Saints?  Of course, but that is true of every culture.

The truly great burdens wee those borne by our pioneer ancestors.  If anything, we have it too easy today.

[Robert F. Smith]

Gordon Monnson clearly is unfamiliar with Mormon culture:

 

[Notatbm]

On 6/26/2025 at 7:14 PM, Pyreaux said:

Fathers who skip parental responsibilities to fulfill priesthood assignments. 

I have to agree with this one. My parents were soo  deeply involved with church and my father always had high demand callings ( bishopric and on up) my entire adolescent life. I do not know him. He was always at a church meeting except on mondays and if not there he was at work or asleep. I was raised by sports coaches and scout leaders in respects to the father figure stuff. 
 

in the circles my family runs in, there are many like him. Wonderful church leader though. Everyone loved him. I learned a  lot about him at his funeral. At least someone got to know him. 
 

I do think there is a benefit to church service and service to others. I’d have to agree that if overdone there are consequences. Once the church starts vetting people better for callings ( don’t call 25 year olds with two toddlers to be in bishopric) and members don’t feel like they have to do every flipping thing then we will have a better church. 
 

Edited July 3, 2025 by Notatbm
Typos

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/2/2025 at 11:51 PM, Notatbm said:

I have to agree with this one. My parents were soo  deeply involved with church and my father always had high demand callings ( bishopric and on up) my entire adolescent life. I do not know him. He was always at a church meeting except on mondays and if not there he was at work or asleep. I was raised by sports coaches and scout leaders in respects to the father figure stuff. 
 

in the circles my family runs in, there are many like him. Wonderful church leader though. Everyone loved him. I learned a  lot about him at his funeral. At least someone got to know him. 
 

I do think there is a benefit to church service and service to others. I’d have to agree that if overdone there are consequences. Once the church starts vetting people better for callings ( don’t call 25 year olds with two toddlers to be in bishopric) and members don’t feel like they have to do every flipping thing then we will have a better church. 

An important skill is learning how to say "No."  And knowing when to say it.  And not to blame others when we don't take responsibility at home.

My dad was not a member of the LDS Church, and had no interest in religion at all.  However, he had two jobs and was constantly providing for us, so we saw very little of him.  You don't have to be religious to burn the candle at both ends.  Better balance makes for a better culture, whether Mormon or non-Mormon.

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An important skill is learning how to say "No."  And knowing when to say it.  And not to blame others when we don't take responsibility at home.

My dad was not a member of the LDS Church, and had no interest in religion at all.  However, he had two jobs and was constantly providing for us, so we saw very little of him.  You don't have to be religious to burn the candle at both ends.  Better balance makes for a better culture, whether Mormon or non-Mormon.

1. I agree and I have said no plenty of times myself. My parents would 100% disagree that it is a choice to say no. Just like the new thing is in the church with this “moral agency” nonsense where there are no more choices like there are in free agency. I’m speaking to the mission thing that made its rounds a few years ago. Anyway- my parents would have never turned down a calling and were frankly disgusted at me when I told them about one I turned down. I could feel the disappointment when I told them. I have no idea why I did tell them, but it just came up in convo. Man they let me have it over that. Temple covenant breaking lecture and all.
 

When you are dealing with people who say the  family can spend time together in the celestial kingdom, but here on earth our first obligation is to the church well can’t fix that kind of brainwashing. Also - father  blamed no one  for anything at home. They owned it- it was your obligation to devote 100% to the church. Up to and including your very life (where have we heard that before?) Kids are raised by the mother and church leaders. 
 

2-economically two jobs makes sense where you have to feed kids. It doesn’t make sense to have one paid job to feed your kids and another “volunteer” job which you are so devoted to you don’t have any time for your kids because you are in back to back useless meetings accomplishing next to nothing over and over again for a decade or two. That was the culture of the church back then (70s/80s). Maybe it wasn’t where you lived but it sure was here. My family to this day is still all that way. 
 

