Leaderboard

I have a theory about this whole 'Ordain Women' thing. If you believe that President Monson is guided by God, then pray to God for women to receive the Priesthood. If it's the right thing to do, he'll get the message. If he doesn't, he won't. If you don't believe he's guided by God, then why are you in the church in the first place? It seems to me that the big problem here isn't asking for the Priesthood(That could definitely be a righteous desire. Heck - I wanted the Priesthood. ) or in questioning the Church(We're a diverse people. Nothing wrong with questioning). The problem here is demanding God's will be subservient to yours - Asking a question and only accepting one answer. That way never turns out well.

To me this issue is fundamentally about Pride. Can someone truly and faithfully have questions? Can they have concerns? Absolutely. Can people have doubts? Yes they can. In fact many ways dealing with those is how we learn and become more faithful. So I don't see a real problem with those. Were I see the problem is when pride kicks in. When people say there is only one answer I'll accept, the answer I think is right. When they might assume that anyone that doesn't have the same questions as them are some sleeping brainwashed sheeple that need to wake up to what is going on around them. When people reach that point then the church does need to step in. For the two people in question in the OP it appears that the Local leaders think they might have reach such a point and so they are doing what they must.

It's just the young-girls-shouldn't-be-alone-with-their-perv-bishops-asking-them-sex-questions thing. It really comes across as agenda driven to have such a specific problem example. Like -- "See, this really is a problem. This proves the male leadership thing is messed up. If women were involved then there wouldn't be a problem. Etc., etc." This particularly comes out with comments in the OP like: edit: Upon re-reading my post and this ^ quote I feel even stronger. Obvious, blatant, agenda driven drivel!

The thing that doesn't sit right isn't that the story is unbelievable. It's more about how the story was told, the "hot button" issue right in line with feminist issues pushing the same sort of ideology, etc... The story is perfectly believable. But I agree, right from the start, something didn't sit right with me either.

I read a nice write-up this morning, that I felt gave a fairer treatment than what I read yesterday in the NYT, and which also gave more background information. It also includes links to the letters that were sent to both of these members. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58056757-78/kelly-font-scribd-dehlin.html.csp It turns out that I was wrong earlier when I said that both Kate Kelly and John Dehlin were still members in good standing, as far as we knew. Kate had received a letter from her stake president last month, following up on a meeting with him, that placed her on informal probation, but which specifically stated that she was no longer able to say that she was a member in good standing. John had recently requested no contact from church members, missionaries, or leaders, and had also requested no home teachers. Effectively, he's removed himself from the Church already, all but formally. I do still feel for Kate, but less so for John, now that I'm aware of actions that he has already taken.

That's a pretty awful counter argument. You might want to rethink how you present that concept. At the same time, it would create opportunities for men to stay home and be more effective fathers. There's an equation that can be balanced here, and you're not really representing the full effects of what could be were were to allow women the priesthood. Is there the potential for problems to arise if a husband and wife both held the priesthood and were both called into prominent positions? sure. But my ward council figured out pretty quickly that it was too much to ask of a single family to have a husband and wife on the ward council, and we didn't need women to be ordained to figure out how to avoid that.

This is why.

Hey guys! While I haven't logged in for a while, I am really excited about a few things that are coming up. I'm a huge nerd, so bear that in mind: www.dwavesys.com This is the worlds' first quantum computer. It's 72000 times faster than the fastest supercomputer around today. It is not a binary computer. It's quinary. How does that work? I -haven't a clue-. But at that speed, it's not only faster than any other computer, it's faster than the combined computing process of every computer that has ever been(That is not also a quantum computer). And NASA is also working on this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html So... Currently, it takes 70000 years to get to Alpha Centauri using current technology. With this, they could get there in about 2 weeks. We now live in the future. HOORAY!

I don't think the Paleo-diet can possibly be construed as against the Word of Wisdom. I find that argument odd. I'm not personally a fan, but for those who like it and it works for them, I can't see it being actually bad for you. What I do see is some of the ideas therein being unnecessarily extreme. I'm all for extreme if extreme is necessary. Needless extremism is...well...needless. That being said, for some the Paleo diet works both for their physical well being and their psyche. So -- go for it.

