Vort

It's now called "polyamory" and is modern and okay. Just don't marry because that makes it automatically abusive, doncha know.

The similarities worldwide is not Right/Left (that doesn't even mean anything in the Philippines - everybody is Right, it's just varying degrees of Rightness over there which is not even generally applicable but just issue based).  Rather, the observable similarities is anti-globalist, anti-multiculturalism, anti-establishment (that peddles those ideologies in their policies).  This is mainly a push back triggered by 1.) the liberties that Developing countries took against the Developed ones (aided by the Climate Change initiative that neutered the Developed ones) in usurping trade advantages, 2.) Muslim states using immigration to decimate the culture of non-Muslim states, 3.) imbalance of power caused by a self-imposed weakness in the US (economically and militarily) and her allies causing leadership in Russia, China, etc., to flex their muscle and threaten stability making war a constant cloud over all nations.
All this caused people to demand protectionist policies from their established government.
And this is what I've been saying all along.  A weak America causes echoes of unease in the Philippines (and I would posit worldwide).  We need America strong.  Why America?  What's so special about her?  The answer is completely illustrated in that inspired act of George Washington to hand the government over to John Adams.  It is a very rare event that a person, who could have been King, would give up all that power in the name of American idealism.  And it didn't stop there.  It continued to happen until today.  This inspired leadership is what we all look up to worldwide.

I disagree that a simple one-dimensional "right/left" divide is sufficient to describe the underlying reality among people's viewpoints. In fact, I suspect it is a harmful oversimplification.
I also disagree that American political "Right/Left" spectrum, in whatever sense that division might be useful, bears a meaningful resemblance to the non-American political "right/left", such as the European model. For example, the American "Left" is by far the more fascist and authoritarian of the two poles. The only people who disagree with this are, predictably, members of the American Left. (Though I realize this is a "no true Scotsman" argument.) I suspect that this observation would also apply equally worldwide, e.g. in comparing Latin American vs. European politics. But I make no specific claims in that arena.

Trump won because Obama failed. 
In my opinion the vileness between Hilary and Trump pretty much cancels each other out. Which leaves us with policy and the fact that Obama's was a complete disaster for eight years. His single greatest achievement has little to do with him or his policy and all the credit goes to the American people; that is putting a Black person in the highest most powerful position in the world, something that ought to heal the divide and give hope to all. Yet Obama's legacy isn't Hope, but Black Lives Matter, a testament to the racial despair and division he sowed every time he opened his mouth. Rather than give hope he chose to use fear and hatred to strengthen and seal in his base while alienating and dehumanizing his opposition painting them as racist even to his last speech. ie.."If we’re unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don’t look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children — because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America’s workforce." Newsflash...no one in the USA makes policy, immigration or otherwise, based on how it affects our racial makeup and many of the "brown kids" I know are getting fed up with identity politics and becoming wise to how they are targeted and used as political pawns.
While Obama didn't start any open ended war, announcing the exact date we were leaving Iraq created the vacuum that would give rise to ISIS and his bumbling action/inaction on Syria played a role in 400,000 deaths and Europe’s immigration crisis. His foreign policy was a disaster and erased any progress we were making in the fight against Radical Islam. 
His supporters us terms such as "impeccable integrity", "above reproach", "avoid even rumors of scandals", "play by the rules" to describe his Presidency but predictably forget Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra, Deepwater, Obamacare (“if you like your health care plan you can keep it”), the IRS targeting conservative and pro-Israel groups. 
Eight years of ignoring and disrespecting his opposition, failed Domestic and International policy proved not just a disaster for Obama's Legacy but a disaster for Democrats. When Obama took office in 2009, he had a 58-seat majority in the Senate, a staggering 256 seats in the House and held 28 governorships. Since then he lost his party 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships.

Trump won because the Democrats fielded a historically awful candidate. Hillary Clinton will forever be remembered (among other things, for as long as she is remembered at all) as the person who could not beat the worst Republican candidate in, well, maybe ever.

As a child of the '60s, I say: Gimme the sterile digital version! I appreciate the genius of old technology, but if I get to choose between the pops, scratches, and skips of vinyl, the hiss and low signal-to-noise ratio of cassette tape, or the crispness of CD/mp3/other digital format -- guess what? I take the digital format every. single. time.

