char713

To thine own scent be true.

Good point, you could be right. I have tried eating fish for breakfast, but have only been able to stomach it before 11am when camping and it was cooked on a stick over the campfire. The rest of the time it just makes me feel icky, but that's probably just my upbringing on standard American fare talking. Maybe that is the conditioning I need to get going for myself, just eat "non-breakfast" things until my tastes adjust. I have eaten leftovers in the morning before, pasta dishes for example, but always end up feeling like I need to "wash it down" with something like plain yogurt or orange juice. I love the rest of your suggestions, thank you! This one though... ugh. I grew up in England for the most part, and had many an overnight school trip where this was the only option for breakfast. Beans or marmalade on toast... never again lol. I'm a complete Anglophile, and wouldn't mind living my entire life in that "green and pleasant land" but the food is not among my top reasons why. I know lots of people love it though, I am sorry if this is a bit rude. Good thought, I haven't ever looked into them much but I do have a physical coming up soon. I shall jot down a reminder to ask my doctor about them. Thanks!

Many hands make light pizza.

I like the automatic community that is there for you whenever you move to somewhere new.

I watched the mini-series with my husband. We got a big kick out of some things about the production value, and he absolutely could not accept that the mother in Cinderella was played by the same person. Good series. I didn't realize at the time that the Russian spy training orphanage thingy was significant, but I see it now.

Not a movie, but just finished "Foyle's War" on Netflix. Wonderful series, I so enjoy learning more about England's WWII homefront. And we have watched "Interstellar" several times since it came out on iTunes last week.

Yeah I think that's basically what my husband is getting at. Hmm. Anyone got any breakfast food ideas that do not include any eggs, bananas, or corn? :) Edit: And that aren't some slight variation of cake?

Haha - great point, Suzie. The funny thing is, before this allergy came to be, I never really cared for eggs. The bummer is that besides fruit and yogurt, there is virtually nothing one can eat for breakfast (that is not essentially a dessert) that does not contain eggs. I can, and do, eat yogurt every day. And have gone on long kicks with just oatmeal and cream of wheat too. But sometimes just really want a change of pace, and my husband has amazing omelette skills. He is definitely motivated to keep me from eating these things, (bananas are the other really bad thing for me) because of the fallout he has to deal with... and of course loving concern for me. I'm concerned for me too. But I also know that it'll be all over in a few hours and the craving will have been satiated for another few weeks or months.

I have a few food allergies, but the one I dislike the most is my allergy toward eggs. I cannot consume them in any form (except in some baked goods for some reason) without experiencing shooting pains and whole-body aches that last for up to four hours. I crave them all the time though. I have tried eating various substitutes, as well as testing the egg whites and the yolks seperately.. the substitutes are unsatisfying and other experiments yield only the same uncomfortable results. Sometimes I just have to have eggs and toast though, and even though I know what will happen, I indulge anyway. My husband tells me that this is wrong. That I am breaking my "personal word of wisdom" and that while I may not be not unworthy because of it, I am abusing my body the same as someone who uses unhealthy substances. He feels the same about diabetics who willingly or carelessly eat very poorly and put themselves in the hospital. And the same for people with heart or blood pressure conditions like his father, who refuses to give up eating barbeque in sometimes more than normal healthy-person quantities. I sort of see what he means, and yet not. The WoW is there to protect our health and keep us from limiting our capacity to have the Spirit with us and hear promptings. As much as my allergic reaction bothers me, my state of mind isn't really altered. But other than that I cannot really think of a strong enough argument (other than "that's silly") against this idea. Help? I really want to eat deviled eggs at Easter, but he scolds me whenever I buy eggs and often throws them out.

But I am still wondering about the question of born in covenant versus conceived in covenant. Born or conceived, the question of a divorced woman's child is covered either way. Unless we're saying the divorce came during her pregnancy.. in which case that seems to prove that conception is the rule. But a child born to a couple with only one genetically related parent, it seems like neither version of the rule would apply, because one parent is essentially an adopting that child, just as if it were a child from their spouse's previous relationship.

I don't know how it is handled elsewhere in the world, or even in other states for sure.. but here in Utah the legality of parenthood/adoption etc is handled before the egg or embryo is placed in the mother's body. Just as a sperm donor waives his legal rights of paternity when he deposits at a sperm bank, the paperwork is all taken care of before hand, and there is often a waiting period between the initial deposit or donation, and when the hopeful parent(s) can take ownership of the genetic material of whatever type.

