mrmarklin

You need to worry about your own spiritual journey and not be concerned with what others think.
What's the "D" word? What's the "H" word? I'm going to assume damn and hell? Both words are are found in the scriptures.
How could you know how many were in each movie respectively? Does someone count them?

I don't know if this has already been stated, but the words "man" and "men" are not synonymous with "male" in older forms of English. English is a Germanic language, and in the Germanic languages, "man" means "human" (human being the Latin version of the same word). Man is literally the English word for our species, and is gender neutral, originally. It has nothing to do with male-centrality.

This is one of many examples showing the importance of studying language. People get lost and confused, and when modern political movements begin redefining language specifically to change how people think on a subject, we need to be more aware than they expect we are.

I'm going to zoom out here, to the MUCH bigger picture (^this).  
OP, I'm sorry you're parents (and you) are going through such a hard time.  Divorce is always a tragedy, even if sometimes better than the alternatives.   I TOTALLY understand your fears about want to make sure you "do things right"-- nobody wants to go through that tragedy and you want to go into dating/marriage with your head on straight.  I 100% get this and commend you for your valiant goals.  
If you and this boy are considering marriage, have you looked into pre-martial counseling?   It's a service wherein an experienced consular talks to you two, and 1) helps you build really healthy communication bridges and boundaries, 2) goes through an inventory of important topics to make sure they've been discussed between you, 3) provide that evaluation/wisdom/guidance you're seeking.  My (now) husband and I really benefited from this ourselves, and I've also seen it help many other couples.   I think such a service would also benefit you two to really build a strong foundation rather than the present course of action you're on.  

My wife and I did that during our whole engagement (four months).  I don’t think you’re in the wrong at all; and I think he’s just revealed something very interesting about himself to you—not only about the physicality he expects from you; but about the way he’ll treat you anytime you don’t agree with him.
Run away, girl.  

Th3 short answer is yes.  One must accept the Saviours name of course as a condition of baptism  
 
Unless SS you are a murderer. 

If he will change his habits because you want him to, use that to your advantage.  Glad to read you latest post.  Hopefully, you can keep it all together for the children  
Alcoholism is to some degree hereditary, so be careful of that aspect of his “reformation “.  Alcoholics get real good at hiding their habit. 
 
Good luck!

Brigham Young's proposal that the Church be led by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (for reasons he explained about the keys) was accepted by common consent of those present at the August 8, 1844 Conference, as moved upon by the Spirit. Brigham Young was sustained as president of the Quorum during the following October conference, and as President of the Church once the First Presidency was eventually reorganized in December, 1847. The "right path to take" is that the Lord calls His servants, and the saints sustain that calling by common consent, by prayer and faith.

As a new convert, you have a whole new language to learn. More importantly, you have a whole new viewpoint to adopt and understand.
Here's the first lesson on your primer, Mormon Viewpoints 101:
Don't think of things in the Church in terms of "power". That is a worldly and even Satanic way of sizing up a situation. Satan craves power, seeks after it, and makes everything about its acquisition. God does not worry about power, because he understands that the basis of righteous government is not power. It is love.

@inquisitive, you're right men and women are equally yoked but they have different responsibilities.
You mentioned childbirth.  This is an integral part to womanhood that is the equivalent to Priesthood Authority.   This will only make sense if you look at a Person as he goes through the entire cycle of the Plan of Salvation - from pre-mortal existence to the celestial kingdom.
Look at this as a cycle - God --> pre-mortal life --> mortal life --> post-mortal life --> back to God. 
That's our complete journey in the Plan of Salvation - the power that is given to people from God to fulfill this plan is called Priesthood Power.  This power is not limited to men.  It is tasked to ALL - men and women together.
So, look at that cycle... Priesthood power is exercised through Priesthood authority.  The authority to bring pre-mortal spirits through the veil to mortal life is carried by women.  They are not ordained in mortality to do so, rather their authority is embedded in their biology.  Therefore, it is the woman that makes that final decision to bring a pre-mortal spirit to life in mortal existence.  But she can't do it without the help of man.
The authority to bring spirits from mortal life through the veil of death to post-mortal life is carried by men.  They perform the ordinances of salvation through their Priesthood authority.  But, just like woman can't bring spirits to mortality without the help of man, man can't bring mortal spirits to post-mortal life back to God without the help of woman.
With this responsibility of bringing spirits from God through mortal life and back to God, men and women have their duties and obligations, equally yoked.  A woman wanting to usurp man's responsibilities robs man of their yoke.  A woman who makes light of her duty to bring pre-mortal spirits to mortality is not understanding the importance of that yoke in the Salvation of spirits.
 
 

She has a boyfriend,  she's not talking to you, doesn't want to talk to you, she is spending time with her man. So you are correct, she doesn't want to see you. I cant imagine why she would want to. She's already got a gig.

She has a boy friend.  Time to move on and not worry about her.

Most tolerant liberals are only tolerant if you agree with them.

