Starfish

No, I left the company before the 360 plan came out. But it seemed like there was a new program every year, and they didn't vary that much.

I started running almost 5 years, at age 53, to help lose some weight and it changed my life. Since then I ran in and captained teams in the Oregon Hood to Coast relay and in other relays. I've helped to organize several running events. And I completed one marathon .... just one. So far, no injuries. 90% of the time, running is hard, boring, and a fight to keep going. But that other 10% is the most fun I have ever had. Being a participant for the first time in my adult life, rather than just a spectator, has been empowering. It's a great confidence-builder. I recommend it.

Tracking is key. When I used to weigh in members, if they weren't losing, it usually was due to not tracking. Also, there will be weeks when you do everything right and not lose anything, or even go up! Just keep at it and the scale will go down. Typically people plateau for a while, then drop. Then plateau again, then drop. Graph your progress in eTools so that you can see the line going down. I started running while I was losing my weight. It was a huge help for maintaining my weight these past 5 years. Something to consider. (All runners hated it at first, so that's no excuse.:) )

I successfully lost 20+ lbs with WW about 5 years ago, then worked for them for 4 years. It's all good. They are continually tweaking their program and renaming the new version, which I suspect is mostly a marketing strategy. It was tiresome for me when I was an employee because we were always having to learn a new program. I likely the old cardboard calculators from when I was losing, just fine. There is a higher percentage of success with people who attend meetings in person, than with online programs. It's all about motivation. Whatever works for you is best.

Home made Magic Shell ice cream topping 1 & 1/2 c chocolate chips -- I recommend semi-sweet 1/2 c coconut oil. Melt together. (It will be runny.) Pour over ice cream. Enter heaven.

Okay, I re-registered. But it doesn't seem to be working. ...... tried different computer. Looks like it's working now.

Active LDS all my life. Pioneer ancestors, temple married, Ricks College grad .... the whole works. Permanently planted in the Pacific NW and passionately conservative. I run, blog, shop, teach, and adore my family. Nice to be here.

Well, then we disagree. Btw, the two movies I was referring to were, "The Bigamist" and "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit".

I recently watched a couple movies filmed in the 50's. Both had a similar theme. The leading man was happily married, but had a brief affair, and in one movie it destroyed the marriage, in the other it nearly did. But the thing I noticed was that both movies REALLY showed the consequences. They showed the pain and sheer agony of the betrayed wife and the deep regret and shame of the husband. It really jumped out at me because you don't see this in today's movies. You might see anger, but not the gut-wrenching pain shown in the old movies. Also, I've noticed in old movies a much more God-centered theme. God, religion and morals just seemed to be expected. Hollywood has been feeding us poisen bit by bit over the past several decades, and we just open our mouths and swallow. Now that our sense are deadened and society is a crumbling mess, we run around and try to plug all the leaks in the dam, with many giving up, knowing it's going to inevitably burst. How do we fix the dam? Government used to be on our side. They regulated the moral level of movies and TV. Am I for censorship? I guess I am!

I don't have the legal knowledge to give much of an opinion, except my gut instinct doesn't agree. I think marriage in its traditional form is GOOD for society as a whole, and therefore, the law should encourage and support it. Anytime you start messing with something, trying to change it, you will inevitably get UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, some harmless, some not. I don't want to go the route of Europe or more specifically Sweden, where the marriage rate is declining. If only our society could focus its efforts on encouraging things like morality, fidelity, honor, commitment, selflessness and just good, clean living. Rather than trying to tailor everything to the convenience and whims of individuals.

Would that include the United Order?

Big hugs to you, and a hearty handshake to your professor.:)

(Whining) Darn, you're making me look it up. OK, I see . . . it sounds a LITTLE like Zion. (Not the park.)

Hi Keith, What do you mean by "intentional communities"? I've never heard the term before.

Very good post, Applepansy. I'd like to add that we don't know if Heavenly chose our trials, or that possibly we did. And by that I mean, many of our trials are consequences of our choices in this life, and also MAYBE we chose our trials in the pre-existence. Just a thought. I believe that Heavenly Father sent us here with our own individual handicaps, and if we can overcome them, or learn patience or humility. etc., from them, they give us the best possible chance of returning to Him. I believe every time He intercedes in our lives, He's doing it to best help us succeed in this life. That means sometimes protecting us from harm and sometimes not. Sometimes curing us from illness, and sometimes not. He knows when we need the lessons from the trial, and when we're better off without them. He just knows each of us so much better than we know ourselves. That's why it's always best to just trust Him.

I heard a great comment from the radio talk show host, Dennis Prager. In essence, -- "I kind of hope they (the protesters) keep it up. They've brought Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals together like nothing ever has before. They may have even made a Mitt Romney presidency possible."

This all will backfire. The symbathies of the quiet majority will sway towards the Church.