His thoughts on benefits were: No paying to keep a car "alive", just paying to enjoy a car in good condition. You don't have the guilt of committing to a car, i.e.. "I have to keep this car about because I still owe one it or I just paid it off and now I have to keep it to make it all worth it, etc." There's usually a maintenance perk from the company. You don't have to get bored with your car. You're not giving much wear-n-tear to a car. It's not for everyone, but there are benefits to it.

It's been quite awhile since I commented on this....for the reason you stated.

I was actually trying to make it very evident how out of line she was, and yes, relatively.

I'm not sure that someone that has this on his homepage of his blog would be someone I would be following to learn and understand more about Mormonism: I have deep love for the LDS church, for its members, and for its former members. At present, I consider myself to be an unorthodox, unorthoprax Mormon. I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but either have serious doubts about, or no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

Never gone this route, but I've always wanted to. I took a couple of car classes in college and the professor was a big believer in leasing for many situations. Last month, Husband and I said heck with it and paid off our two car loans in one big swoop. So far it's been a great decision and left us more comfortable for house shopping.

That doesn't make any sense. The rule is to keep your passions within the bounds the Lord sets. Those bounds are legal and lawful marriage, not only if you're expressing love. There is nothing wrong with engaging in proper and "lawful" behavior to fulfill desire. My wife can ask me to give her a back rub "for her" because she really wants a back rub and it feels good and not because she's expressing love. Likewise a husband can desire marital relations.

Even then it's not so bad until you begin preaching your personal theory and staging protests to get the church to adopt your personal theory.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/frittata-recipe.html Frittatas are another great way to use home grown produce. We love adding tomato, bell pepper, green onions, even fresh broccoli and snow peas. Sooooo good!

I guess since I'm not following the "hot button" women's issues closely I see this as a parenting issue and not a "women's issue".

Tablets are the future!!

Not me. I've lived a similar situation with a teenage child before there was internet. Sadly, truth is stranger than fiction.

The idea of "supplemental" theories is great. It's when the church teaches what it teaches and personal theories contradict those things that I think there begins to be a problem.

The hoverboards will be EVERYWHERE by 2015.

Pam you are always invited for Hawaiian haystack night at the mags household!

No one sees those notices except you and moderators.

As with most things in life, issues boil down to power. There are two separate aspects about the Priesthood that should be kept in mind. The first aspect is the ability to provide Priesthood services and by that I mean to in prayer use the Priesthood to bless the lives of others. I haven't kept up too much on things, but from outward appearances this is what many Ordain Women seem to focus on. However, one cannot use the Priesthood on himself and in most instances one is in the company of another holder to use the Priesthood. The 2nd aspect is the authority to lead, guide, and direct the Church. And IMO that is what Ordain Women is really about, it's about the fact that some women want the authority to lead, guide and direct the Church. They want power. If women are given the Priesthood, it would mean full access to all of that, women Bishops, women SP, women MP, Patriarchs, etc. If God commands it, then so be it, but at present I feel that it is an extremely bad road to go down, for multiple reasons. 1) Co-mingling of sexes results in very different dynamics in group settings (if anyone disputes this, then why do we have separate RS vs. Elders quorum.) Now imagine a High Council meeting with mixed genders, I can guarantee the dynamics will change. Put 10 guys in a room with a good-looking gal or 10 women with a good looking guy and it'll change. 2) The entire structure of the church would be changed (RS and Elder's quorum for example) if women were Elders then they would all attend Elder's quorum, now how does RS function. You won't have just one sister ordained and the rest not, all sisters would be Elders. 3) Leadership dynamics change. I've had men and women bosses and there is a huge difference in how each function. Women currently hold 4.8% of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 5% of Fortune 1000. If people think it's b/c these companies are sexists, you don't know a thing about running a business. Businesses care about one thing and one thing only . . .making money. If more women were capable of running Fortune 500 companies, there would be more women in Fortune 500 CEO positions. 4) For whatever reason, people just don't want to see or understand that not only are there actual physical difference between male and female, but there are chemical differences. Those chemical difference produce different feelings, different results and ultimately different actions. Can a father be a stay at home dad and be better at it then his wife? Sure, just like a woman can be stronger than a man. On average, can a woman be stronger than a man? Heck no!! On average women will be better caretakers than men. All one needs to do is take a look at the nursing industry vs. the engineering industry. The ratio of male-to-female are pretty divergant and it's not because anyone is preventing males or females from entering either field. Women who are very good in leadership roles are used in the church . . .they are called to be RS presidents, Primary presidents, Stake RS, etc. I have never understood this idea that seems to pervade feminists, it appears from my optic that they want to deny their own feminality to be men. I will never know what it is like to birth a child, to bond that closely with my children. I will never know what it's like to have that motherly instinct and urge. But I'm okay with that, I recognize that it is something very special and sacred that only women can have. I don't understand the drive to make men and women the same; we aren't the same we are different that's why we fall in love and get married, have families. I'm glad for the differences; different doesn't mean better or worse, it just means different.