Dump this choking loser...You can obviously do much betterIMHO.

Welcome, @jbehnke!
The holy men in chapter 19 are probably the same holy men who were in chapter 18.  The JST for chapter 18 refers to these as "angels which were holy men, and were sent forth after the order of God" - which we should recognize as descriptive of the Mechizedek Priesthood.
Then, in chapter 19, verse 1, the JST says "two" should be "three", and the footnote for "angels" notes (hee hee) that the word translated as "angels" is Hebrew for "messengers".  (See also footnote a for verse 12.)  The way Lot treats them (such as suggesting they come in and wash their feet) suggests that they at least appeared to have physical bodies subject to things like getting their feet dirty (I'm not sure we would believe such a thing about a spirit-only angel in his glory1 - and if we won't, Lot probably wouldn't have either).
1Am I remembering correctly that a spirit being is not capable of suppressing their glory whereas a translated or resurrecting being would be able to?
Continuing in chapter 19, verse 10, the men (messengers, angels) "put forth their hand, and pulled lot into the house to them" - as Mormons, we believe that a spirit-only angel could not do this - or at least, we could not feel their hand on us (see D&C 129).
Finally, we know that in addition to the option of these being mortal priesthood-holders sent by God, the Lord sometimes uses translated beings, and there was this whole city of Enoch full of folks who might have been eligible for the assignment - as well as anyone else who lived on earth prior to this time who may have been translated rather than dying.
Not that any of that will help a non-Mormon believe these things.

We are all formed from the dust of the earth. Every cell in our body is of the elements of the earth be that carbon, minerals, water etc. We are literally of the dust of the earth and our body will return to dust upon decomposition. 

Does she not understand the reality of English language development, or does she just refuse to read anything pre-1970? If you are willing to step outside of LDS sourcing, "The Status of Women in the Gospels," from  religioustolerance.org,  gives a great explanation of just how radically pro-women Jesus was. Go to religioustolerance.org and look up the article title. I believe it does a lot to show that, generally, the Christian movement has been ahead of society in its treatment of women.

If she sincerely believes that the equality of women is in any way affected by pronouns, she's probably not mature enough to receive the very serious and sober minded message of the Book of Mormon.

The church uses the King James Version of the Bible. It was compiled in 1611. In that era, and up until about 1970, masculine pronouns were used in English by default. Gender-neutral pronouns are now used for references to a general audience. When reading older literature, understanding this basic reality should help all of us avoid the false belief that prior to 1970 everyone was misogynist. 

1.  You can't.   There's no way to form a rational argument that will satisfy an irrational one.  The use of 'men' to refer to humanity as a whole has been in common use for centuries.  
2. It will try, until enough people are fed up and reassert rationality.

Capitalism works as I have already detailed in my response above.  Healthcare in the US is not running on capitalism and that's why it is broken.

The bold part of your statement  above is among the top reasons why governments, particularly centralized national governments, are very poor instruments for addressing social issues like health care. Things tend to get hyper politicized and become more about getting (re)-elected and amassing power rather than caring for those the governing class pretend to serve.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The National Health Service of the U.K. dispenses “free” health care in that country. It is a big political football. 
One of my best friend’s wife just sold her business there. Her business?  Health insurance. 
So if one really wants decent health care in Britain, one pays to a private system. There is a reason for that.......

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/31/smug-seattle-keeps-throwing-money-after-streetcar-bike-lane-fiasco-that-s-totally-off-rails.html
Good old Seattle. Is there any place in the world that has such a divine setting and such infernal leadership? I would feel much worse for the city if its clueless inhabitants didn't keep voting themselves idiotic "leadership" such as Kshama Sawant. No, Seattle deserves its misery. Stupidity is its own reward.

How is that not agency? I'm sorry for your trials; I can only imagine how awful it must be, and I hope never to have to do more than imagine. But choices such as you describe are exactly what it means to be an agent. Whatever point you're trying to make is lost on me when you rhetorically ask an obviously true question with an expected negative answer.
"Lower cost"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? European income tax rates are typically over 50% -- and note that the US is largely subsidizing their national defense costs. Make them pay their own defense costs, and the European economy goes up in smoke. I believe their healthcare is unsustainable at any decent level of care. 
I'm not going to argue that the US medical system is not screwed up, because it is -- badly. I will strongly argue that solving US health care woes by instituting government-run mandatory health care is like solving a broken leg by amputation. We absolutely do not want to go that route.

This may be my primary beef against government-run health care (or insurance). If it were a voluntary, opt-in system that the government ran efficiently, I would have no more objection to it than I have to public schools. (Not that public schools are efficiently run -- quite the opposite, in my experience -- but in principle, I have no problem with government assuming certain private-sector responsibilities as long as sufficient safeguards and opt-outs are in place.) But the government exists to govern, not to provide health care. It is simply the wrong entity to provide such services. And given the nature of government, it is a dangerous entity to provide such services, truly the wolf being put in charge of the henhouse.