I really thought so. Kal-El's birth is miraculous, during the scene in the church he is shown standing right next to a painting of Christ and it comes across as very deliberate, Kal-El spends time alone in the wilderness to learn of himself and his role, Kal-El's age during most of the film is 33, and a couple of times during the big battle scene(s) he streaks through the sky with his body in the shape of a cross. And there are lots of other things too, but most could be said to just be part of the classic hero figure in literature. This article has a couple of quotes from Zach Snyder on the matter: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/showbiz/zack-snyder-man-of-steel/ I haven't seen Superman Returns in a long time, I will look it up again. The comics themselves were quite packed with Christian ideas when they first started, so I wouldn't be surprised. The above article says that his earthly adoptive parents were initially named Mary and Joseph!

That's a really good question. It's not something I feel comfortable asking her about.. but yeah I'm really curious now! Because if it is conceived in the covenant versus born, then yeah it might be necessary. Interesting.

Sure, but tone and word choice matter just as much as the help itself. Encouraging and teaching versus preaching or correcting, addressing the individual and not just the problem.

I think she's hoping for a more concise explanation. I wouldn't mind hearing it myself.

I don't just mean people who oppose the planning or building, though I have no doubt there are some. The stories I have heard about are about things such as weird anomalys in some of the building materials, machinery and such that suddenly failed for no reason that anyone could tell, people who are integral to the project getting dramatic illnesses completely out of the blue.. etc. A lot of things that happen normally on huge projects such as this, normal setbacks you know, but a lot that weren't normal and seemed to have no reasonable or determinable cause. Ultimately, they're just a reminder of how powerful the adversary is, and how very important temples are.

Wow, that is amazing!

My husband works closely with a man who is on the architectural team for the Rome temple. I hope church news or some other publication is able to share some of the stories some day, I will have to check with this individual before I share any of them here. No temple is built without a lot of opposition in its way, but Rome has really, really been slammed. Given how close it is to the Vatican I don't think anyone would be surprised.

I felt the same way about Interstellar and (surprisingly) Avatar. I am sure that neither director meant for those things to be there, but there are truths that just cannot be ignored, that reveal themselves in our storytelling. Man of Steel was full of Christ-like symbology, but director Zach Snyder said that it was all, in fact, intentional.

Hmm. I definitely did not think of it in such an allegorical way when I saw the film, but I see what he is getting at. I left the film thinking that for a live-action retelling of a classic but rather simple film, they did not add much in terms of dialogue or character depth. But we were shown rather than told a lot of things, and I can't fault the film for that. And frankly, I was just relieved that it wasn't another "Maleficent."

I have a feeling she's going to have a lot of her backstory included in the plot of "Age of Ultron." I did a lot of the same kind of research, she seems incredibly complicated. But that seems to happen an awful lot with most comic book characters. The authors have to keep their most popular characters going, keep reinventing them, keep having them meet up with and fight all the other popular characters, and it creates some really complex (though not always consistent) character histories.

Or the third alternative: Your advice or sympathy is different that what I expected to receive, but I have encountered similar kinds of responses many times before and realize that you are trying to help - but your choice of words and overall tone are what really tell me whether you are trying to: A) Kindly suggest ways to remove the nail, which is what you might want to hear if it were in your own head. Or.. B) Insist that any extra pain or infection the nail might be causing is exaggerated or imaginary, and that there are other problems that matter much more to more people, so stop whining. Which is not what anyone would want to hear if they were in the other's place. ... And this, I believe, is the source of all true contention. Saying or doing harsh things without first considering the golden rule.

Bringing a third person's body or genetic material into the process of conceiving or carrying a child is always discouraged by the church, regardless of what stage the embryo is in. I imagine the church will have a similar opinion and stance about the newest form of tri-parenthood, which uses a third person's DNA to correct genetic disorders at the mitochondrial level. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173 One of my friends from high school, and a member of the church, is pregnant with twins via IVF using donor eggs. The donor is her younger sister. As thrilled as I am that they have been able to achieve this medical marvel and overcome her infertility caused by premature ovarian failure.. I would not do it if I were in her shoes. I'm sure (I hope) that it will strengthen their bond as sisters. But both of them will know, whether or not the children are told, that one of them is the biological mother and the other a carrier, and that the husband's DNA was mingled with the sister's. While traditional conception and parenthood is not free of sticky issues by any means, I believe that a big part of why the church strongly discourages these methods of conception is to prevent these certain kinds of hurt and confusion.

Read the top 100 classical "must read" books. 37 so far. Visit every continent.. three to go. Perfect my sewing skills to the point where I could make formal dresses for my daughter(s) someday. And the newest addition, I think I should like to be a casual birder. I'd like to be able to recognize bird calls by ear, at least just the ones that live in my area.

Except for when the topic is "controversial" only because it is personal, not because it is wrong or otherwise contrary to the views of the church. If and when I ever encounter such a scenario, of someone opening up about tender feelings, (whether wisely or not) the one thing I know I would never do is tell them how they ought to feel instead.