Vort

For the last 8+ years those of us of with a Conservative Religious focus have watched as the government has become more hostile to our hopes, dreams, businesses, freedoms, and rights...   So yes I can understand a certain amount of fear about what the government might do to a person and their loved loves
 
During those 8+ years many of those who are crying and afraid now... Celebrated the attacks on me (and those like me), and encouraged the government to do even more.
Now the weaponized government that they thought was a good tool for them to use because they thought the ones in control where their friends and allies.... has been taken away and put in the hands of someone that is not friendly to their ideas and values...  Hopefully... now they see their folly and realize their whole approach was wrong...  But I doubt it.
 

Wow. I used to have a great deal of respect for Josh Weed. I felt most of that esteem drain from me while reading his self-righteous nonsense. I am left feeling foolish that I was ever taken in by such a charlatan.

Oh, it was a mere trifle :)

This is just my 2 cents.  Babies are precious and very dear.  I don't think babies are mistakes, but the way they are conceived would be.  Meaning, in this case you are repenting for the sex without marriage.  Not for having a baby.

Somebody has to bring up the obvious, so it might as well be PC.  As a first-grader, we were indoctrinated both with the "sticks and stones" saying and, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."  They were actual jingles.  The idea was that we boys and girls had to "man up," and not let the foolish insults of others hold us back.  At the same time we were to be better than them, and not engage in the same foolishness.
Flash forward 45 years, and we have 19-year-olds facing live combat in foreign lands like Afghanistan, on the one hand, and 21-year-old co-eds retreating to coloring rooms, so they can cope with unwanted political results on the other.  Maybe instead of free college, we ought to offer free and mandatory military service to our young? 

Probably not. That would indeed be stupid. Rather, she was probably reminding herself (or someone else) that people saying nasty things to you hurts you only if you allow it to. This is less true for children, but for adults, part of being grown up is overlooking or at least getting past the nastiness of others.
The alternative to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is "You said something nasty to me and it hurt me! That should not be legal!" And the result of that is the absurd free speech attacks we see on college campuses across the US.
The saying is a little gem of deep wisdom, given to our children to help them on the path to becoming grown-ups. Only today, society has strayed so far from these obvious principles that we have people seriously arguing that the phrase is untrue.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but: Well, duh.
(For the record, I actually agree with the thrust of this article. I think it's sweet. But the saying is an important truism and should be incorporated into our worldview, not dismissed lightly.)

I disagree with the above posters. That is to say, I agree that fixating on whether there's "someone prettier" is petty, immature, and perhaps a touch pathetic. But if that's where you're at, brother, then be honest with yourself. If that is what you find important, then do not compromise on it. Doesn't matter if it's stupid. If it's important to you, then stick to your guns.
Marriage is not an opportunity to show your friends how open-minded you are. If you don't think white girls are pretty, don't date white girls. If you don't like blond hair, please stay away from blonde girls. Whatever you find distasteful, don't date girls who have that trait.
Trust me on this. I am right. You are not doing yourself any favors to date girls who you think aren't pretty enough (or whatever) for you, and you're not doing them any favors, either.
Of course, your best course of action is to get your head in a better place and gain enough maturity to honestly not even care about certain unimportant traits, e.g. whether she's the prettiest girl you might ever have a chance at marrying. But you are who you are and you feel as you feel, so for the moment, always be true to your feelings. Yes, even if they're petty, immature, and pathetic.

I wouldn't avoid first or second dates with them, though; I've occasionally changed my mind about certain characteristics after a good experience.  Just don't let yourself get sucked into a relationship if she doesn't start changing your mind within 2-3 dates; walk away before it gets serious.

