Leaderboard

Admittedly this is just me being contrary, show up wearing more cloth next time.

People are ignorant. Stand for your beliefs and don't back down.

I think you ran into a problem the moment you told them that others had influence on your choice. Now anyone in a healthy relationship knows that a spouse's opinions and ideas influence the other spouse. And of course sincere religious belief does as well. The problem is by acknowledging the influence people hear, "Oh I would but... Such and such wouldn't like it." Had you simply said, "This is what I have chosen to wear." They would have thought you were weird but they would have not had anything else to go on and most likely dropped it. But by acknowledging your husband's and religious influence your brought up one of the more common circumstances of abuse, and that is where they went with it.

The best thing to do when something like that occurs is realize they're only trying to be kind. They thought you were in an abusive situation and sought to help you. Just laugh at their naivete, explain that this is your choice but you appreciate their concern and then go on your way.

Never looked for them to be honest. But in general observation I usually just see wedding rings.

Just make up a few of these signs for your lesson:

What I usually do is make a small disclaimer and ask the class to please keep on topic during the lesson (and keep it short). When you are talking about the BOM and some people are talking about the Egyptian Pyramids, I say something like "Thank you...now going back to the topic.."

As usual it was not my intention to hurt feelings. Perhaps i should have used the word debate instead of argue? Whatever you want to call it, defending one opinion vs another is a form of argument. I don't mean it as a yelling match or such. My apologies once again for not choosing my words carefully enough. I suppose the main idea I was conveying is that I doubt my post will change your mind, but here goes anyway :) I don't disagree with you here, it is just that other possibilities haven't been entirely ruled out either. Truly though you make a really good point of what is likely the case. The problem with this is that every one has a breaking point. Will-power alone can only go so far. Many people who struggle with weight do so not because of a low breaking point, but because of increased pressure against the breaking point. Honestly think on how ready you are to eat after fasting for an extended period of time, sure a day or even a few more is okay to feel that hungry, but imagine feeling that way all the time... everyone has a breaking point. This can be fixed with wise food selection, but not by simply reducing the portions of the same foods that are causing irregular satiety.

Its also taught in secular theology department in the universities that I've had contact with. I've not read or heard anyone teach that deaconess was simply the wife of a deacon. It is clear in the NT and in the documents of the early church fathers that there were female deacons, there are even secular accounts of female deacons being tortured for information on Christianity. So from a purely historical point of view, and from the sources of the time we can only come to the conclusion that there was in some way, shape or form a position in the early church for female deacons. What that role was or even if it was a priestly office is where the contention lies. As I have said previously, it has been said that it was a role relating to ministry to other women, and that role simply was withdrawn or seen as redundant and never re-organised with the restoration of the Gospel and the church, or is what is now the relief society. Let me make it clear, I'm in no way saying that this is evidence that there should be female members of the priesthood today. As clearly that is not the case as revealed to the prophets of the restoration in whom the keys of the priesthood reside. Heavenly Father has clearly laid out his teachings on the priesthood in these latter days through his servants the prophets, from Joseph Smith to Thomas S Monson, that the priesthood is available to and bestowed upon all worthy male members in the church is clearly the teaching of the restored church today.

The only thing to understand is that you have an agenda, and every other point of view is wrong...

Didn't President Faust used to wear a CTR stud in his left ear (until President Hinckley told everyone to stop that nonsense)

Pam, I've been meaning to mention the Secret Spot Remover was awesome. It got everything out save one big stubborn spot, which I then soaked in Oxiclean. I think it's on it's way to getting out.

I will never understand why some (too many) women think that anything having to do with modesty (or anything conservative) means there is abuse going on. Do not wear a bikini to lot "fit in". That is letting people - ignorant people at that - bully you into being someone you are not and taking you away from your choice to follow your church's teachings. I dress modestly and I am single. I wonder what they would have said to that? Modesty is not a bad thing.

Maybe all I am suggesting is that we drink more water. We might end up doing less work, but we might do it more effectively. If we drink the water daily we're less likely to turn away, revel in sin, etc.

