Leah

I think this is good advice. When you are brand-new in the church, immersing yourself in anti LDS literature can be especially harmful. You need to give your testimony time to grown and develop strong roots.

I think whether they fit tight or loose is personal preference. I mostly wear the variations of cotton year-round. I have MS, so my body doesn't regulate heat well and I have to be very careful in hot weather. Cotton just seems to work for me. I have worn both the DriSilque and the mesh in hot weather. I wear the DriSilque less since they made some changes from when I originally started wearing garments (in 2012). Don't like the new fit. I find that fabric to be cooler if worn a little looser. And...I have always worn my bra underneath the garments. It is perfectly acceptable (yes, I asked the appropriate people in the temple when I was endowed) and I would suspect that helps to stay a bit cooler.

Wait a minute.....you can lash out and make negative comments about Mormons, but someone giving their opinion or advice is "judgmental"? That's a bit hypocritical. Again, you've been given wonderful counsel here, but it is apparent that you are not interested in that or that the correct thing to do is to wear your garments as Covenanted. You are simply looking for someone to tell you that......hey...no worries....you can skip wearing your garments, breaking your covenant, and it won't matter in the area you are concerned about. That's not to going to happen. Any consequences for breaking a covenant are up to Heavenly Father. This issue of yours is one that should be taken up with your bishop. Not with random strangers on the Internet. Your bishop is the one with stewardship over you. You might also benefit from some professional counseling. But in both of those situations, you need to be willing to open your mind and your heart. So...yeah...that's my judgment.

You seem really, really invested in hanging on to your distorted viewpoint on this. All I can say is....once again....please get some professional assistance in dealing with this.

I've never understood the claim of feeling "frumpy" or some other description of unattractiveness. No one sees your garments. You can dress just as fashionably as the next person while wearing them. But if your definition of not feeling "frumpy" means showing more of your body and dressing immodestly....can't help you there. It sounds like you want to make some sort of bargain. Like trading not wearing your garments for some sort of consequence that you feel is acceptable. As though you aren't really interested in what is the correct thing to do, but how much you can get away with. You have been giving awesome, loving, inspired advice here. Instead of working hard at justifying not wearing garments, you should put that energy into wearing them and REALLY understanding why it is important to do so.

Equating noticing that someone of the opposite sex is attractive with actually committing adultery is an extreme point of view. You seem not able to understand that a person can mentally note someone's attractiveness without any feelings of lust. I wonder why that is? In your first post, you state that you "found out" that men can still be attracted to other women when in a relationship. What does that mean exactly.....you "found out"? It's an erroneous statement, whatever the source. Not all men become attracted to someone other than their spouse. They are able to function happily in their marriage without desiring anyone else. Do they sometimes notice that some random woman is pretty? Sure. But that isn't the same as being attracted to them. And it's normal. You really need to talk with a professional counselor about this issue.

Who said they "needed to die"? You apparently do believe that you are a mind reader when you make statements about "death penalties" and a "need" to die. Because that is what you are implying was in the hearts and minds of.....who, exactly? The officers? Other unnamed people? Who is saying they needed to die? Which police officer stated he decided to personally inflict the "death penalty" because it's illegal to sell loosies? Apparently you have access either to other's unspoken thoughts or some other top-secret information.

When you make statements like the bolded above, you are saying that the police officer (s) made a deliberate, willful decision....this guy is selling loosies, so I am going to kill him for doing that. You are deliberately using inflammatory language to paint an extreme and distorted view of what happened.

This is the guy's boss, meddling in his personal life. He has no business doing that. It's overstepping some serious bounds. He's inviting a lawsuit with that kind of behavior.

It's none of your business. Especially as his boss, it's none of your business. You are desiring to meddle in an employee's personal life. You are way out of bounds. And it seems you are motivated by a desire to pass judgment on someone else.

You say you are in a "loveless" marriage yet you also say your husband loves you. Just because you have chosen to stop loving your husband does not mean you are in a loveless marriage. Are you just looking for permission to leave? What have you done to help fix your marriage? Have you gone to counseling? You reference 3 -4 years. That is barely a blip in the eternities. And again, how much effort have you put forth? Lots of marriages go through difficult times, some longer than that. The time span doesn't automatically mean it is unsalvageable. You seem to lay all of the blame on your husband. Have you done your share to help fix it? Is it really worth tearing a family apart? I used to work a lot with divorcing parents and far too many of them were in denial about the impact divorce has on children and were only focusing on their own needs...usually some vague definition of "happiness".

And she uses spin and lies to get that attention.

Just re-watched 'One Good Man'. I needed something filled with the Spirit.

