"Addiction to food..."

[UtahDan]

Some of the "dumbest" people I know (in terms of judgment) are law school grads, by the way . . . I won't say anything about med school grads.

I knew a lot of people in law school who utterly lacked commonsense. They ended up in health care law mostly.

[LA Ute]

And mine.

I'm not saying everyone who looks at porn or gambles or overeats is suffering from addiction. I'm just saying that our current definition of addiction, at least when used by anyone who's halfway serious about the subject, is pretty good at distinguishing the serious from the nonserious cases, and that it can apply to many things non-chemical.

Amen.

[LA Ute]

I knew a lot of people in law school who utterly lacked commonsense. They ended up in health care law mostly.

Et tu, Utah Dan?

[pellegrino]

If this is the rebirth of the Foyer DDD was talking about then I opt out.

[LA Ute]

If this is the rebirth of the Foyer DDD was talking about then I opt out.

You felt compelled to read this thread?

[pellegrino]

You felt compelled to read this thread?

I think there is a difference between skim and read. But I'm not interested in arguing semantics.

[LA Ute]

I think there is a difference between skim and read. But I'm not interested in arguing semantics.

That was a pretty semantic exercise, wasn't it? Must have something to do with all the lawyers on this board . . . . Seriously, I was simply defending the seriousness the of the problem that Elder Hales was addressing, regardless of the name for it. And I was reminded of what "addiction" really means, and Seattle found an opening for a gratuitous swipe at believing Mormons. So there's been some merit to this discussion.

[SeattleUte]

If this is the rebirth of the Foyer DDD was talking about then I opt out.

You lack the gift, I see. I'm sorry. There's nothing we can do for you.

[CardiacCoug]

If this is the rebirth of the Foyer DDD was talking about then I opt out.

I really don't understand the need to "call out" threads for being boring. If something isn't interesting to me, I just ignore it. How about you start something more interesting?

Addiction is a term that is increasing very much in its use in the Church -- I don't think a little debate on its proper usage is out of line.

[SeattleUte]

Foul.

I don't care what the consensus among "Stake Presidents" is on a subject. The fact that they are disporportionatly represented by Harvard MBA's or members of the million dollar round table doesn't make them any more qualified than you or I to opine about addiction. No one should care what they think.

[pellegrino]

I really don't understand the need to "call out" threads for being boring. If something isn't interesting to me, I just ignore it. How about you start something more interesting?

Addiction is a term that is increasing very much in its use in the Church -- I don't think a little debate on its proper usage is out of line.

Actually, the topic of excesses in the church (be they addictions or not) is very interesting, it's just that this conversation (through no fault of your own) devolved into something less than interesting. I'll see if I can't take you up on your challenge and exercise my faculties to produce a stimulating conversation. I'll admit that's not really my forte though, as I am usually better in responding than instigating.

[SeattleUte]

Actually, the topic of excesses in the church (be they addictions or not) is very interesting, it's just that this conversation (through no fault of your own) devolved into something less than interesting. I'll see if I can't take you up on your challenge and exercise my faculties to produce a stimulating conversation. I'll admit that's not really my forte though, as I am usually better in responding than instigating.

Sorry if we offended you. You might be happier just taking a poll of stake presidents to find out what to think about addiction.