I got it. No problem with side affects. Not a problem of any kind. I had a friend who got shingles. She was in agony.

Vegan lasagna: http://blog.fatfreevegan.com/2006/03/my-favorite-lasagna.html I just use Italian Seasoning instead of all the separate spices and don't use extra mushroom, just what may come with the sauce. I've also omitted the spinach and used various brands of vegan 'ground meat crumbles.' My omni son loves this stuff. You'd never know there was tofu instead of ricotta. It's less labor intensive than it looks, and once ready, you just need to pop it in the oven and set the timeer- you can whip it up and then go on FB for an hour. : )

President Kimball agrees with you: "Finally, my dear sisters, may I suggest to you something that has not been said before or at least in quite this way. Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world (in whom there is often such an inner sense of spirituality) will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world. Among the real heroines in the world who will come into the Church are women who are more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish. These real heroines have true humility, which places a higher value on integrity than on visibility. Remember, it is as wrong to do things just to be seen of women as it is to do things to be seen of men. Great women and men are always more anxious to serve than to have dominion. Thus it will be that female exemplars of the Church will be a significant force in both the numerical and the spiritual growth of the Church in the last days. No wonder the adversary strives, even now, to prevent this from happening! Regardless of who is getting the adversary’s special attention at any given time, he seeks to make all people “miserable like unto himself” (2 Ne. 2:27). Indeed, he seeks “the misery of all mankind” (2 Ne. 2:18). He is undeviating in his purposes and is clever and relentless in his pursuit of them."

Okay - I thought I would take this thread a very different direction for what it seems to be going. I would preface my main remarks with a couple of things from my past. The first I would sight was the role of lady missionaries when I served almost 50 years ago. It was not that I did not believe that the lady missionaries should not serve - just that I did not see their service much of a game changer. I am sorry that my expression in the matter upsets anyone - but I am just being honest about my thoughts and observations at the time when I served as a missionary. There were a few lady missionaries in my mission that I felt contributed but I honestly felt that most were wasting their time. Not to appear too much the sexists but I also believed that close to half the elders were a bit of a wast as well. When I returned from my mission I had served two years in the military (having lost some friends in combat) and a two year mission. I felt that the ladies at BYU were disconnected from reality, somewhat immature and for the most part a wast of my time except for social relief from stress of what seemed to me to be a world falling apart. I was tired of dating the prototypical elementary ed, family relations and speech and drama majors. I believe that women could and should play a more prominent role in the church and in society. I was very vocal about my beliefs (is this a surprise to anyone?) It would be 6 years before I would get married. Back then I was not sure if women were even capable of doing priesthood kind of things. I thought that they ought to be able - but I was resolved to accept them as a partner that had to be taken care of and protected. Kind of the extension of opening doors for ladies, paying for dates and thinking I had to make all the important decisions while they managed the home and kids. Now I would like to bring everybody up to date. I married an extreme type A ultra Red personality. The truth is that I married way over my head. Over years of marriage I have had a very dramatic paradigm shift. In addition I have been observing the recent influx of lady missionaries that are amazing. There is no need to protest at general conference, write general authorities or make statements of demands in the media. It is my belief that the role of righteous women in the church and kingdom of G-d is going to significantly change. Their spiritual strengths and abilities all on there own are going to bring about things never before seen - not just within the church but in the world in general. To be honest I am not the least bit concerned with the role of women moving forward. I believe that what is being set in motion will resolve any issues concerning their contribution. As I look at the current trends - I am not sure why anyone would think righteous women are at any risk from contributing their share and more in the kingdom of G-d. My concern is that the men of the faith keep up. Seriously!!! I am beginning to think that if the ladies do not let up on the gas a little that men will be left far behind in the dust.