After church yesterday I was presented with a trifle which was left over from the children's Christmas party.
It looked something like this:

I took it to my wife who said "You know how long that trifle has been open in the refrigerator?"
(She tends to know these things: she is on the Parochial Church Council and usually helps out with most kids' activities.)
I said, "So you're a trifle reluctant to eat it?"
She told me to shut up. Naturally I didn't.
About 20 trifle-related puns later my wife and daughter were both hopping mad, so I asked: "Do I detect that you're getting a trifle annoyed?"
My family were now preparing to murder me.
So I asked them "Don't you think you're overreacting a trifle?"
***
What a trifling thing it was to argue about!

Quit evaluating people based off of some imagined hypothetical.  See a person for who they are.
Totally.  3 serious relationships + post-mission acclimation in 6 months?  Dude, 6 months is barely enough for ONE relationship to get serious.  Quit trying to rush your and relationship's growth.
Prayer, actually looking at what's in front of you, patience, realistic expectations.
"Normal" = "have other people gone through this" = yes, other people have been impatient dreamers whom rush into everything.  
Is it good or healthy?  No.  Stop it.
Other thing: quit lying to these girls when you dump them.  Yes, "because I can't keep dreaming about greener grass" is a 100% lame excuse, but it's the truth and you owe them the truth.

I grew up in a country where divorce is illegal.  In that culture, marriage evolves differently than in a culture where marriage can have a "do over".  So, this is how I see dating and marriage:
Dating is about the journey that goes from "I like her because..." to "I don't like her because... and I'm just fine with that..." to "I choose to love her regardless of ANY other thing I would discover about her in the future".
So, as long as you are still looking at a girl and thinking what if I find someone better/more compatible/etc... you are not ready for marriage.  This is not about the girls.  This is about you. 
You are ready for marriage when you can look at that girl and say with complete honesty to yourself - "If I meet the perfect girl tomorrow I can look her in the eye and tell her - you're an awesome woman and you will make some lucky guy very happy but I chose to love my not-as-perfect wife and I am happy to spend my entire life bringing her with me closer to Christ."... it is THEN that you are ready for marriage.
Love is not just a feeling.  Love is a decision.  A choice made by free agents.  This is a decision that you will make and re-affirm everyday for the rest of your life through richer/poorer/sickness/health/etc...

I had a conversation with a friend of mine a while back dealing with ratings in movies and games. He was heckling me a little bit after I told him I didn't watch 'R' movies. I explained to him that it had nothing to do with the rating and everything to do with the content. I would never watch and 'R' movie and there are countless 'PG-13' movies I would never watch. same with M games. There are a few I'm comfortable playing but the majority I stay away from. Try making your decision on whether to keep it or not on the content and not the rating, if you focus on the rating, a LOT of justification can be made.

I think you are wise to be rid of such things.

That's sad. (And bad.) Makes me mad. -Signed, Dad

Joseph Smith said it this way:
 

The pen is mightier than the sword, friend. (Or so say the writers. But I'm guessing that if you bring a pen and I bring a sword, I'm gonna win.)

I suspect that the way the church spends its money does far more to help the economy, and society as a whole, than does the vast majority of government spending. 

2016-12-25 00:00:00.000000000  (a.k.a. 00:00:00 on 25 December 2016) in your time zone.
(You should know better than to ask a programmer a datetime question.)

With apologies to Elder Oaks:
Best: Someone who preaches Godliness and reflects it in his actions and life. Such people are rare. If you find one, stay close to him (or her) and follow his example.
  Better: Someone who preaches Godliness and tries, however imperfectly, to reflect that in his life and actions. When he screws up, which he does a lot, he quickly admits it (to himself or openly, as needed) and tries to do better. Such people are uncommon, and you definitely want them among your friends if you find them.
  Good: Someone who preaches Godliness and doggedly pursues that path, even while he sometimes engages in unworthy conduct. He knows he's out of line and he doesn't deny it, even when he's actively doing what he knows he should not. He may be inconsistent and sometimes even wicked, but he's no hypocrite. He repents daily, even hourly, and begs God to help him do better and be less wicked. Such people are fairly common among the sincerely religious, specifically among Latter-day Saints. I'm guessing here, but I suspect many or perhaps even most of us fall into the Good group. Which is not a bad thing; it's Good, after all. So don't be discouraged. Good people eventually become Better people, and at some point they take their place among the Best.
Bad: Someone who preaches Godliness or some ersatz version thereof while actively hiding the fact that he consciously lives in a completely different manner. He refuses to admit this is the case, and when confronted with proof of his duplicity, simply denies it. If forced to concede, he excuses himself by citing irrelevant factors or making things up out of whole cloth. This type of person is called a "hypocrite", and is perhaps most easily observed among politicians and Hollywood actors. Sadly, they exist everywhere, among all classes of people, and even in the kingdom of God. These are the wicked -- but don't cast them off. Wicked people can repent and become Good, and even in their wickedness, their souls are as precious as any others.

