Vort

It's quite a silly argument, when you think about it.  Secularists don't trip all over themselves trying to prove that there was no Moses, or Mohammed, or Confucius, or Siddhartha Gautama, or Zoroaster. 
Crimony, no one even seriously doubts the existence of Paul of Tarsus.  It's only when you go back another decade in history that "scholars" all of a sudden start wondering whether we can be really sure that the hapless Yeshua ben Yosef ever actually existed.

True, and most scholars actually believe that the Bible is an accurate and true historical narrative of its times. So the fact people still argue about it is interesting . I feel it's really a lack of knowledge of what is out there for proof and being attached to the ideal they are right,even when the evidence says otherwise. 

I am not sure why people always want to pro e he wasn't real. It is just too well documented to make a good argument out of it. 

Two chemists walk into a bar. The first says, "I'll have an H20." The second says, "I'll have an H202."
The waiter leaves, then brings them back their orders. The first chemist drinks his water. The second chemist puts his dentures in the hydrogen peroxide and says to his colleague, "I should have been a dentist."
Moral: Metajokes may not always be funny, but we love them just the same.
Sister Vort's favorite knock-knock metajoke:
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Impatient cow.
Impati-
MOOOOOO.
My favorite knock-knock metajoke:
Hey, ya wanna hear a funny knock-knock joke?
Sure.
Great. Start out a knock-knock joke.
Okay. Knock, knock.
Who's there?
...uh....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Thanks everyone for the support and suggestions!
I've decided to go for it and see what happens. I've cut out alcohol and cannabis cold turkey, while giving myself a week to wean off of coffee. Luckily, it's "tea" season and there are a bunch of herbal/fruit blends that are LDS friendly that I'm excited to replace coffee with.
I've also added prayer and fasting to my plan, probably fasting every other week rather than once a month. Praying for God to open my eyes to his will. 
I'll try to update at around 30 days and tell you what happened!

Two chemists walk into a bar. The first says, "I'll have an H20." The second says, "I'll have an H202."
The waiter leaves, then brings them back their orders. The first chemist drinks his water. The second chemist puts his dentures in the hydrogen peroxide and says to his colleague, "I should have been a dentist."
Moral: Metajokes may not always be funny, but we love them just the same.
Sister Vort's favorite knock-knock metajoke:
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Impatient cow.
Impati-
MOOOOOO.
My favorite knock-knock metajoke:
Hey, ya wanna hear a funny knock-knock joke?
Sure.
Great. Start out a knock-knock joke.
Okay. Knock, knock.
Who's there?
...uh....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Not sure I understand this. If the evidence to convict was not there, they had to return a verdict of "not guilty". I would point out that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent".

All we have are anecdotes.  But some of them are pretty cool.
Like the experiences I've had with three bishops in three different wards, trying to deal with uber-inactives and do-not-contacts.  They go check in on them every year or two, get told "stop contacting me!  I'm not Mormon any more!"  We tell them all they have to do is send in a letter and we'll take care of it, they angrily say they'll do it immediately to stop the "constant bugging" we do.  Then we don't hear from them ever.  
It's basically impossible to get an inactive person who doesn't consider themselves mormon, off the rolls.  I mean, activists and people who get ticked off will do it.  Some folks will do it.  But in my (limited, 3 ward experience), most of them don't.  

Oh man, JoJo.  If you're going to have things to say, the absolute least you could do is back it up with something other than Alex Jones.  The guy believes we faked the moon landing, for pete's sake.  
Is there any reputable source linking Hillary to pedophilia?  Like, NationalReview kind of reputable or better?

Step 1: This is blatant emotional manipulation. If you respond to this at all, it should be by calling the cops and telling them that your wife said she'd kill herself. Under no circumstances should you agree to anything -- ANYTHING -- she says if she plays the "I'll kill myself" card. Never go after her in the car. If she stomps out with threats of suicide, DO NOT RESPOND. She probably won't kill herself. It's likely just stupid, sick-minded blather. But if she does, that's her choice. She, not you, will answer to God for her suicide, and also for her threats about it.
If you do respond to her ugly threats, you are playing her sick game. Don't play it.
Step 2: Get a divorce lawyer. Today. Do not wait. This advice may sound harsh, but you will be very, very, very sorry you waited if this divorce thing comes off.
News flash: When you threaten suicide, you belong on the crazy list.