A last clarification about my participation on this thread -- and yes, I realize this is not about me, which is why I want to make this clarification:
I had not intended to respond on this thread, only read it. My original participation was prompted by what I felt was an over-the-top condemnation of the OP, who after all is a sister and appeared to be seeking a path forward. I, too, thought she seemed to be distancing herself more than a little from what she had done. But I thought the vociferous condemnation was (a) factually wrong and, more importantly, (b) hurtful and not helpful.
My intent was not to come on this forum and preach a new doctrine, or a new interpretation of a doctrine, and set myself up in opposition to our authorities. If you perceive an important difference between what you think I teach and what you think the apostles teach, then stick with the apostles. I personally see no such conflict, but I understand why others might. My attempt is not to steady the ark or provide alternate interpretations in defiance of our leaders' teachings, but to try to offset what I saw as some harsh and unwarranted condemnation of a sister in disastrous spiritual peril.
No more about Vort. I just wanted the above understood, in case some thought I had other motives.

yjacket, seriously, chill. This is wrong in so many ways. The woman has admitted (anonymously) to her actions and has come here seeking a path forward. Heaping coals on her head isn't helpful.
When the woman taken in adultery was dragged before Christ, she appeared not to have been willingly confessing. She wasn't there because her guilt drove her there, but because she was apparently dragged from her bed of adultery into a public place. Jesus first ignored, then shamed, her accusers, finally leaving only himself and her (and the rest of the crowd watching the drama unfold). At that point, Jesus did not rub her actions in her face. Quite the opposite: He said that he did not condemn her.
We are given a space for repentance, before the condemnation of God comes upon us. God does not immediately condemn us for our missteps, even something as serious as adultery. Instead, he allows us to figure things out and repent. I suspect I am as disgusted by this adulterous sin as you are, but coming out in accusing condemnation toward the woman who sinned is not the way to go. Remember who has the title of Accuser. That's not someone we want to emulate.
By the way, the idea that sex sin is the worst possible thing that anyone could ever do except for murder appears to be scripturally based solely upon a specific interpretation of the teachings of Alma (junior) to his son Corianton, found in Alma 39:2-5:
But what are the actual antecedents to "these things"? In context, they are: (1) boasting in his own strength and wisdom; and, (2) forsaking his ministry by going after a harlot. In other words, his abominable actions were self-glorification and breaking his divine covenants of ministry.
Insofar as adultery (or fornication in general) is a breaking of covenant, then I certainly agree that it is most abominable. But the idea that non-marital sexual activity per se is the worst thing anyone can ever do besides murder another person is absurd on its face. I can think of any number of things more spiritually damaging and damning than an unmarried couple having sex with each other -- and so can you. Years-long neglect to the needs of a child, or ongoing nastiness and hatefulness toward him. Long-term physical abuse. Beating someone so badly that you cause permanent, severe disability. Actively working to undermine the legitimate government of a people. Openly rebelling against God and seeking to lead his children astray.
Anyway, believe what you like about that. But I think that your condemnation of the OP is over the top. I think that encouraging her to come clean and turn from her path of sin is a better option than explaining to her in gory detail how awful she is.

The whole idea of a "hate crime" is contrary to traditional American values.. We punish actions, not thought -- or at least, that's supposed to be the case. Besides, the very idea is stupid. "Hate crime" as opposed to -- what? Love crimes? People commit crimes because they are criminals, not because they are overflowing with an excess of charity and benevolence. Of course their crime is inspired by hate, or desperation, or something else. There is always a reason people do things. Remember the image of Lady Liberty blindfolded? There's a reason she's not supposed to peek.
Punish bad acts, not bad thoughts. I don't really give a hoot whether the black adults who beat up the white guy did it because they hate whites, or they hate Trump, or they simply like beating people up. Only in exceptional circumstances are the reasons for criminal activity at all relevant. Like, maybe if they thought he was on fire and they were trying to save him.
To restate: The whole idea of a "hate crime" is contrary to traditional American values.

By the way, in response to the OP and the title of this thread: God loves all his children. He certainly does not abandon his child just because that child ceases to follow him or even believe in his existence, any more than we would disown our own children for such conduct. But I believe that whether God is "in the lives" of his children is primarily a function of those children. Insofar as he can be, God is "in the lives" of his children, be they atheists, homosexuals, Democrats, hypocrites, or people who fail to do their home teaching.

Eh, it was a fine speech. I'm still mostly neutral on this election result.
I showed part of the inauguration to my students, we read about Inauguration Day, and colored patriotic owl pictures.
Coloring patriotic owls would do a lot in bringing us together as a country.