I do appreciate your feedback and agree with it. Problem is when you get hardcore mckonkie/ packer wanna bees going, my experience is what you get. There are / were many families just like this. The Church  loves em because they can use em to be bishops, stake presidents, 70s and send em on a couple senior missions. 

Edited July 10, 2025 by Notatbm

[The Nehor]

On 6/30/2025 at 10:53 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Monson is spewing nonsense.  Latter-day Saints are among the most well-balanced people I know of.  I never hear them preach or testify that active caring for others is a "golden ticket to heaven."  They do nice things out of love for others, and they are not overburdened.  Indeed, with fewer Sunday mtgs along with modern technology, getting something done is far easier now than ever.  Are there foolish and irresponsible Latter-day Saints?  Of course, but that is true of every culture.

The truly great burdens wee those borne by our pioneer ancestors.  If anything, we have it too easy today.

Fun fact: In the 1800s many LDS attended church once or twice a month. So our pioneer ancestors may have taken a trip across the plains one summer but that doesn’t make them super devout. Brigham Young was ripping his hair out over how those pioneers weren’t that devout. This is just romanticizing the past.

And no, people today don’t have it particularly easy. We have some modern comforts but about a million extra things to be anxious and concerned about.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fun fact: In the 1800s many LDS attended church once or twice a month. So our pioneer ancestors may have taken a trip across the plains one summer but that doesn’t make them super devout. Brigham Young was ripping his hair out over how those pioneers weren’t that devout. This is just romanticizing the past.

And no, people today don’t have it particularly easy. We have some modern comforts but about a million extra things to be anxious and concerned about.

I just don't buy any of that, Your Grace.  The plain fact is that the physical difficulties of being a pioneer were immense, and the only social safety net was family and church.  Hobbes had it right:  Life was nasty brutish and short.  Nothing at all romantic about that.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just don't buy any of that, Your Grace.  The plain fact is that the physical difficulties of being a pioneer were immense, and the only social safety net was family and church.  Hobbes had it right:  Life was nasty brutish and short.  Nothing at all romantic about that.

What’s changed that made all of us so soft and having it too easy?

Subsistence farming is hard work. Taking a wagon trip on the way only makes it marginally more difficult. There were lots of other people making similar trips throughout history. It is not some unique experience.

Edited July 10, 2025 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Notatbm said:

1. I agree and I have said no plenty of times myself. My parents would 100% disagree that it is a choice to say no. Just like the new thing is in the church with this “moral agency” nonsense where there are no more choices like there are in free agency. .......................

When you are dealing with people who say the  family can spend time together in the celestial kingdom, but here on earth our first obligation is to the church ..............................
............... Problem is when you get hardcore mckonkie/ packer wanna bees going, my experience is what you get. ..................

That is all sadly and plainly false doctrine:

LDS Church Handbook 2, § 17.2.1, titled “Family Circumstances”:
“ . . strong families are vital to the Church, and members should not be asked to make excessive family sacrifices to serve or to support programs or activities.”    
--online at https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/selected-principles-from-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng&query=family+priority .

Dallin Oaks, LDS Conference, Oct 2007, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng#6- ,
“The First Presidency has declared that ‘however worthy and appropriate other demands or activities may be, they must not be permitted to displace the divinely-appointed duties that only parents and families can adequately perform’.”--First Presidency letter, Feb. 11, 1999; printed in Church News, Feb. 27, 1999, 3.

“Church programs should focus on what is best (most effective) in achieving their assigned purposes without unduly infringing on the time families need for their ‘divinely appointed duties’.”

President Harold B. Lee said: “It seems clear to me that the Church has no choice—and never has had—but to do more to assist the family in carrying out its divine mission . . . to help improve the quality of life in the Latter-day Saint homes. As important as our many programs and organizational efforts are, these should not supplant the home; they should support the home” (“Preparing Our Youth,” Ensign, March 1971, p. 3).”

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What’s changed that made all of us so soft and having it too easy?