I made up the quote, so it had no context. However, it could well have been Martha. It could be any of us. We get so busy with God's business that we neglect our intimacy with Him. When we convert we say, "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." Could it be that we should offer that up daily, instead of only once? The work is to bring God glory. However, if it dries us out, and distances us from Him, then has the work not failed in its purpose?

I've never noticed a CTR ring on an apostle. However, I'm sure if one of them started to wear one, sells of that style of CTR ring would increase.

My guess is if the lady had a card on her for a domestic abuse center she had either been abused, knows some one who has been in abusive relationship, or works for some type of abuse center. The average person does not carry on them a card with information to an abuse center, I believe she was just trying to reach out in kindness based on what she has been exposed to. Stay strong, continue to be modest and press forward.

I know better than to argue with you, I'd sooner see through a brick wall. So I'll agree to disagree, while stating my observation that there is more that goes into it all than you or I understand. There is certainly a trend towards the caloric energy balance equation working, but there are many researchers out there with interesting anomalies they claim disprove this idea. I also understand what you are saying about the technicalities of calories in and out not being simple, which I can agree with. I also won't discount the idea that all of the other research may eventually come back to calories in vs calories out, but with unaccounted for ins and outs. There is a physical hunger response to activity to varying degrees that is a physical event, and it makes sense that the body would increase hunger in response to increased workloads to avoid withering away. Writing those who struggle with weight off as undisciplined is a common thought process that is deserved for some, but not for others. It is easy to see some one as undisciplined because they continue to eat past their caloric needs, when they should just stop eating. Perhaps for you it is a matter of passing up some pie and ice cream when you know you've already had enough/too much to eat. For some it doesn't work this way because of messed up satiety signals, there are people who can stuff their face all day and still feel like it's fast Sunday because the filled up message is not getting delivered. This is however almost universally a consequence of choosing the wrong foods. Sadly for some this is still not a self-control issue as much as it is a lack of education issue compounded by the diet industry which continues to confuse people with all manner of fads to appease certain food preferences with empty promises and a food industry set on addicting us all to there wares.

Incidentally, I disagree with this even though I understand what you're trying to say. It is, actually, as simple as calories in vs. calories out. But calories in is not simple, and calories out is ridiculously complicated. But it is still that simple. I've also never been one for accepting a psychological component in a physical equation. If you work out you might want to eat pizza more is not a legitimate algorithm in my book. The fact that some struggle harder to discipline themselves than others is reality. But it still comes down to discipline in the end.

I read years ago about a doctor in the 1920's who took patients into his clinic and put them on a controlled diet with as many calories as they said they were eating... everyone lost weight.

The talk of that excommunication taking place was strictly on Facebook, other members of my YSA Ward stated their opinions (one was against, the rest were for) however on Sunday there has not been talk of it at all. She is old news and will fade into oblivion.

As a health and fitness professional I get to delve into research on obesity fairly often as well as work with people struggling with weight on a near daily basis. I can assure you that for most portion control alone does not work. It is far more complicated than calories in and calories out. Although this is a fundamental element to whether or not people gain weight it is not the end of the story. There are multiple factors to consider outside of calories in and calories out. First of all as anatess mentioned it is more important what is eaten than how much, especially when referring to the volume of food. This is because hunger is set up on a feed back loop that is complex in its involvement of nutrient levels, hormone levels, and signals from stretch receptors in the stomach itself. Thus if you eat foods that have more bulk to them with less calories you'll be doing better than eating tiny portions that pack a caloric wallop, but even if you ate a food that is voluminous but is lacking in nutrient density it only meets one of the requirements to signal satiety. Beyond that you have physical conditions such as low thyroid function, adrenal fatigue and so on that can predispose certain individuals to weight gain. Some of us are blessed with naturally more fidgeting that burns more calories all the time while others are cursed with bodies that are always in energy conservation mode (would be a blessing in a starvation situation). These are only some of the physical side, never mind the mental/emotional aspect. Exercising more can also be a two-edged sword. There are people who are considered non-responders to various types of physical activity. For some long bouts of aerobic activity will stoke the flames of fat burning and for others it simply stokes an increased appetite that overcompensates for what the exercise tried to accomplish. High intensity interval training has been shown to be more effective for most individuals, but the biggest problem here is that it requires already being at a certain level of fitness that the obese individual isn't at. I don't want to be misunderstood here as saying that diet and exercise don't work however, because they do. But it isn't always as simple as it seems.