Step 1: This is blatant emotional manipulation. If you respond to this at all, it should be by calling the cops and telling them that your wife said she'd kill herself. Under no circumstances should you agree to anything -- ANYTHING -- she says if she plays the "I'll kill myself" card. Never go after her in the car. If she stomps out with threats of suicide, DO NOT RESPOND. She probably won't kill herself. It's likely just stupid, sick-minded blather. But if she does, that's her choice. She, not you, will answer to God for her suicide, and also for her threats about it.
If you do respond to her ugly threats, you are playing her sick game. Don't play it.
Step 2: Get a divorce lawyer. Today. Do not wait. This advice may sound harsh, but you will be very, very, very sorry you waited if this divorce thing comes off.
News flash: When you threaten suicide, you belong on the crazy list.

Stakes might be a good proxy, too. I see the number of stakes increased by 60 from 2014 to 2015. Interestingly, the number of districts decreased by three in that period. Districts of the Church are organized in a mission when there is no stake covering that area, so a decrease in districts suggests that those districts were absorbed into one or more newly created stakes.

And the report from 2015 for comparison:
Church Units
Stakes: 3,114
Missions: 406
Districts: 561
Wards and Branches: 29,621
Church Membership
Total Membership: 15,372,337
New Children of Record: 116,409
Converts Baptized: 296,803
Missionaries
Full-Time Missionaries: 85,147
Church-Service Missionaries: 30,404
Temples
Temples Dedicated during 2014 (Fort Lauderdale Florida, Gilbert Arizona, and Phoenix Arizona): 3
Temples Rededicated (Ogden Utah): 1
Temples in Operation at Year End: 144
You can try tracking children of record over the years since one of the parents would need to be active for the Church to get that information, but you would need to recognize that that is also dependent on the declining (at least in America) fertility rates.
A better proxy may be the number of wards and branches, as those don't get split unless there's enough active people to carry both new organizations.

That itself is a judgmental and pharasaical pronouncement. It's "only" a social rule being broken if you pull out a ham sandwich and a can of Sprite during sacrament meeting, and prop your feet up on the pew in front of you while you snack and chat on your phone. So is that what we want our sacrament meeting to be?
I don't care if you drink Coke, but if you crack open a cold one in the middle of sacrament, you are breaching more than mere social protocol. You are treating lightly a sacred meeting. It's a shameful thing to do. If you want to tut-tut those who disapprove, then whatever. You're disingenuous to pretend there is nothing there to disapprove of.

A few observations:
"Good" means "Godly". (I mean functionally, not etymologically.) Ascribing Godly characteristics to Satan is always problematic. In some cases, it is trivially true: God and Satan both exist. God and Satan both communicate to others. God and Satan both represent themselves to mankind as the way, the truth, and the life. But such cases are of no interest (to me). Since Satan and God stand as opposites, characterizing any Satanic thing as Godly seems counterproductive, if not entirely meaningless.
  What is a "light-bearer" or "son of the morning"? We assume it's some high and holy thing. But that is merely an assumption. Would not the title of "Saint" be a high and holy thing? Yet how many that once bore the title of "Saint" now find themselves entirely outside the kingdom of God? But that does not mean they held some sort of "high office". Perhaps it is equally distressing to realize that they have lost (or spurned) the "mere" title of Saint. No high Church office is necessary to make this tragic. Indeed, the office of President of the Church is small potatoes compared to the actual membership in the kingdom. President, teacher, or hymnbook coordinator, we're all fellow Saints.
  I suppose in a sense that it is important only what we are, and not what we were. This idea is normally used in conjunction with the teachings about sinning: Whatever we have done is not relevant, only that we have turned our back on that evil. Yet it appears that the same thing works in the other direction: All our belief and all our good works in the past do not make us justified before God if we now rebel. My own opinion is that Satan does not "love" us in any possible meaningful sense. He may lust after us in the way that Lewis' Screwtape lusted after souls (including Wormwood's). But there is no love there. He is a being of malicious evil. He seeks our misery and destruction, in this life and eternally. For his own personal ambition, he stands openly in opposition to the Father and everything the Father wants for us.
I do not even understand such a being, and frankly, I'm kind of glad for that fact. When I was a boy, I used to imagine how, if I had Satan's ear, I would tell him a thing or two, and how manfully I would resist his voice and tell him what's what, and so forth. But I have not thought that way in many decades. Were I cursed to converse with Satan, I hope that my attitude would be that of the Savior when standing before his false accusers and those who set themselves up as his judges. Satan is the Accuser. I remind myself of this fact when I feel like accusing someone, even political figures. I don't want to be an Accuser. I want no conversation with Satan. I do not want to understand why he does what he does. I don't want to "get inside his head". I want nothing whatsoever to do with him. I want his filth and awfulness to stay as far away from me and my family as I can manage to get it. If ever I have a word with that horribly lost being, I hope and pray it is nothing beyond "Begone!"

