SpiritDragon

I perhaps was once more closely aligned with these thoughts than I am now. If I think of SSA like OSA - I don't believe as a man I am in the wrong for being attracted to women. I really don't know if some people are inherently attracted to the same sex or have made misguided choices, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it seems fair to view the attraction itself to be innocuous. However, once a person begins to lust after the desire of attraction there is indeed a problem. It may be a subtle distinction, but I believe it is a crucial distinction. As for how someone can identify as homosexual but not dwell on it, I really can't say. It sounds a lot like the recovering alcoholic who always refers to himself as an alcoholic even though he hasn't had a drink in 30+ years. But it could also be like the alcoholic who constantly drinks and uses alcoholism as an excuse to drink because it can't be beat - so for me it all depends on context. Is someone identifying same sex attraction (or homosexuality as you have stated) as a trait they have or a particular weakness in order to recognize it in humility and fight it, or are they doing so as an excuse to not be held accountable for that which can't be controlled?

I needed to clarify this point before it is taken wrongly and it seemed better suited to post a clarification than editing what's there. Same Sex attraction is likely no more a sin than opposite sex attraction, it is the jump from thinking that since same sex attraction isn't a sin than neither should same sex marriage be. This part is clearly not part of God's plan for the family. I believe it's precisely why Elder Oaks specifically mentioned both cohabitation outside of marriage and same sex marriage because they are both in violation of the bounds the Lord has set on family and the use/abuse of the procreative process.

Because of people who want to lead others astray and wrest the scriptures to fit their way of thinking. Consider this blog post that I won't be linking too: Specifically, those who use this scripture to justify their opposition to homosexuality, point out the mention of “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” The problem with this interpretation is that it’s inaccurate. What we translate as “effeminate” was in the Greek version malakoi. This word is more accurately translated as softness or moral weakness. Likewise, what we translate as “abusers of themselves with mankind” is arsenokoitai in the Greek, which more accurately describes something like shrine prostitution. This is one of the problems with using modern cultural paradigms to understand ancient ones. This kind of drivel is all over the internet from individuals trying to make a case for why same sex attraction is not a sin by whatever means they can contrive. People all over are suggesting that the only thing preventing homosexual sealings in the temple is a bigoted policy that needs to change, just like the end of the priesthood ban did. Elder Oaks very wisely put this kind of thinking in it's place by explaining how the proclamation came about (a consensus among the quorum of twelve apostles and first presidency) and that it is not merely a policy which can change. He also did it by kindly re-explaining what the God-ordained family looks like and setting it forth as the ideal. Just like the Book of Mormon serves to reaffirm the teachings of the Bible and testify of Christ, so does the proclamation reaffirm teachings on the family in harmony with the teachings of ancient prophets in a day and time when such clarity and added support is greatly needed.

It sounds like you're doing things that are working for you and I commend your efforts. Before you write yourself off as lazy when your weight loss isn't what it was to start out, here are some things to keep in mind. Weight loss is almost always easier in the beginning for a variety of reasons: You have more weight to lose to begin with, so a greater amount can be lost as a percentage of the whole. Consider that when you started out around 275 pounds that a loss of 15 pounds represented around 5% of your total weight, but at 235 pounds the same 5% weight loss would be only shy of 12 pounds. Also assuming that you are losing more fat than muscle as you reduce your body composition will be changing leaving you with an even smaller pool of fat to work with than total weight. Consider the idea that you were 45% body fat at 275 pounds meaning that 123.75 pounds were body fat. In this case a 15 pound loss represents over 12% of your total body fat store - Fast forward to where you are now 235 pounds - let's assume that 75% of your weight loss has been fat mass, while the remaining 25% has been lean mass (just a rough estimate based on what you're doing) than of the forty pounds you've dropped, 30 of them would be fat leaving you with "only" 93.75 pounds of body fat left. So from your current situation another 15 pounds would represent over 15% of your body fat, more than 3% more than you started out averaging - it's just too much to expect that you can lose more weight now (as a percentage of your total body stores) than when you started. Based on this new estimate staying around 12% would be in line with a weight loss of 11 pounds, not 15. You're more efficient - One wonderful thing that the body does in response to exercise is to become more efficient. This is great for performance and athletes depend on it, but it stinks for weight loss. What this means for weight loss is that your body actually requires less energy to do the same work you doing a couple months ago. So if walking a mile at 3 mph used to burn 200 calories, now it might only be burning 150 calories because of the combined effects of improved efficiency and weight loss which will also lower your workload and thereby you energy expenditure. You have a better baseline - when you began your journey it is likely that almost any walking was an increase in activity that would result in changes, the same goes for what you were eating. Now you have plenty of improvement which has taken you to where you are, so to make further gains you need to invest more effort to overcome your new baseline. In other words if you are walking two hours a day and eating 500 calories less daily than you used to and this is what it takes to keep your body at 235 pounds than to drop more you need to either increase activity or eat less still. So although two hours of walking was great to get you to where are and should be great for helping you stay there, it will require more effort to continue to lose fat. Don't let this deter you, just keep in mind that the closer you get to your ideal weight (or the farther you get from your starting weight) the harder it is to make progress. The point is to not beat yourself up when the pounds don't come off the same as they used to, but to accept that if you're still moving the scale in the right direction each month, it really is a win.