I have made this several times.....always a big hit http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/anne-burrell/beef-bourguignon-recipe.html

Not really. It doesn't matter what might logically equate from it. It matters what our roles are meant to be. The fact that father's could spend more time with their families if women were to (insert any typical male thing here...were bishops, stake presidents, worked on the ranch, went off to war) has nothing to do with what our roles are meant to be. Men's roles are to administer in the church and to support their families. That means they are in the home less. Arguments that would change this dynamic do not appropriately support why the dynamic should change. Yes, men could be better homemakers if women were more involved in the bread winning.

Want is irrelevant. What about those who want to be alcoholics, thieves, murderers, whoremongers, idolaters, etc., etc...? What we want has nothing to do with the policies, standards, and organization of the church. As to the other exceptions to the rules -- roles are roles and there is no distinct need for an exception policy that would benefit none but those unwilling or unable to humble themselves and submit to the order God established. The entire argument loses sight of what actually matters in life -- returning to God and gaining our Salvation. Women's ordination is not necessary for this, not even for the exceptions. An overall ordination of women would, certainly, be harmful to this end, as it would take women out of their homes and diminish their capacity to be effective mothers.

*shrug* Maybe. I expect that what would be considered "reasonable" would vary vastly. I think the church has been quite reasonable in their response and dealing with the issue. I find the response entirely sufficient. Those who find it unreasonable and insufficient, I suspect, would generally continue to find it unreasonable and insufficient.

I understand where you're coming from, MoE (liked the gifs too, by the way). But it seems to me Kelly was going far beyond dialogue--she had openly said nothing short of ordination would suffice; and therefore was at least as entrenched in her position as the Church was in its position. Dehlin had reached a point where he was openly disavowing belief in the Church's truth claims. I can do that in my bishop's office, and would feel pretty safe doing so. I would not feel "safe" doing so before third parties and encouraging them to follow down my road--nor do I believe I have a right to such "safety". "Help me understand" is very different than "tell me why--and understand I'm going to pick apart anything you say". As for Oaks' talk: I think the two "new" things I got from it were, a) the strongest attribution yet of the status quo (male-only ordination) to divine decree; and b ) this novel and interesting idea that women who perform their callings in the Church, are already wielding "priesthood" authority and power (a notion that does create a lot of questions; but on the whole, I think it leaves us with more light and knowledge than we had previously). One interesting thing about Mormonism is that I think it has traditionally liked to keep apologetics and "theology" (as academics understand the term) at arm's length. Mormonism focuses on the "what", not the "why"--perhaps in part because, frankly, the "whys" are wont to change occasionally (exhibit a: the explanations for the priesthood ban for blacks. Exhibit b: a smattering of apologetics arguments--in archaeology, for example--that have turned out to be unsubstantiated as archaeological knowledge progresses). The Church has chosen--for better or for worse--to maintain that policy with OW. In your post, you observe: Honestly, I think Mormon progressives aren't getting a more articulate answer here because when they did get such an answer re the priesthood ban (I'm thinking specifically of Pres. McKay's experience where he was denied permission to rescind the ban, which is known by academics and occasionally rehashed in the bloggernacle, where it is magnificently ignored), which--on the whole--they refuse to accept. Each of us has to ask ourselves: What would you do with a revelation, if you had one? Kelley and Dehlin have already answered that question in a very public way. Mormon Women Stand may have had some principals make some impolitic/overzealous statements; but the bottom line is: OrdainWomen has implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, set limits on the sorts of revelation they are willing to accept. MWS has not done so, which is why they--and not OW--have the ear of the powers that be as they air whatever concerns they have about the status of women in the church.

The principle is not complicated. In order to ascend we need to be humble and have genuine appreciation and gratitude - for blessings, for others that help us and for those struggling with difficulty. It would appear that even G-d (in the example of Jesus Christ) would condescend and endure the worse prior to being justly and honestly able to stand in the light of glory. I have come to believe that this necessity to descend was the single failure of Lucifer as well as the litmus test between all that is good and evil.