That itself is a judgmental and pharasaical pronouncement. It's "only" a social rule being broken if you pull out a ham sandwich and a can of Sprite during sacrament meeting, and prop your feet up on the pew in front of you while you snack and chat on your phone. So is that what we want our sacrament meeting to be?
I don't care if you drink Coke, but if you crack open a cold one in the middle of sacrament, you are breaching more than mere social protocol. You are treating lightly a sacred meeting. It's a shameful thing to do. If you want to tut-tut those who disapprove, then whatever. You're disingenuous to pretend there is nothing there to disapprove of.

Questions that might stimulate thought and profitable discussion:
What is a testimony? Why do we think it's important to receive a testimony? Why do we dedicate one Sunday sacrament meeting a month as "open-mike day" and allow random people from the congregation to come forward and share their testimony -- even when some (or sometimes many) of them really don't share a testimony at all? What does Church membership feel like for someone who has a testimony of the gospel? What does Church membership feel like for someone who does not have a testimony of the gospel? When your bishop calls you in and asks you to please sign over the deed on your house to the Church, how might your response be based on whether or not you have a testimony? (Okay, I admit this is a leading question, but it's a "rubber-meets-the-road" kind of question that can get people really thinking.)

That itself is a judgmental and pharasaical pronouncement. It's "only" a social rule being broken if you pull out a ham sandwich and a can of Sprite during sacrament meeting, and prop your feet up on the pew in front of you while you snack and chat on your phone. So is that what we want our sacrament meeting to be?
I don't care if you drink Coke, but if you crack open a cold one in the middle of sacrament, you are breaching more than mere social protocol. You are treating lightly a sacred meeting. It's a shameful thing to do. If you want to tut-tut those who disapprove, then whatever. You're disingenuous to pretend there is nothing there to disapprove of.

That itself is a judgmental and pharasaical pronouncement. It's "only" a social rule being broken if you pull out a ham sandwich and a can of Sprite during sacrament meeting, and prop your feet up on the pew in front of you while you snack and chat on your phone. So is that what we want our sacrament meeting to be?
I don't care if you drink Coke, but if you crack open a cold one in the middle of sacrament, you are breaching more than mere social protocol. You are treating lightly a sacred meeting. It's a shameful thing to do. If you want to tut-tut those who disapprove, then whatever. You're disingenuous to pretend there is nothing there to disapprove of.

CNN literally means Clinton News Network. I looked on their site today and saw an article titled something like "What You Need to Know About Clinton's Email Scandal". Almost the entire length of the article was devoted to examining Comey's role and excoriating him for his poor judgment.
Information about how Clinton may have broken the law and endangered the population of the United States? You will not find almost any such information in the article. Apparently, that's not what you need to know.

I learned many valuable lessons on my mission. I do not know how to prioritize them. Some of those lessons were of eternal worth, and others doubtless, well, were not. Here is a non-prioritized list of a few of these lessons.
I learned that I am not as smart as I thought I was, and that in some areas, I'm actually pretty dull. I learned a love for linguistics that I never even suspected. I learned humility. Lots and lots and lots and lots of humility. It has been an ongoing, painful, and vitally important lesson. I learned of my own ignorance about gospel topics, which I had believed myself well-versed in, as well as many other subjects. I learned that people see things from their own perspectives and based on their own experiences, and that those perspectives and experiences might not line up well with my own. I learned that people who see things as listed above and who are at complete loggerheads with me might well be right. I learned that there was a lot of resentment toward the US, some of it justified. I learned that I needed to choose how to live my life: Was a a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon, or a part-time philosophical Mormon? Did I actually believe and practice the things that I professed? Was the whole gospel thing nothing but a nice philosophy, a good idea, a place to take the kids on Sunday, or was it a reality in my life? (This was one of those life-changing things, and it happened before, during, and after my mission, but my mission was a catalyst for the whole thing.) I learned that, to be blunt, I wasn't a very good missionary. I was obedient and I tried, but I really wasn't very effective. I learned that some guys are great to be around and associate with, and others you just need to put up with. I learned that for some people, I'm that first kind of guy, and for other people, I'm the second. In other news: MormonHub, huh?