His sister Pam works in the shopShe doesn't stop; she's a go-getter I hope it doesn't date our @pam as well I could see her taking him down to look at the Queen

I can't say that I've seen it as much with the banner of unity as I have with love and acceptance where these words are distorted to mean that we have extremely low expectations of anyone and rather than help anyone improve tell them they are wonderful the way they are. From that angle I am not going to be interesting to discuss with because I'll just be a yes man agreeing with you that it is a perversion of love to suggest we accept sinful actions as much as it's a perversion of unity to mix serving God and Mammon - it's a true principle that no man can serve two masters. I'm sure it is very similar to your discussion on contention, clearly arguing about doctrine isn't of God; so we should accept what the Lord has taught and what His prophet's have taught instead of pushing our own agenda's on any given point. If we have a personal take on something that is still in harmony with the Lord's teachings but not something spelled out for everyone than I would suggest we should live up to each principle to the best of our own understanding and give others the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the same. However, when clear contradictions to revealed truth are taking place I believe it is important to reach out in love and call others to repentance (or ourselves for that matter).

I've actually thought about this topic several times myself. I agree that there is just plain too much we don't know to come to any clear conclusions though. It could be that early humans had superior genetics that had undergone less mutations than ours have today and as such they were simply much more resistant to aging and decay than we are today. It is also possible that they could have regrown teeth more than once, although I don't really think so. We also don't know that they weren't taught dental hygiene practices that are even better than those we practice today. My suspicion is that it had a lot to do with what they ate. If they were given a law of health to live by such as our modern day word of wisdom or the Old Testament "Kosher" eating prohibitions and they followed it to the letter this would have helped to ensure that their superior genes were continuing to express in favour of longevity. While our current dental model focuses heavily on the idea that bacteria eat sugar causing decay, there are other theories out there as to what causes tooth decay as well. Some maintain that it is simply a matter of having ample minerals to continually remineralize the teeth. Another theory suggests that sugar is the culprit but not for the reasons we think, but because it shifts body chemistry such that it creates a systemic environment in the body leading to the loss of minerals from tissues such as bones and teeth instead of the homeostatic process of continuous break down and repair of tissues. I'm not saying that dentistry is wrong, but I am saying that it is also completely possible that their oral health was simply superior because they met needs to keep it that way by doing things that we aren't even taught by the field of dentistry. Along those lines, I did read an interesting study once in an old book that compared various amounts of tooth brushing (and flossing) and various amounts of vitamin C intake to level of dental plaque. Interestingly the higher levels of vitamin C were better at predicting lower levels of plaque than more frequent tooth-brushing. Even in the lowest brushing and flossing groups if the vitamin C intake was higher the study participants had the lowest levels of plaque. Didn't it also come out a few years ago that flossing is completely unscientific (has no real evidence of preventing oral disease or tooth decay), but the dental organizations recommend it anyway?

Some of my favourite first dates involved going on picnics where there was ample time to do the shopping together which was particularly helpful with my future wife because she has a lot of food sensitivities and couldn't just go eat out. I also enjoyed dates involving making meals together. I agree with the general idea of doing something somewhat active that allows for conversation. I agree that minigolf works well. If you have a corn maze in your area that can be kind of fun. You could build a kite together and then go fly it. You could be bolder than I ever was and sign up for a ballroom dancing class and explain you need a partner. I would suggest that you find something that you enjoy, or at least think you will enjoy if you are getting adventurous. Also, don't take yourself too seriously on a first date. It really is an opportunity to get to know someone and have some fun. In any event you probably can't go any more wrong than I did the time that I was given some professional wrestling tickets at work. I had only been in the ward three or four weeks and really didn't know anyone, so my room-mates were going to set me up on a blind date if I didn't call up someone myself. So I called a sister in the student ward and asked her to go to this wrestling event with me... suffice it to say the concept of professional wrestling was lost on this dear young lady and we didn't stay at the event more than 30 minutes before we decided to simply go for a walk instead. I could've been embarrassed about the whole thing or worried that I'd ruined any chance to get to know that particular sister any better, but instead I have a fond memory of a first date that was so horrible it was great.