I much preferred this one. Made me laugh.

I just had a talk with my daughter because of some sisters, not brothers, but sisters were shoving the "peter priesthood" view of women in the church. This greatly disturbs me because all my girls tell me that it's usually not the men, it's the women that perpertrate this thinking. Quite frankly, besides being sealed in the temple and enduring to the end, men need to be ordained to the priesthood to attain the highest level of celestial glory. Women need only to be born. I kind-of read something into this. In any case, this whole "exponential" growth in excommunications is just plain silly unless someone can come up with numbers to support that position. Otherwise, it's two people who have an agenda, who are polarized in their thinking, and have been invited to a disiplinary hearing. I don't know much about Kate Kelly but I have listened to John Dehlin in interviews and podcasts and he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. But I've been on the excommunicated side and I say from my own and other's experience, if they are excommunicated, they are in for some of the darkest, most challenging days of their lives because they will be buffeted by the advisary in ways they will never expect. They will have left only two roads to go: setting aside their pride, getting some humility and walk towards the light of Christ, or continue down the path they are on and drown in the darkness. There is no middle ground. So before they or anyone begins to blame the church for making their lives difficult, or creating difficulty for them or their families, they ought to take responsibility and accept what is to come because they got into this knowing that the outcome would end up looking like it looks now. Their crying foul is unimpressive. Their letting the world know only makes transparent their contempt and proves their agenda and disingenuousness.

What would President Monson do if he lit a field on fire? Oh wait...

Ya know there is just something about this thread that doesn't sit right with me

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that she doesn't understand the irony of that one.

When Harry Met Sally. Believe it or not, I've never seen this movie.

My 2 cents. I completely agree with "she doesn't get to decide parental concessions until she's a parent." She wants the freedom to be an adult without the responsibility associated with it. It's a tough row. Family scripture and FHE are family things and I'd probably say that participation is not required but your physical body is required. If she doesn't like FHE, she is more than welcome to plan one a month. Church magazines and pamphlets, I'm not sure how that works, but I'd work those into family scripture and FHE. No more talking about on websites . . . hmm I'd probably mention that it doesn't feel very nice to be talked about behind your back. (Actually that might have served as my example about video-taping). It's makes one feel very upset to have someone spreading information about you without your permission . . . how do you think the Bishop feels? She apologies to the Bishop and not just apologies, she needs to do something nice for the guy, bake cookies, babysit, something. And then consider dropping it on lds.net. However, I would also let her know that I'm trying to be a better parent and that sometimes websites are helpful, so I'd do the best to keep information confidential but that I might go to online resources for parenting help. I would probably say, fine going to church is your decision . . . however since you have made the decision to not go to church with the family there are additional things you will do while everyone is relaxing and enjoying the Spirit. And during the time while you are at church, she works, it's not a goof-off I can be by myself at home time, it means she will have extra special chores to do during that time-frame and only that time-frame. And I would make her work and it would be hard and that when time for church comes, I wouldn't say a word about it. I'd come home and if she hasn't done it then I would remind her of #8 and I would enact some other consequence for not being obedient to the agreement. I would do the same thing for YM/YW activies. I would also make it explicit to her because of her actions, that I have lost trust in her. Trust, once broken is extremely hard to earn back, sometimes taking years. "Dd is doing everything required but it is too much for everyone." Like I've said earlier, she is the one who must own her problem, take responsibility for it and fix it. Punishing yourself or the family for her mistakes just allows her sidestep things. However, since she did come to you about this you are making progress, so in many ways while her list might upset you, simply the fact that she came to you with a modified list means that you are getting through to her (in some way).

In my view, this has nothing to do with the finer points of sex and morality and potential abuse and yadayadayada. What this does involve is the state stepping into the parental role with rights for no good reason. This is the State saying "We have more rights to your child than you do." Sure, mention all the instances of family abuse you want. Guess what? There are already options in place for those iffy situations.

So we are to move every time a new law is passed that we have issues with? Sometimes it takes people to make changes. People who aren't afraid to stand up for what they believe.

Nonsense. Religion dictates values. Values dictate morality. Morality dictates governance.

