pam

I have actually come back into this thread quite a few times to read it and each time the same thought stands out for me.
 
You said your husband was clearly overweight when you were dating him... yet you married him anyway.
 
What was it in your husband that made you fall in love with him? He was overweight already...but, you still fell in love with him and married him.
 
My husband is overweight...was over weight when we got married. BUT... he is an honorable man. An honorable priesthood holder. He is loving, kind, willing to please, helpful, caring, loves me to pieces, loves our children, grand children, church going, holds a calling... I could go on and on...but, those are a few of the things I love about him.
 
His weight has nothing to do with him being all of the above and then some.His weight is HIS issue not mine. I look at it as an addiction to food. He loves to eat and I bet your husband does too. Trying to get on a controlled eating pattern is key to losing weight. All the high carbs, sugars, etc continue to make a person hungry. You are not going to change him... he has to change himself. But, pressuring him probably will just make him want another piece of cake or whatever.
 
I guess my point is... YOU dated him being overweight and married him while he was still overweight. You loved him then... but, now the weight becomes an issue? I believe there is something far more going on in the marriage.
 
Ask yourself, "Why now and what changed"?
 
Try to find that out before you jump to divorce.

I'm not surprised. Seems like just about everyone here is into Harry Potter, Star Wars and all that jazz.
 
And why do you think they brought comic.com to Utah?  Because there is enough of a following to make it successful here too.

I'm not surprised. Seems like just about everyone here is into Harry Potter, Star Wars and all that jazz.
 
And why do you think they brought comic.com to Utah?  Because there is enough of a following to make it successful here too.

So that's why some go into teaching? Because they weren't smart enough to do the actual skills for a living?  Doesn't say much for teachers who just have a love of teaching.

Well, technically if you never pay tithing again you got nothing out of it. :) But......

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

Here are a couple of quotes that attempt to explain it:
 
James E. Talmage
"One may wonder why Jesus had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, and then, so soon after, had permitted other women to hold Him by the feet as they bowed in reverence. We may assume that Mary's emotional approach had been prompted more by a feeling of personal yet holy affection than by an impulse of devotional worship such as the other women evinced. Though the resurrected Christ manifested the same friendly and intimate regard as He had shown in the mortal state toward those with whom He had been closely associated, He was no longer one of them in the literal sense. There was about Him a divine dignity that forbade close personal familiarity. To Mary Magdalene Christ had said: 'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.' If the second clause was spoken in explanation of the first, we have to infer that no human hand was to be permitted to touch the Lord's resurrected and immortalized body until after He had presented Himself to the Father. It appears reasonable and probable that between Mary's impulsive attempt to touch the Lord, and the action of the other women who held Him by the feet as they bowed in worshipful reverence, Christ did ascend to the Father, and that later He returned to earth to continue His ministry in the resurrected state. (Jesus the Christ, p. 682.)
 
 
 
 
Bruce R. McConkie
"The seeming refusal of Jesus to permit Mary to touch him, followed almost immediately by the appearance in which the other women were permitted to hold his feet, has always been the source of some interpretative concern. The King James Version quotes Jesus as saying 'Touch me not.' The Joseph Smith Translation reads 'Hold me not.' Various translations from the Greek render the passage as 'Do not cling to me' or 'Do not hold me.' Some give the meaning as 'Do not cling to me any longer,' or 'Do not hold me any longer.' Some speak of ceasing to hold him or cling to him, leaving the inference that Mary was already holding him. There is valid reason for supposing that the thought conveyed to Mary by the Risen Lord was to this effect: 'You cannot hold me here, for I am going to ascend to my Father.'" (The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979-1981], 4: 264.)