This was in the Church Institute manual, "The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles". "Divorce is not part of the gospel plan no matter what kind of marriage is involved. But because men in practice do not always live in harmony with gospel standards, the Lord permits divorce for one reason or another, depending upon the spiritual stability of the people involved. In ancient Israel men had power to divorce their wives for relatively insignificant reasons. (Duet. 24: 1-4) Under the most perfect conditions there would be no divorce permitted except where sex sin was involved. In this day the divorces are permitted in accordance with civil statutues, and the divorced persons are permitted by the Church to marry again without the stain of immorality which under a higher system would attend such a course." McConkie, DNTC, 1:546-47

I don't know your brother and I have no right to question his sincerity. That said, I've lived long enough to have noticed a few things about human nature. People go to great lengths to convince themselves and others of something they WANT to believe. We all want to be happy, including people like your brother. Maybe he HAS found happiness for now, but one thing is for sure, he WANTS to believe he has. We all do. Your brother was raised LDS. He's been taught. There has to be conflict deep within him. Suppressing that conflict takes work and over time saps one's strength. IMO true happiness is when all the good & right influences in your life agree. When your conscience agrees with your choices. Ultimately your brother cannot or will not truly be happy until he makes changes. If this isn't so, then the scriptures are wrong. If the scriptures are wrong, then our iron rod is gone, and God ceases to be. Bottom line: Your brother is a beloved son of God. I'm sure God hears your prayers and remembers the promises that your parents were given.

Concerning children: I feel we, as the adults, have the God-given responsibility TO DO OUR BEST to give our children the optimum environment. This means a mom, a dad, love, security, committment, and an environment where they can best learn about their God and how to return to Him. (This does NOT mean luxuries, money, location, physical beauty, piano lessons, etc.) If, after we have DONE OUR BEST, our children don't get the optimum--perhaps due to the death of a parent, then we continue to DO OUR BEST for them with help from extended family and friends. We all know that the Lord fills in after we have DONE OUR BEST. But we have no right to PURPOSELY deny a child of a father or a mother. Spiritually, as well as biologically, children were meant to have a father and mother. Marriage was instituted by God to create families for eternal purposes as well as to stabilize society especially for the benefit of children. Again, IMO a child is better off in a loving gay household, than in no household at all. But I'm talking about children for whom there is no other option. Children should not be adopted into gay homes when there are traditional homes available and willing to take them. And gay couples should not use creative conception (involving a 3rd person) to bring a child into their home. This is PURPOSELY denying a child of a father OR a mother. This also goes for unmarried single women who want a baby.

Hi Cousin, (Isn't Community of Christ the former RLDS?) To be honest, it's rarely discussed openly, meaning in talks and lessons--as far as I've seen. There is so much to learn about the gospel, that is all-inclusive. Such as faith, repentence, prayer, charity, the scriptures, etc. This is what we usually focus on. Yes, the subject of eternal marriage and families would be painful to one who has lost hope of marrying in this life. Just as it would be to all single people. Don't know how to avoid that. We do know, and it's stressed ALOT, that ALL righteous children of God will receive all blessings, including marriage and family. It just may have to wait till after this life. When you really understand the gospel, it all makes sense, and it's tremendously comforting. This life is a test. Plain and simple. Some just have different trials than others. Homosexuality, IMO, would be one of the worst.

I understand what you're saying. But what about children? What about gay couples adopting babies? What about gay couples, through outside help, conceiving and bearing children? All of this would have to be allowed if gay marriage is legalized. If so, then this is saying fathers are not important to a child. Or that mothers are not important. That any woman can substitute for a father, or that any man can substitute for a mother. To conceive, they must rely on a third person. Will this third parent be involved in the child's life? Are there guarantees this bio-parent will stay away? Isn't this bringing confusion and risk into a child's life? How will the child feel about this when the child becomes an adult? I'm trying to see this from the point of view of children, and their rights.

1. They're called garments, and the principle behind them is sacred to us. As long as I plan to keep the promises and covenants I made with God, I will wear them. Actually, for clarification, many religions wear a type of religious clothing--caps, collars, robes. We're not alone here. 2. Not true. 3. Young boys do not wear them. But also not true. 4. Not true. 5. True. 6. Not true. This was discontinued over 100 years ago. Those people who still practice this are not of our faith. 7. We do most certainly believe in the Bible. It is sacred and contains the word of God. We study it probably more than most other people. 8. No. We revere him as a prophet, just as we do Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, etc. 9. They are sacred. They are protected from those who might mock and ridicule through lack of understanding. (Marriages for eternity also are performed in temples. I've seen many different types of weddings--nothing compares to the sacredness -- and IMO classiness, of a temple wedding.)

Ill bet if you can get to a distribution center, they'll advise you.

I'm game. Btw, Donna, are you LDS?