Separation of church and state means, and has always meant, that there is no state church and no church state. It means that the religious organization is not the government and the government does not dictate religion. It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that religious people are banned from participating in government.

Joseph Smith saw a vision of God the Father, and Jesus Christ. This was clearly a profound and spiritual event for him. When he told others about it he was derided and told it was impossible. There was no way he could prove such an event... But his response was that he knew it and that he knew that god knew that he knew it. Do people sometimes overstate what they believe and hope for as knowledge? Sure. But at the same time it is very possible for people to have such a profound spiritual witness that it is correct for them to say, "I know" For those of us looking from the outside we simply can not tell the difference barring a spiritual confirmation of their word

I can't say that I'm any expert in Paleo. I have a friend, witch is more of the expert, that went Paleo to solve several health problems he was having. He had me read a book called The Paleo Solution and made a few comments and suggestions. After that I was on my own. This is some of the things I found. First some of the Science For me the easier things I have found to swallow(pardon the pun) was getting plenty of sleep and eating only when hungry. Most people don't see sleep as a part of a diet. The Paleo Solution makes it clear that the hormone levels are a big part of our health. Getting plenty of sleep and eating right helps to regulate that. Parts of the Paleo also encouraged having close relationships with family and friends. Most of the Paleo community don't seem to believe that "Being Paleo" means that they eat a lot of meat. It does cut the grains and legumes but it doesn't replace them with meat. In most places it seems to recommend a calorie content of 20-30% fruits and vegetables(carbs), about 20-30% protein, and the rest come from natural and healthy fats. A lot of people are scared of fats because they believe fat makes you fat witch makes sense but if you eat too much of any food it will make you fat. The big thing about fats and Paleo is that there are fats that our body can't make but needs to consume. A lot of these fats are best found in healthy meat and some go toward making things like the nervous system and parts of the brain. In Paleo grains and legumes don't work with the body. First theory is that as grain goes into the intestine it seems to cut the intestine wall allowing undigested food, toxins, and bacteria into the blood stream. Second is that the protein chain in grains and legumes look similar to proteins in the body but shorter. If antibodies try to attack the grain or legume proteins they could inadvertently attack different proteins in the body as well. I have herd though that sourdough bread if prepared correctly can change this. Now the Word of Wisdom This is what it's all about the important stuff doing the right thing and following the commandants. Spiritual health is just as important to physical health as anything and following the word of wisdom is part of it. When Paleo was first given to me my friend gave me his prospective of the word of wisdom and had me read it again. This is what I found. There is no question that fruits and vegetables are good. That part of it seems to be clear. I wold just like to point something out that is found in the foot notes of this part. (D&C 89:11). There is a foot note for prudence that refers to temperance in the topical guide. In the next verse sparingly has a foot note that refers to temperance in the topical guide. This got me to look up the definition of sparingly and its history. I found reference to frugality as in uses with the mind of conservation. The meat is somewhat more difficult. (D&C 89:12-13). There is a comma that may be misplaced. If the comma is taken out it seems to reads differently, it has no fragment, and its a complete sentence. Now the grain is more difficult but if you read it it seems to be straight forward. (D&C 89:14-15) The semicolon in thees verses is showing that you are meant to read the verses together. Grain can be used to maintain life, "to be the staff of life", and best "only in times of famine".

Comfortable or not, you have made a covenant to wear your temple garments, so you should make attempts to do so. Maybe start off small, wear them for an hour a day and see how you go. Then slowly build yourself up. Endowed members shouldnt be looking for reasons not to wear their garments, but should be focusing on reasons why they are a blessing. I understand they scrunch up, get hot and sweaty and dont work with a lot of fashions. As endowed members, we are somewhat *set apart*. Where much is given, much is required. I agree they may get uncomfortable, but it is a small price to pay for the blessings the temple brings. I understand that you are having psychological issues with the garment, but you havent really elaborated enough for me to offer more advice. All the best with it

I've tried the Paleo diet and I can say that it's one of the few diet plans that actually worked for me. Definitely helped in getting rid of the hunger pangs. After a week on the Paleo diet, I wasn't craving for sugary treats anymore. Although it did mess up my cholesterol levels a bit. :)