Here are a couple of quotes that attempt to explain it:
 
James E. Talmage
"One may wonder why Jesus had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, and then, so soon after, had permitted other women to hold Him by the feet as they bowed in reverence. We may assume that Mary's emotional approach had been prompted more by a feeling of personal yet holy affection than by an impulse of devotional worship such as the other women evinced. Though the resurrected Christ manifested the same friendly and intimate regard as He had shown in the mortal state toward those with whom He had been closely associated, He was no longer one of them in the literal sense. There was about Him a divine dignity that forbade close personal familiarity. To Mary Magdalene Christ had said: 'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.' If the second clause was spoken in explanation of the first, we have to infer that no human hand was to be permitted to touch the Lord's resurrected and immortalized body until after He had presented Himself to the Father. It appears reasonable and probable that between Mary's impulsive attempt to touch the Lord, and the action of the other women who held Him by the feet as they bowed in worshipful reverence, Christ did ascend to the Father, and that later He returned to earth to continue His ministry in the resurrected state. (Jesus the Christ, p. 682.)
 
 
 
 
Bruce R. McConkie
"The seeming refusal of Jesus to permit Mary to touch him, followed almost immediately by the appearance in which the other women were permitted to hold his feet, has always been the source of some interpretative concern. The King James Version quotes Jesus as saying 'Touch me not.' The Joseph Smith Translation reads 'Hold me not.' Various translations from the Greek render the passage as 'Do not cling to me' or 'Do not hold me.' Some give the meaning as 'Do not cling to me any longer,' or 'Do not hold me any longer.' Some speak of ceasing to hold him or cling to him, leaving the inference that Mary was already holding him. There is valid reason for supposing that the thought conveyed to Mary by the Risen Lord was to this effect: 'You cannot hold me here, for I am going to ascend to my Father.'" (The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979-1981], 4: 264.)

I think it is unnecessary because there is absolutely zero reproducible evidence that there is any harm in consuming genetically modified foods.  We've been doing it for centuries.  I don't see any reason to get concerned about it now.

I agree with this.  Especially with the attitude, "I can be forgiven so let me do it anyway."
 
One of the big questions is...Could you forgive yourself if you did this?

So last night I went to do my very first home teaching. It was great. We visited the 2 girls in my ward know the best. My companion did most of the teaching though he says next month I'm teaching something from General Conference.
I really enjoyed it. Hopefully I can do a good job with this!

A diplomat knows a woman's birthday but not her age.
 
Since I'm not a woman, I guess it's ok you're not a diplomat

I agree with this.  Especially with the attitude, "I can be forgiven so let me do it anyway."
 
One of the big questions is...Could you forgive yourself if you did this?

It sure makes ancestors seem more real and not just a name with born and died dates.
 
I thought it was interesting in my family history to see place of burial as just "on the plains."

Oh yes it was. It falls under "what others think about it."  So there.

Wow I would have to do some research on that.  I know my mom's side of the family goes back to the very early days of the church and that some of my ancestors came across the plains.

Oh yes it was. It falls under "what others think about it."  So there.

Hard to say until the actual study findings come out in September.

I agree.  He's one of my favorites on the site.  Just love this guy.  :)

You can keep it vague and general...  In fact it might even be wise.  But that limits us to vague and general advise.
 
You have gotten advice and council from your doctor and your bishop... Both whom have acted within their stewardship to council you.  Now it is time for you to exert your stewardship over yourself.  You are the one that has to live with your choices, you are one that has to face God with your actions.
 
Make a choice... then take it to the lord and see if he approves.  If he does then act.  If not the discard that and choose a different one.  What ever choice the lord approves of... do... but know you will have to face the fall out from such a choice

Wow.  What a great talk.  My favorite thought from this talk:  "Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it.  So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others.  Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget:  that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinte capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once). ...Pure Christlike love flowing from true righteousness can change the world."
 
I never really gave much thought to this truth.  This is an important connection between Christlike love and righteousness that gets forgotten all too often.  I think this really needed to be said.

I'm a mom of 7. Superperson, I'm not. My brain is fried. I'm a Mormon.

If you are referring to the "Because of Him" video, I would have to say that I liked it. I found it Christ centered. It showed the present accomplishments of the world comparing them to the amazing accomplishment of God - saving the world.
 
M.