We have a sister who does this too. Some of her comments are so out of the blue and totally off topic. In RS the instructor will pointedly write down her question and then tell her they will talk at the end of the block. In Sunday School, well that is a different matter. The SS President or his assistant will go to her and escort her out of the room and then listen to her disjointed ramblings. She never says a complete sentence, nor are the sentences related to each other. Don't know if this is a symptom of something more serious or not, but thankfully the Brethren are patient to the nth degree.

I've taught Gospel Doctrine for 5 years and RS for several, this kind of thing happens all the time. I have found that I always over prepare and never teach the lesson I thought I was going to teach. I think one has to follow the spirit carefully and sometimes it takes the discussion to unexpected places. As has already been stated, the teacher and others should try to gently refocus the discussion. There should never be a argumentative reaction. (lol, you all might think I am a different person if we met in Sunday School class - - I've had a few argumentative reactions on this forum). I would usually say something like; 'That sounds interesting and would probably take a lot of discussion to work through. We have a lot of material to get through in a short amount of time so we will have to have that discussion another time.' or a "how does that relate to what we were talking about?" Most often, though, someone in the class would simply redirect the conversation with a comment on topic. I always thought it was a positive to have responses that are emotionally driven. So, I would simply redirect the energy, not try to censor it.

Are their doughnuts? We get nice seats I'd swap to be honest

Applogies I am behind on my LDS news she was only having disciplinary action last time I checked. Which answers the defensive question, nope don't care for the woman myself and wouldn't want the priesthood if it came with endless doughnuts. The only part of the priesthood I am slightly envious of is the fact my husband got to bless our son and will get to baptise him. But I got to carry him and be go to parent so not a big issue. I don't think lessons should be turned into debates but experiences should be encouraged but I rarely teach so may be that would change my opinion if I did My name stands for Ormskil Warriors for life, it is my husbands Viking re-enactment group and I stupidly left him to name me while I went off to do something.

Then please tell Kate to stop declaring she was, if that's the case.

Also a response from the teacher could be, "Thank you for your comment now moving on with the lesson." :)

I would never bring up the subject in RS like she did. She opened that can of worms knowing it was going to irritate the majority of the women in the room. We come to church to be uplifted - not listen to that.

The subject of one's excommunication should never be a part of a Relief Society lesson or a Sunday School lesson.

Why is her point any lesser than yours? Perhaps your opinion would have irritated her. I have never been one for sitting in a room being droned at like I am or the subject matter is a robot or mundane subject. Lessons are best when a range of opinions and thoughts are shared

Thank you PC. I didn't your post this morning. My world is looking a bit bleak lately. It seems the more service I do, the more I try, the harder it gets. Your post reminded me of a few things I've been forgetting. :)

My family has been given so much service. I'm so grateful. One of the sweetest services given was from my RS President and another lady in our ward. After the death of my 19 year old daughter, my time was consumed with taking care of her 2 month old baby and getting funeral services prepared. I had no time for anything. They took my 12 year old daughter to help pick out and buy a dress for her sister to be buried in. What a wonderful and tender act of service. My younger daughter was able to participate in a last gift for her sister.

I couldn't afford a lawn mower and my back yard was a jungle. My EQP and his counselor came over and completely, weed whacked and mowed our lawn. It was super awesome of them.

After being newly divorced and having three young children, I had no finances to purchase anything for my children for Christmas. The ward took care of that and provided a wonderful Christmas for my children and even a few things for me. They have no idea how grateful I was.