I'm self-censoring my comment due to it not being relevant to the age of this thread. I noticed the dates after posting.

I second this curiosity! Wouldn't the books of 1st and 2nd Nephi, Words of Mormon, Mormon and Moroni rise to the level of primary sources if Joseph Smith was not considered a middle man. If the records were in Russian and translated to English would that make the Russian source automatically secondary because it had to be translated? Can primary sources only exist within the language they are being studied?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose that means I'm confused!

Yeah, sure - using the old impacted sweat gland excuse. Come on, at least come up with something original! Seriously, I'm sorry to hear that, it's so frustrating when life gets in the way of life.

I find sometimes it really helps to have a side by side. Yes your changes are noticeable. It is really apparent when looking at the length of the narrowing in your waist, notice how as your waist tapers inward below the bust and then outward again at the hips that you have created a lot more space then you had in your initial picture. Keep on rocking!

Thanks for the links. Great reading. Agreed. I appreciate your insight. Similar to my own thought - I shudder at the thought of celebrating "parent day" instead of Father's Day and Mother's Day.

There is definitely some agenda pushing going on.

This particular member has been a member a long time. He does reject the idea that God is against homosexual unions and promotes the idea that the only thing stopping same sex sealings in the temple is church policy, not doctrine. He is openly in support of being inclusive of ssa in the church - He has a child who has declared their self bisexual. I was extra shocked because the stake presidency was present while this took place. I wondered if they would say something, I think they may have taken him aside afterward, but nothing was publicly stated in regard to it.

So, I recently was at a church meeting where the individual asked to pray addressed the prayer to, "Our dear kind heavenly parent" or possibly "parents" and I was quite taken back thinking that's not how we're taught to address deity. I realize there is some leeway in how we open prayers, but this to me seems wrong. Thoughts?

We have some different standards here in Canada, but my understanding for the States is that any NCCA accredited certification is considered to be reputable. I'd still recommend looking for education background as well as some certifications may not require it. Losing muscle is actually similar to losing fat, except that it is more metabolically active which means it requires more energy to keep it around. To lose muscle you need to stop creating stimuli that build it or keep it around and run a caloric deficit. However, having extra muscle will assist in your fat-loss efforts so don't worry too much about trying to lose muscle as much as just trying to lose weight in general. Usually when running a caloric deficit, weight lost is partitioned so that roughly half the weight is fat and half is lean tissue (mostly muscle). Resistance training during weight reduction changes the equation so that a much higher proportion of weight lost is from fat, because the resistance training creates a sufficient stimulus to let the body know that the muscle is needed for survival based on recent activity. In some cases muscle can even be gained while fat is being lost, which you may have already experienced, but probably not to the extent you've been lead to believe. The key to weight-loss in general is to eat less energy (calories) but this doesn't have to mean less volume if choosing nutrient dense foods. As far as exercise goes, resistance training (exercises that require to exert against an external load usually for less than 20 repetitions) is going to be the main thing that keeps muscle around or causes it to grow. Endurance activities such as biking, hiking and so on may actually help you to burn muscle, especially when performed for longer durations without supplementing energy along the way (ie sports drinks or juice). This is because the body preferentially burns carbohydrate and fat for fuel and doesn't like to tap into amino acids (protein from lean tissue such as muscle) so protein is only ever a minor energy source during exercise, and not even worth mentioning in the fuel mix for shorter activities. Anyway, I don't want to get too technical here, I just wanted to try to explain the answer to your question. Simply put, eat less calories and do less resistance training if you want to lose muscle.

This is the healthiest and most effective long-term solution to weight management. Congratulations on your success LP!

@Andon Jones you can start by asking the local trainer about his credentials. Where did he study? Is he currently certified? What certification body? These are normal questions to get asked as a trainer because the field is unregulated and people want to know that they are paying for the help of someone who actually knows what they're doing. A Physical Therapist will be well trained in the areas of rehabilitating from injuries and even then different ones will have different specialties such as working with patients recovering from heart attacks or motor vehicle accidents or sports injuries and so on. They know a lot about how the body works, but aren't generally experts on weight loss. Decent certifications to look for include: ACE NASM NSCA ACSM Those are the better ones I'm familiar with to look for in the states (are you in the states? I'm a Canadian)

Just for kicks (and bonus points) you should definitely have some classics from previous eras. Even 20 somethings might surprise you by recognizing theme music from shows such as: Little House on the Prairie Magnum PI Perry Mason Matlock The Waltons McGyver How the Grinch Stole Christmas everyone should be able to recognize a bunch of Whos singing their Christmas song. The Flintstones and the Jetsons might give themselves away too easily unless you can find versions without voices, just music. Think of shows your kids watched at home when they were little, perhaps they'll not only remember the theme songs but conjure up other happy memories of growing up in the ginger bread house. As far as newish stuff is concerned, I can't really offer you much besides what's been said, I haven't had a TV provider in ten years.