With apologies to Elder Oaks:
Best: Someone who preaches Godliness and reflects it in his actions and life. Such people are rare. If you find one, stay close to him (or her) and follow his example.
  Better: Someone who preaches Godliness and tries, however imperfectly, to reflect that in his life and actions. When he screws up, which he does a lot, he quickly admits it (to himself or openly, as needed) and tries to do better. Such people are uncommon, and you definitely want them among your friends if you find them.
  Good: Someone who preaches Godliness and doggedly pursues that path, even while he sometimes engages in unworthy conduct. He knows he's out of line and he doesn't deny it, even when he's actively doing what he knows he should not. He may be inconsistent and sometimes even wicked, but he's no hypocrite. He repents daily, even hourly, and begs God to help him do better and be less wicked. Such people are fairly common among the sincerely religious, specifically among Latter-day Saints. I'm guessing here, but I suspect many or perhaps even most of us fall into the Good group. Which is not a bad thing; it's Good, after all. So don't be discouraged. Good people eventually become Better people, and at some point they take their place among the Best.
Bad: Someone who preaches Godliness or some ersatz version thereof while actively hiding the fact that he consciously lives in a completely different manner. He refuses to admit this is the case, and when confronted with proof of his duplicity, simply denies it. If forced to concede, he excuses himself by citing irrelevant factors or making things up out of whole cloth. This type of person is called a "hypocrite", and is perhaps most easily observed among politicians and Hollywood actors. Sadly, they exist everywhere, among all classes of people, and even in the kingdom of God. These are the wicked -- but don't cast them off. Wicked people can repent and become Good, and even in their wickedness, their souls are as precious as any others.

Here is relevant some snark you should post when appropriate:
:
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

Step 1) Note that it's on facebook?

I applaud your husband then for supporting you in being baptized. Congrats to him!

Wise words, overheard at NT's house:
"If you're illuminati, I'm illumi-nice."
"Daddy, no!"

No matter how well, or charitably, the Church handles its finances; there will always be something to complain about for those who are determined to complain.  In fact, that's probably why the Church closed its books--it was transparent up until 1959; and at that point there was some embarrassment because the Church had been building so many structures so fast that it had incurred staggering amounts of debt.  So the Church quit releasing its financials, and N. Eldon Tanner (and others) went to work getting the financial mess cleaned up (which, in the absence of officious intermeddlers and concern trolls, they were able to do in spectacular fashion).
As for tax-exempt status:  Churches are not tax-exempt because they are churches; they are tax-exempt because they have filed for IRS recognition as not-for-profit organizations.  One of the more amusing Facebook exchanges I had recently, involved someone who was kvetching that if the Mormons were going to influencing politics like a 527, they should be taxed like a 527.  Not realizing that 527s are actually . . . wait for it . . . tax-exempt. 
If you revoke tax-exempt status for churches but leave it for other secular nonprofits (the Red Cross, the Democratic and Republican National Committees, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, Habitat for Humanity, etc), then fundamentally what you're doing is penalizing otherwise-tax-exempt organizations for the sin of being religious in nature.  That would make the left very happy; but it would have a hard time passing constitutional muster.