Modern tech, as I had pointed out.  Now our big crises are obesity and anomie.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is all sadly and plainly false doctrine:

LDS Church Handbook 2, § 17.2.1, titled “Family Circumstances”:
“ . . strong families are vital to the Church, and members should not be asked to make excessive family sacrifices to serve or to support programs or activities.”    
--online at https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/selected-principles-from-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng&query=family+priority .

Dallin Oaks, LDS Conference, Oct 2007, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng#6- ,
“The First Presidency has declared that ‘however worthy and appropriate other demands or activities may be, they must not be permitted to displace the divinely-appointed duties that only parents and families can adequately perform’.”--First Presidency letter, Feb. 11, 1999; printed in Church News, Feb. 27, 1999, 3.

“Church programs should focus on what is best (most effective) in achieving their assigned purposes without unduly infringing on the time families need for their ‘divinely appointed duties’.”

President Harold B. Lee said: “It seems clear to me that the Church has no choice—and never has had—but to do more to assist the family in carrying out its divine mission . . . to help improve the quality of life in the Latter-day Saint homes. As important as our many programs and organizational efforts are, these should not supplant the home; they should support the home” (“Preparing Our Youth,” Ensign, March 1971, p. 3).”

The fact that they keep talking about it and telling leaders and people not to do it suggests that it happens. It is like the biblical prohibition on necromancy. From it you can deduce that there were people practicing necromancy.

Unlike necromancers though we tend to honor those who make sacrifices for church service including the excessive ones.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Modern tech, as I had pointed out.  Now our big crises are obesity and anomie.

And not being able to afford the cost of living, feeling trapped in a system where ownership of a home seems impossible, having to give up dreams of parenthood due to financial realities, paranoia that every health concern could turn into financial ruin, and the like. Add in being chastised by others that you are all a bunch of lazy layabouts who have had it easy for way too long and people wonder why everyone is lonely and depressed.

It never ceases to be funny to me that people who think we are in the last days when troubles are supposed to abound everywhere will ignore all that because their favored diet of propaganda tells them it is more fun to punch down and insist that all the suffering of others is due to laziness and sloth and not being challenged enough by life.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Modern tech, as I had pointed out.  Now our big crises are obesity and anomie.

I just read an article on the increase of colon cancer in young people and its link to obesity. The article cited a study that claimed that 48% of Americans will be obese by 2030. That’s definitely a crisis. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I just read an article on the increase of colon cancer in young people and its link to obesity. The article cited a study that claimed that 48% of Americans will be obese by 2030. That’s definitely a crisis. 

Maybe we should create and enforce food health standards much of the rest of the world have adopted.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe we should create and enforce food health standards much of the rest of the world have adopted.

Even with those standards though, obesity rates are also rabidly rising in Europe. 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even with those standards though, obesity rates are also rabidly rising in Europe. 

It’s not like people from the past wouldn’t have eaten the same way if such food was available to them cheaply.  They wouldn’t be anymore educated on healthy eating than people are now, in fact probably would be much less healthy in eating habits.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Even with those standards though, obesity rates are also rabidly rising in Europe. 

True, but I see them trying to counter it by limiting marketing of unhealthy foods to kids, creating access to exercise spaces, and trying to fight poverty.

Americans are really good at looking at a problem and saying “nothing we can do about it” and calling it a day.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s not like people from the past wouldn’t have eaten the same way if such food was available to them cheaply.  They wouldn’t be anymore educated on healthy eating than people are now, in fact probably would be much less healthy in eating habits.

True.  I was just commenting on Nehor's reply that maybe if we had better food health standards like other countries we wouldn't be in the predicament that we are in.  We might be slower in getting there, but I think we would still be heading in the same direction that we currently are, for the reasons that you've stated above.  Technological "advances" have made unhealthy food cheap and available.  They've also created lifestyle changes that require less physical activity.

I don't think healthy food standards can fight that current.  It sounds like they are losing the battle in Europe.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

True, but I see them trying to counter it by limiting marketing of unhealthy foods to kids, creating access to exercise spaces, and trying to fight poverty.