I agree with the general theme of your statement, but have to just mention that qualified personal trainers do exist who have taken reasonable amounts of time in coursework to extensive amounts of time in coursework learning about exercise physiology and are likely to be more well versed on what is taking place in the human body as a result of exercise than most physicians. They have also likely taken more training on helping people with behaviour change than most physicians, not to mention Doctors are notoriously poorly trained in the field of nutrition. Of course this is not meant to take away from the very wonderful service that doctors offer in diagnostic capabilities and surgical intervention, but when it comes to body transformation (non-surgical) personal trainers and nutritionists are the most qualified professionals to help. Just, when seeking them out be sure to ask what kind of training they have. A fly-by-night weekend certified online personal trainer will not have the same understanding as one who has gone through a reputable college or university diploma or degree. Same with nutritionists, look for someone who actually has a reputable education and not some weekend course that allows them to use an unregulated title like nutrition coach, or nutritional health practitioner. @NeuroTypical nailed it with his recommendation to check in with such professionals. Yes, the bro at the supplement shop is not likely to know much of what he is talking about. Ultimately, he is just a sales person - his job isn't to help people, it's to sell product.

Like I said, it's not an unreasonable expectation. I believe individuals like this do exist, and I also believe they are not very common. Furthermore, even when dealing with excess muscular weight, the weight can still come off... a certain amount of muscle is perfectly healthy, but even muscle-weight can get to a point of excess where it isn't healthy. The heart and other organs still need to work harder due to the extra mass, the joints still have to support it and so on. The same principles of fat-loss can be applied to muscle-loss, it just isn't normally what people concern themselves with.

I doubt that many LDS commentators would dispute the idea of one plan at it's core. I think the idea of plan A vs B and so on is really just looking at contingencies within the same plan. When it comes to the Fall I think the dilemma that many face (I certainly have) is why God would give a commandment He didn't intend to be kept. The answer is simply that the consequences of the Fall while still needing to happen could have happened in some other way on God's terms. It isn't that the plan was changed, but that fail-safes were put in place so that the plan could always continue to roll forward regardless of how agency was implemented. When Moses was given the lower law because the people weren't ready to abide the higher, surely God knew all along that the people needed the lesser law, but He still started with the higher law contingent on the agency of His people. They weren't ready, but God didn't need to change plans, He just went forward with The Plan as it was based on the circumstances of man's choices. I don't see the Fall of Adam and Eve much differently than being one outcome of the exercise of agency with which God could work with to bring about his purposes.

My understanding is that it is based on needing a BMI less than 37, but I haven't been able to verify that from an official source. If this metric is correct the weight goal is certainly not unreasonable. Although it is absolutely true that BMI discriminates against the more muscular. I've known people who are overweight and even nearly obese by BMI standards while maintaining single digit body fat percentages, but I've never personally met anyone terribly lean with a BMI higher than 30-32 (granted I don't test everyone I meet for BMI and body fat percentage). I thought it might be of interest to compare these elite body builders height and weight against the BMI chart. Some of the heaviest ones do appear to have BMI levels of around 37 for competition and 40 in the off-season, while many of them barely sneak over 37 even in the off-season. Keep in mind these physiques are forged not only by hard work in the gym, but are the pharmaceutically enhanced musculature of the already genetically gifted toward carrying large muscle mass. So it is apparently possible to sport a BMI of 37 and still be quite lean, but it's not likely to be the case. If you do happen to look like an elite bodybuilder @Andon Jones it shouldn't take long to drop down because muscle requires a lot of energy to be maintained. More walking and less weight-lifting and food should turn things around. If you don't look like a body builder, don't fret - the solution is similar, except you can still very likely use weight-lifting as part of your exercise routine because a little extra muscle mass isn't going to hurt in the long run. If you can't stand traditional cardio you might try peripheral heart action training which involves alternating upper body and lower body compound exercises with limited rest periods. Aim to use a load that you can perform 15 times but no more for each exercise and a short rest period no longer than 90 seconds between exercises. If you're interested I'd be happy to go into more detail. It sounds like @Grunt is also happy to help as are many others I'm sure.