Quantcast

Comments about ‘Reader Voices: The cause and cure for Lemuelitis’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 29 2011 7:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jemod
Bedford, WY

My version on "Lemuelitis" is this:

We always read "Laman and Lemuel", never "Lemuel and Laman". Lemuel's problem was he was a follower. Laman was the real scoundrel. Lemuel just didn't have the backbone to stand up and say "Hey, big brother, this is not right. We should not be doing this."

Too often, we, and especially as a young person looking for acceptance, will follow a scoundrel even when we know what we are doing is not right. We just don't have the courage to speak up, or even to just get out of there. Lemuel is a great bad example of letting peer pressure determine our future.

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

This is a silly, infantile interpretation of scripture. But then, the author will just accuse of Lemuelitis!

A Man's Perspective
Salt Lake City, UT

Nice article. Nephi's company had much reason to complain about - I don't envy them at all. But that journey in the desert wilderness is one of the best in all of scripture of learning good life lessons.

ulvegaard
Medical Lake, Washington

Considering such timely lessons as "infantile" only makes the situation worse. The promise has been that the gospel will never again be taken from the earth, only internal struggles will be an issue -- and so it has long since begun. I have watched as people I have known have murmured, slackened and pulled away from their covenants because they had better things to do. And I have witnessed others who have suffered through diseases, one, right into another, who continue to be steadfast and immovable in their faith, who, in essence, praise God the entire day as did Nephi. Infantile? Please. Come to understand that the scriptures have lessons for us at every level and in every circumstance.

Jack
Aurora, CO

I read this story with great interest, and while I agree with the affliction he calls "Lemuelitis", I do wish to comment on his choices. He chose not to fill the van with gasoline. The consequence was evident in the story. All this because he chose not to do one thing. The consequences, which are attached to the choice, come out in the story.

So, the moral of the story? Your actions, or inactions, have consequences and you own them. They are not the result of someone picking on him, or by accident, or the wrath of God. They are the direct result of what he did. Learn to accept that principle, and life seems to go more smoothly.

I love the name of the malady, though.

Brother Dave
Livermore, CA

Great Article on Attitude. Laman and Lemuel both
had bad attitudes. They had attitudes which many in our society of today have in our contemporary world. I'm not restricting this observation to only the LDS population, because the attitude of Moaning, Groaning and Always Complaining instead of Doing something of a contribution, is very obvious in today's young people.... just be around the public schools of today and listen to what's being said by the kids (all ages).

This is about basic Human attitudes as to how to view the world, and how we should act and re-act to what happens in our personal worlds. Do we act positively or complainingly?? Do we include the Lord??

I like the term "Lemuelitis". "Lamanitis" might have also been appropriate. Those two were usually referred to as a two-some: "Laman & Lemuel".
Little brother Nephi was a Great Example to Us All!!! (Example: 1 Nephi 3:7).

terra nova
Park City, UT

There is a remarkable and somewhat deeper parallel doctrine found in Philippians 4:6-9 (the source for the "Admonition of Paul" mentioned in the 13th Article of Faith). There, in addition to finding all that it praiseworthy (as Nephi did) Paul talks about how he has learned to be "full" and yet "suffer need" at the same time. He is "content" with any situation he finds himself in, but at the same time, admits need for improvement and progress. Neal Maxwell called this a state of "divine discontent."

There more than a few poor souls who will read the damaging diagnosis of "Lemuelitis" find it catchy and begin misapply it to any poor soul who suggests any form of improvement whatsoever.

"Murmurer!" they will shout.

Perhaps we would do better to drop negative monikers like "Lemuelitis," entirely. In a gospel context could it make more sense to "accentuate the positive" (as opposed to pigeon-holing with negative stereotypes)? Would YOU want to be labeled as "sick with Lemuelitis?" Is it possible that anyone who murmurs the the diagnosis "Lemuelitis" actually has the disease? Is murmuring against a murmurer still murmuring?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments