Maureen

How about "self-righteous jerks, of which unixknight is the finest example?"
Nah, no good.  I don't wanna share that title.
How about... "Thirdites?"    
 

The word "for" is missing. "... but it seems that on this issue FOR our churches ... the real decision is ... "
If I could type as fast as I think, when I am posting, this might be a different world . . . :::sigh::: 🤔

Knowing that somewhere off camera, Uchtdorf is listening to that list of names and feeling great comfort that he's no longer stuck having to pronounce them all.

That’s one policy change we can all get behind.  

Do you want clinical studies?   There is no doubt it exists.  There is no reason to think that gay parents can't do as good a job or better a job at raising kids than a heterosexual couple.  Again, God did not make the law because of the temporal ramifications of the gender of parents.  There are some pretty horrible,awful, rotten straight parents.  Parents who made choices that have seriously detrimental ramifications to their children.   Divorce and abuse are not absent from people who are straight.   In an ideal world, every child will be raised by their biological parents, in a loving and eternal way.  But we don't live in a perfect world, and I would much rather have a child raised by loving adoptive gay parents than by biological abusive parents. 

A couple of thoughts:
Is this an example of "accommodationism"? It is a concept we have brought up with other difficult scriptural/revealed topics -- that God "adapts" His revelations/teachings to accommodate our sensibilities when we are unable to support His "higher" teachings. "I see a lot of people unwilling to follow the policy as is, that means My children are not, yet, fully ready for this policy, so I will take it back until they are." How do we feel about this kind of accommodationism?
Could this be an example of how common consent works in the modern church? Rather than formally voting on something, something is imposed from the top down, and the rank and file "vote"/express common consent by choosing to follow or not. MoE mentioned several lower level leadership who refused (or were just disinclined) to enforce the old policy. When enough rank and file and lower leadership are unwilling to "follow" a top down policy like this, is the retraction an expression of "the Church body is not unified in accepting this policy, so we need to retract it." I know we are not fond of this kind of "grass-roots" bottom up influences, but maybe they legitimately exist?
I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive either. Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that might subversive, might be interesting, might be worthy of infractions, might be worthy of likes, might be worthy of moderator intervention, might be much ado about nothing, I don't know (but this is the internet so all kinds of meaningful and/or meaningless things get said).

The popular coffee maker these days is a Cuisinart.
M.

That looks like a terrible breakfast. 
However, coffee is one of the things I miss the most.  It's been decades since I drank any coffee and I still miss it.
I grew up in a home where coffee was always available.  Someone mentioned smoking, and there was also a lot of smoking in the home as well.  That was just how it was when I was a child.  There were many that smoked, but coffee was also something regularly available. 
I don't even drink caffeinated drinks these days, much less coffee.  I'm not sure what coffee makers would be the thing to go after.  Black and Decker maybe?
Of course, one who was suitably raised outside the church in my generation could make a bunch of coffee without the convenience of a coffee maker or many of the other convenience appliances these days.
If the restriction were relaxed, I imagine I would still keep the word of wisdom. I suppose it would depend on how it was worded and how the prophet phrased it.  If it were stated in such a way that I was allowed to drink coffee, even now, I don't think I'd mind a cup.  However, I don't see the WoW going away.  If anything is done it may be relaxed back to the pre-20th century standards where it was still a word of wisdom, but you were not restricted on temple attendance or otherwise if you were drinking coffee and such.

You don't.  Because, you won't be talking to them for a while.  Email is fine.  Phone calls, no.  Don't respond to emails about when the older sister is staying at your house.  She'll just have to figure out what to do when she finds the door locked.  Where she's going to stay is her problem.
Now, this can't last forever.  This will eventually eat at you, especially with your mother.  But having zero contact right now is important until you have figured out how to set proper boundaries.
Are you allowed an orchid?  Growing an orchid - or any other hobby plant, even growing microgreens that are also good for your diet - can be very fulfilling and it opens up a brand new community of people to stave off loneliness.

Autoimmune. Not allowed so much as a fish. 

I have heard that if someone has credit card debt they will be denied a temple recommend.  Also if they are obese - in voilation of the WofW (in excess of 15% of their ideal weight).
 
The Traveler

Do not believe anything posted today.  😁
 
The Traveler

It might surprise you then that Protestants and Catholics share beliefs, as in the Trinity. What you seem to see as heretical may just be a different style of worship (liturgy) or a misunderstanding of Catholic belief.
M.

And in this, from a Baptist point of view, your heart would dissuade you from doing such things.  A Saved individual has their heart turned towards the things of heaven rather than the things of the world.
You should probably do as you feel in your heart (as a Saved individual) rather than that where the world tells you.
Something that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has as an idea or Article of Faith goes as follows...
You need to follow the dictates of your own conscience in where you will worship and how you will do so.  Hopefully you can find a place when you get married where you can do so.  Finding a wife (and if your girlfriend is the one to do that, it is good, but if not, than hopefully you will find another that you can do so with) that can worship alongside you can be an important facet and foundation of marriage.
You are still young though, so you still have a lot of time left in front of you for weighty decisions, no need to rush headlong into it.  Take time to make sure she is the right one, and that you and her share the right values that you want to have in a spouse.

It might surprise you then that Protestants and Catholics share beliefs, as in the Trinity. What you seem to see as heretical may just be a different style of worship (liturgy) or a misunderstanding of Catholic belief.
M.

My mom came to visit me yesterday I guess her mom sense told her I was sad  because she surprised me. I actually feel a lot better now though 

Good news! I may get a ministering sister! I called my former bishop’s wife and she feels that this can be arranged! Very happy 😊 
Things are getting better! 

On a different path, one that discusses the differences of the beliefs found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs. that of those found in the Baptist religion, which in some ways DOES differ (most protestant religions differ in one area or another in belief, this is why there ARE different protestant religions rather than just one unified religion, though various churches [for example the Baptist have a stronger independent church tradition than say...the Presbyterians] can have very similar beliefs.
To support the Trinity, there are various scriptures one uses.  The most famous I would say would be as follows...
Here it states that they are both separate and yet the same being in a protestant understanding.  As it says, the Word was both With and WAS at the same time, Deity.
And then, it says that the Word was made Flesh, and that no man hath seen the Father, but have seen the Son. 
There are other verses, but this is one that many Trinitarians can turn to for a particularly strong showing of scriptural backing of their belief.  It does NOT state that they were ONE in purpose, but that they are actually ONE and the SAME.  At the same time it also makes clear that they are DIFFERENT.
At least from a basic reading of the KJV.
On the otherhand, LDS take a notion of the aspect of oneness as found by a prayer known by almost every Catholic Child who has gone to the traditional school...
However, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe it states something definitively different than many Catholics would interpret and in this it reveals a distinct belief about the nature of deity.
In this, the question arises, how can we be one the same as the Son and the Father are One?  If they are one in essence, would that not also mean that we are too one in essence?  Or does it mean that we are all the same essence as believers?
The church, I do not feel, teaches this.
Instead...
In this the Church interprets it as one in purpose, or unity.  It is not that we are of the same essence in the way that a Trinitarian from a Baptist Background will believe...IN MY OPINION.
It is in no wise the same as the Protestant interpretation of the Trinity.
I would that all would come and believe in the same Gospel that we believe in, but I also know that many choose not too and that many have their own belief.  On this board I think we can freely advocate our views, but personally speaking, I do not find the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as closely aligned to the trinity as some may express it to be in the thread.  I do not think we will convince one to become a member of our church by trying to convince them that we believe the same as they do, but rather to hopefully have them read and study our beliefs and then pray about them, while understanding the DIFFERENCES between what we believe and what others believe.
At the same time, building upon common beliefs is also important, and I think it is essential to having better understanding between us and others.  We have some very common beliefs between each other.  I'm not sure trying to convince a solid Trinitarian that their belief is the same as an LDS belief is going to work, though.
Off shoot of this, we simply do not know what @AbramM girlfriend believes.  AS such, we are trying to tell him our beliefs and our ideas, independent of that.  This is fine, and hopefully he understands this.  I'm not sure this is doing much though.
On my part, ironically, I think it is easy to be Baptist and actually go to LDS services.  In Baptist belief, at least some of them, you are saved.  One who is saved should KNOW that they are saved.  IT causes an actual change or turning of heart.  Once saved, you are SAVED.  You are not suddenly UNSAVED.  You have been saved by the Lord and that is an act that continues.  He does not suddenly discharge this.  You cannot lose your salvation once saved in most Baptist doctrine.  This would be unfathomable and illogical.  Once saved, you HAVE your salvation guaranteed. 
As someone who is saved, you can go to any service you want.  You can basically do what you want, though your heart will not let you do something that is completely sinful or wrong.  You have been saved, your sins forgiven and the grace of the Lord is sufficient.  Why, then, if it is a permanent status, would one not be able go to LDS services?
Sometimes it is better to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile than to do otherwise.
HOWEVER, being unequally yoked can be destructive to ANY relationship.  It is good for many to seek someone who is on the same level as they are.  It can be hard for any marriage in this day and time to do well, more obstacles in the mix, such as different religious beliefs can make it even harder. 
Abram seems to be seeking one who has the same religious beliefs as he does.  Religion seems to be the foundation of his life and he would want it to be the foundation of his marriage.  This is commendable. 
I would say if he actually wants more knowledge on LDS beliefs, reading from the Book of Mormon could be a good start.  However, looking at his actual request it appears that he has gotten his answer in that regard.  He is working on that aspect (his girlfriend and finding a church) already.  I don't think he came here to actually investigate the church (though learning about it is good I would hope) and instead sought answers for a good church to attend that would feel comfortable for both him and the girl he was dating.  The answer is we do not know, but I'd still stick with the idea that if any church would be with what she shared with him, it would probably be a more traditional Baptist church that had a more traditional feel (traditional choir, etc.) or a Non-denominational church which tries to appeal to all sorts of ideas and views.
Of course, for most of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we would love to have him attend our church with his girlfriend.  I'm not sure that is the answer he is seeking (but as I point out, I don't actually think there'd be much wrong with it from a Baptist point of view if he was SAVED already as he cannot lose that salvation in most Baptist beliefs).
I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it.  I was able to recognize the Holy Spirit telling me that the gospel was true.  This is why I joined the Church at the time, not necessarily because I understood everything about it or even agreed with all the doctrines at the time.  I, personally, have felt the Holy Spirit telling me that the gospel is true.
However, though I would hope all could come to the same answer and feelings I did, I also understand that what worked for me and helped me may not be what is for everyone else or even what anyone else may want to do.
He has his life and has some decisions and choices to make, which I think he is in the midst of.

Definition of modalism : the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself
M.

The Trinity states that God is one, there is only one divine being, and that divine being is God. And from before the beginning of time that divine being has existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 3 distinct persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit have relationships with each other, they are individually and collectively God.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Wherefore thou art great, O Lord God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. (2 Samuel 7:22)
O Lord, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. (1 Chronicles 17:20)
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me... (Isaiah 46:9)
The Godhead as believed by the Latter-day Saints says this from lds.org:
...But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.
https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng
M.

Explain to me how @AbramM explaining the 'how' of the Trinity will help him with his dilemma with his girlfriend. We don't really know what she believes. It also appears that neither does @AbramM.
M.