I have been a part of disciplinary councils as a Ward Clerk and a member of a Bishopric.
The very first thing that needs to happen is that you have an nice long talk/confession with your bishop.
At that point the bishop will undoubtedly give you some council and instruction.  The bishop will also need to decide the next step.  His option are to do nothing more, to handle it himself, or to hold a council.  The bishop does not have authority over priesthood holders (which I assume you are) which means the Stake President will need to be informed and he will need to make call on if he wishes to authorize the Bishop to continue or pull it up to the Stake Level (which I have no experience with and is not included here).
Assuming the bishop moves forward with a council he will need time to set it up.  When it happens it should begin with a prayer, then the Bishop will lay out the reasons that the Council is being held.  You will be given a chance to speak, to clarify, correct, confirm the bishop's statements and share your thoughts and feelings.  The councilors will then be allowed to ask questions to better understand and otherwise clarify in their minds what happened and what your current status is.
Once everyone has a good understanding, you will be asked to step out while they confer and prayerfully make a decision.  Once that is done you will be invited back in. They will inform you of the decision. (nothing, disfellowship, excommunication are typical) They will offer council, guidance, and direction for your path forward.  If action is taken then a time frame is usually given (6 month to a 1 year is common but not absolute).  The ward clerk will create a record of such action, so that if there is a change in leadership the new leaders will have the information (or simply help the bishop remember what happened before)
As time passes you might continue to meet with Bishop regularly.  Then the disciplinary council will be called again at the end of the time frame (or when the bishop directs).  The council will follow the same general pattern.  Hopefully the decision will be made to restore you to full fellowship at that time, but that really depends on your progress
Now like I said before I have no experience with it at the Stake level.  But I assume the same general pattern is followed but using the Stake Presidency and High-council instead of the Bishop and his councilors
 

How odd.  On my monitor, @Vort is on the left side, and what he wrote is on the right side.  Strange.

It's the substance that lines the countertops of Mafia hit men.

You rang?

No attempt at a politically unifying speech. Maybe what Trump said was what we needed to hear, but it certainly is not an open and welcoming inaugural speech. It is an open slap in the face to the previous administration(s) and to those who enthusiastically supported Obama's efforts. The battle lines have been drawn.
If Trump can deliver on 50% of his rhetoric, he will be a stunning success. Here's to hoping.

I don't believe life is over 120 years old. NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH can personally confirm that the earth even existed 120 years ago! It's all smoke and mirrors!
Fact is, the earth was created fifteen minutes ago, but with the entire backstory in place. Brilliant and amazing, but nothing is too hard for God.

Fixed that for you.

Nope, sorry @LiterateParakeet but these signs aren't the moral equivalent of the intensity of what's coming out of the left.
This one I will grant is very inappropriate as it suggests a lynching which has serious racist overtones.  So on this one I'll agree with you.  That's one.
No, this one's a birther sign.  It isn't inherently racist or violent or even particularly over the top, as it's questioning Obama's Constitutional suitability.  Nothing about it is inherently hateful.
Again, it's a birther thing.  Mean spirited, yes, but again not to the same level.
Comparing politicians to Hitler is so commonplace I am surprised anyone pays attention to it, though I will say the first time I recall an American President being compared to Hitler, it was George W. Bush.
 

No attempt at a politically unifying speech. Maybe what Trump said was what we needed to hear, but it certainly is not an open and welcoming inaugural speech. It is an open slap in the face to the previous administration(s) and to those who enthusiastically supported Obama's efforts. The battle lines have been drawn.
If Trump can deliver on 50% of his rhetoric, he will be a stunning success. Here's to hoping.

Yes.
The good news is, your vote would have put Fire & Ice over the top, so I picked the winning ink after all...

Has the poll at the top always been there?

No attempt at a politically unifying speech. Maybe what Trump said was what we needed to hear, but it certainly is not an open and welcoming inaugural speech. It is an open slap in the face to the previous administration(s) and to those who enthusiastically supported Obama's efforts. The battle lines have been drawn.
If Trump can deliver on 50% of his rhetoric, he will be a stunning success. Here's to hoping.

Um, you mean how the professional speech-writer who wrote the IA talked about the idea of shifting focus and power from DC to the people?  Let's not get delusional here.  Nothing happened except a bunch of sounds came out of a human mouth.  We can all hope that some of the things in that speech will be attempted by politicians (I'm skeptical), and we can pray that some of them actually happen (still skeptical).  But the speech was just a speech, it didn't dismantle corrupt or wasteful bureaucracies, it didn't shut down useless government offices, revoke crippling regulations, nor end frivolous lawsuits.  Whether any real good comes from this change in administrations is yet to be seen.
The speech-writer did his job well, though.
Not that it matters.  My pen has arrived and when I add up the online votes and IRL votes, we have a tie.

No attempt at a politically unifying speech. Maybe what Trump said was what we needed to hear, but it certainly is not an open and welcoming inaugural speech. It is an open slap in the face to the previous administration(s) and to those who enthusiastically supported Obama's efforts. The battle lines have been drawn.
If Trump can deliver on 50% of his rhetoric, he will be a stunning success. Here's to hoping.