What is your degree in? Have you personally met Mr. Jenner? Or are you purporting that watching a television interview allows you and your whatever-degree to accurately and appropriately diagnose a total stranger? Because if it's on TV, it's 100% accurate and true, right? Just as true as Kim Kardashian's butt is "natural", right? There is not one person on this planet who has all the answers to anything, much less the subject of gender identity. We support the diagnosis of illness - mental or physical - in so many ways, yet anything that has to do with sex, the PC thing to say these days is that it's all good. How dare anything get in the way of anyone when it comes to all things related to sex. Whether it's gender identity, sexual orientation or any one of the labels that we like to use nowadays. We can speculate that a mental illness (and isn't it really just a biological illness/disorder that manifests itself in a psychological way?) is at the root of x, y or z behavior....but if sex is any way involved.....nope, that has nothing to do with anything that might relate to an illness or disorder. Say it ain't so, Joe. We can speculate all we want that...for instance....a brutal sexual crime against a person may have contributed to X actions or behaviors. Except when it comes to sex. At least anything that involves same-gender sex. We understand that there have been instances where women have turned to promiscuity or become asexual in response to a brutal sexual assault, but we can't speculate that a similar assault might have resulted in a woman reacting in a way that involves same-gender sex. It's to the point where you are vilified for even having a thought...for wondering if that is a possibility. Do we know for absolutely sure that there is one and only once cause of something like same-sex attraction? Or transgenderism? If you have that information, please do share it with us. Even those who genuinely try to understand...I mean, I don't get it...from a purely logical viewpoint, I don't get it. God made man and woman. He made their bodies in such a way that they specifically fit together in order to create life. But if you take two same-sex people, you cannot create more life without outside/artificial assistance. And once again, God created man AND woman. Not just one sex/gender. Yet, heterosexual people who believe that there is a God and that He had a purpose and design in creating man AND woman, we aren't allowed to have that belief anymore. It's not enough that I have my beliefs and you have yours. You want me to accept your beliefs while you reserve the right to reject mine. And vilify me for it. And discriminate against me for it. And try to deny me MY rights. I don't "get" transgenderism. I really don't. I don't think it is possible for ANYONE who is not experiencing that situation to understand it. But I get vilified for even not "getting" it. For not jumping up and down and saying "Yay, I am so happy for you!". We just won a wrongful termination case for a transgender client. I did respond with "Yay, I am so happy for you!" in that instance. To fire a person just for being transgender and just because you are uncomfortable with it, is wrong. My co-workers are uncomfortable with the fact that I am Mormon (although, frankly, being "religious" in any way freaks them out), that I am not as wildly liberal as they are. Should I be fired from my job because of that? I was seriously happy for this client. Even if I don't get transgender, I get that this person is a PERSON, they are kind, and sweet and were outstanding at their job. But for some, it is no longer enough that I treat this client the same way I treat all clients (and other human beings). I am being asked to toss aside the gospel as I know it, to toss aside my religious beliefs and say "Yep, you're right and I'm wrong". And if you don't believe that that is what is happening and will only continue to get worse, then you are in denial. Let the flaming being.......

When I was baptized in 2011, there was cake after my baptism at the stake center. Are they worried someone is actually going to want to use the kitchen for cooking? Maybe they have had issues with big messes after refreshments and have decided on a no- refreshment policy?

I think you made a good point. It's a different age. Instead of (or maybe in addition to) filling photo albums, a lot of people post photos to FaceBook. And a lot of times it is to do exactly what you said, keep family members up to date. You have everything all in one accessible place, for those who want it. More efficient than sending out emails. Doesn't clutter people's inboxes. Friends and family can make the choice to look or not look, read or not read. I know I have certainly been able to keep more up-to-date and see more pictures from friends and families than I would have otherwise. It's just so simple. Look at what you want to, scroll past the rest.

If the so-called friends don't want to read more than x number of posts on someone or something, then how about they just don't read them? Is someone holding a gun to their heads? BIni, your suggestion is good. I have a brother who posts tons of music reviews to FB. Instead of having so much pop up in my feed, I don't follow him, I just pop in and read what I want. So that's an easy enough solution. Or.....just don't read everything that pops up on your feed! It reminds me of the people I see posting truly nasty things on FB feeds like the Duggar family's. If you don't want to read about them....well....just don't. Easy-Peasy.

Actually, in Gospel Topics on LDS.org, it discusses how and why the terms Urim and Thummim are used interchangeable with seer stone. So, are you saying the church is "mistaken"? I will take the church's word over that of a non-member any day. Perhaps I should join a Protestant forum and repeatedly try to tell Protestants that I know more about their faith than they do. But then, I don't feel a need to do that (nor do I possess the arrogance that would lead me to believe I know more about a faith than those who live that faith), nor do I have an axe to grind against them, making me obsessed with repeatedly getting in shots against their churches and members.

I am not understanding the argument against a church produced movie being available for sale. I don't see why it would be wrong to recoup the expenses of making the movie or even making a profit. Seems logical to me. maybe making a profit will help finance more movies. More movies, more chances to reach people. I was going to buy it via Amazon instant video, but I think I will buy a DVD. A DVD can be loaned out to other people.

Iced coffee and tea are NOT "okay". If any member has that understanding, they need to talk to their bishop for clarification. Especially if they ever intend to get a temple recommend.

Mosiah 18:9

It could be because those who reject thusly enjoy any opportunity to speak negatively about the church. As though they have accomplished something by doing so. Maureen is clearly here only to bash the church. One has to wonder why this is allowed to go on year after year. And why one feels the need to do so year after year instead of moving on with life,

By coincidence, I am reading this thread in a lunchroom surrounded by lawyers discussing "the Indiana situation". And in this city, that automatically means I am surrounded by liberals. I feel I don't dare pipe up and even ask for clarification on why they believe this law targets the LGBT community (and apparently only that community because that's the only one talked about) as that will automatically be interpreted as support, which of course must mean I am a bigot and a homophobe. It's become glaringly obvious that conservative or religious values are not welcome in this country. Just prior to this, I was reading a Facebook post regarding supporting the Amish in Wisconsin who are being evicted from their homes. The responses to the post sickened me. Religious bigotry is now an accepted value in this country. It disgusts me.