Americans are really good at looking at a problem and saying “nothing we can do about it” and calling it a day.

Good point.

I think part of that comes from a 'once bitten, twice shy' philosophy though.  We've taken some stands in the past (like with drugs and alcohol) and it didn't help and actually made some things worse. We managed to get rid of cigarettes in large part, for example, but have replaced them with vaping and pot.  Less teens are drinking alcohol, but more are abusing prescription pills.  Fentanyl kills more teens now than drunk driving did in the 90s.  It's hard to find good examples of a win when we've tried to tackle a problem head on. 

(Not saying that means we shouldn't do anything to try to make things better, only that there are some logical reasons why some Americans are apathetic around this kind of thing)

And for good and bad, we are a society highly steeped in ideas of personal accountability.  From the perspective, some of it is less 'nothing we can do about it' and more 'nothing we can do about it if that's what people want to choose'.  Also, not saying that's a good reason to do nothing.  But it's a perspective that is much more nuanced than some consider it to be.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

was just commenting on Nehor's reply

I was responding to those who were apparently comparing the present generations as if they are somehow lazier or more gluttonous by choice than previous generations when mostly likely it’s the way humanity’s brains have been wired for a long, long time.  Unless one has been taught to truly value health over taste and relatively immediate gratification, chances are pick up two people from different eras and they will choose mostly the foods they are most familiar with, whether or not it’s healthy and probably with as much self control.

[Notatbm]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is all sadly and plainly false doctrine:

LDS Church Handbook 2, § 17.2.1, titled “Family Circumstances”:
“ . . strong families are vital to the Church, and members should not be asked to make excessive family sacrifices to serve or to support programs or activities.”    
--online at https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/selected-principles-from-the-new-handbooks?lang=eng&query=family+priority .

Dallin Oaks, LDS Conference, Oct 2007, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng#6- ,
“The First Presidency has declared that ‘however worthy and appropriate other demands or activities may be, they must not be permitted to displace the divinely-appointed duties that only parents and families can adequately perform’.”--First Presidency letter, Feb. 11, 1999; printed in Church News, Feb. 27, 1999, 3.

“Church programs should focus on what is best (most effective) in achieving their assigned purposes without unduly infringing on the time families need for their ‘divinely appointed duties’.”

President Harold B. Lee said: “It seems clear to me that the Church has no choice—and never has had—but to do more to assist the family in carrying out its divine mission . . . to help improve the quality of life in the Latter-day Saint homes. As important as our many programs and organizational efforts are, these should not supplant the home; they should support the home” (“Preparing Our Youth,” Ensign, March 1971, p. 3).”

You are preaching to the wrong guy.  Go dig up my parents and give em the good news. 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The fact that they keep talking about it and telling leaders and people not to do it suggests that it happens. It is like the biblical prohibition on necromancy. From it you can deduce that there were people practicing necromancy.

Unlike necromancers though we tend to honor those who make sacrifices for church service including the excessive ones.

True enough, and it continues to be a problem for backsliders -- even among the Brethren.

And aside from the sin of failing to put family first, there are geniuses like Einstein and Nibley who spend inordinate amounts of time on their personal obsessions.  Nibley's own children described him as a "freak."  An exception which proves the rule?

[Tony uk]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

True.  I was just commenting on Nehor's reply that maybe if we had better food health standards like other countries we wouldn't be in the predicament that we are in.  We might be slower in getting there, but I think we would still be heading in the same direction that we currently are, for the reasons that you've stated above.  Technological "advances" have made unhealthy food cheap and available.  They've also created lifestyle changes that require less physical activity.

I don't think healthy food standards can fight that current.  It sounds like they are losing the battle in Europe.

Very much agree. In the part of England (North) that I live. There seems to be an onslaught of fast food outlets. People tending to use vehicles, more often, for short trips. Children being taken to school in parents car, short trip again, out of front of home, safely delivered to front door of school. Although there are school buses, I think of the type, familiar in USA. And fewer people taking any form of exercise, either home, gym or outdoors variety.