This was always my problem with the Moroni Promise. Missionaries present it as a kind of "panacea to doubt", but when you think about it it's not so simple. Like you say, the world is full of people who "know" that the doctrines they profess are true. And since some of those doctrines contradict each other we are force to accept that (however sincere they may be) at least some of these people are mistaken. The answer you'll get from a missionary (and from the equivalent in other faiths) will be something like: "Don't put your trust in what we or anyone else say: ask the Spirit."  But this doesn't actually help very much: if other people can be mistaken about what they think the Spirit (i.e. God) is leading them to "know", is it not possible that we could be mistaken too?

No where in this thread has @AbramM said he wants to convert his girlfriend. That seems to be the story that so many posters here are creating. He didn't really even understand her faith until he came to this forum. All he's trying to do is understand what she believes and based on what she tells him (if she ever will tell him), he will know what he will do.
M.

This is basically the discussion: 
Connie: " I have longed to see seminary less entrenched in the public school schedule, especially here in Utah. It is incredibly hard for homeschoolers and those who chose alternative education to find a good time for seminary for their kids here in my area. " 
Carlimac: " Why not do it like the rest of the world does it. 6 AM weekdays? 
Johnson Jones:  Or online home study
Vort: "Problem is seminary is a collective school class, unless you do home study" ( he thinks it's not  a good option). He's not sure if early morning seminary is available in Utah
Carlimac: "I don't see why they couldn't" do early morning in Utah. Remembers people and situations where it indeed happened. And then blah, blah homeschoolers just don't want to give up their ability to sleep in every day,  she hates EMS for her own kids,  blahbity blah
Estradling: Lives in Utah and drops his son off to early morning seminary ( Yes it does in fact exist !)
Then Annatess enters with her take on how well seminary works for her family and all the Floridians and Filipinos at 5:30 AM and Carlimac says good for you but it's not all so rosey up north where she resides.And then some silliness occurs, blah blah blah- whatever. 
THEN MOE enters the conversation confusing Carlimac about accreditation and why it makes it not possible for homeschoolers to do seminary and they can't go on missions to Brazil. carlimac goes Huh?? Why can't they? And what is this accreditation thingy and then maybe homeschoolers just shouldn't go to Brazil on missions then. 
And then MOE goes " What are you talking about? You MUST be confused. And I go- NOT So fast Buster YOU are the one who brought up accreditation. So who gets this credit thing and who doesn't and if they don't they should so everybody can go to Brazil on a mission. 
And then Annatess asks Carlimac sweetly if maybe she could ask her stake president to set up a class (It would be accredited by the way- whew! We can go to Brazil.). But carlimac is a tad confused (again) because she doesn't live in Utah. She lives in Maryland and her kids already go to seminary at 5:50 AM!! 
Then Vort saves the day by explaining very clearly what Carlimac meant. 
But we're all still confused by this accreditation business and afraid we might not get to go to Brazil. May we should go to Florida or the Philippines instead.
 
Does that make sense?
 
And then MOE beats carlimac to the gun and attempts to explain accreditation before she can post. But carlimac still doesn't get what it has to do with homeschoolers taking early morning seminary in Utah. Maybe  all Utah homeschoolers should move to Florida where it works wonderfully to get up early for seminary. But not Maryland...or Brazil.
 
 

I find this words of wisdom discussion interesting. In Mormon culture we seem to try and make the different aspects of the words of wisdom carry different weight. Example: alcohol/drugs is bad, tea and coffee is next but eating meat outside of winter or time of famine is optional. 
I would say most active members would say:
drinking alcohol/taking illegal drugs breaks the word of wisdom;
coffee and tea seems to have some debate on the types or how it is used;
eating meat only in winter or time of famine doesn’t count.
As a culture what has made us feel some parts should be strictly observed and other parts like meat is optional? I would say out of everything meat has the most clarity in D&C yet is least followed, if at all.
quick example: many wards have some type of cookout during the summer season (Pioneer Day) which usually seem to have lots of burgers, hotdogs or bacon if it’s a breakfast. No one says a word about how these events could be breaking the word of wisdom. Yet if we served coffee or tea at the event the leadership would we shocked. 
I would normally say this is an extreme example but I am not so sure it really is.