mordorbund

On that note....
The Philippines currently have a Presidential Candidate who is promoting Federalism.  This is the stupidest thing ever presented to the Filipino people.  The Presidential Candidate promoting United States Statehood, all of a sudden, sounds sane.
Why this is... The Philippine provinces (that will become the States) are mostly homogenous to each other in both cultural, social, and economic make-up.  The few that are non-homogenous are the ones promoting an Islamic State (so they can wage jihad).  This Presidential Candidate happens to come from an economically prosperous province.  He does not want to continue having his province send all their tax revenues to the Capital only to receive a small percentage in return as the money gets spent in other provinces that are not as prosperous.  This is not a valid reason for Federalism.  Federalism should not be used to break a truly One Nation into autonomous parts.  Rather Federalism should be used to make One Nation out of already established autonomous parts.

I know you're asking LeSellers but I'm going to chime in with my answer.
"Senators have been selected by popular vote for a century now." - yes.  But they don't have to be.  Each State decides who their Senators are going to be - it just so happens that all 50 choose their Senators, just like they choose their governors - by popular vote.  But, the spirit of the Senator is that he represents the State... not the people.  That's why each State has an equal number of Senators - 2.  Each State gets the same voting power in the Senate regardless of their population size.
"Isn't it time to update the system to reflect the vox populi?"  No it is not, and it never will be unless the States decide that they're going to cede the welfare of their State to the Federal government.  One thing that you will need to realize - the United States may be referred to as One Nation... but, technically, it is 50 Nations (not counting the Indian Nations).  The laws in New York does not work in Nebraska, for example.  Nor the laws in Texas work in Vermont.  Removing the electoral college (or the Senate) will effectively silence Nebraska in the face of New York, or Vermont in the face of Texas.
"Do you want your State's electors voting as a bloc? Representative distribution? By district? Voting independently?"  That's up to each State to decide.  A State doesn't have to hold Federal Presidential Elections even.  They can always just have the Governor decide who he wants as POTUS.  So the population votes for the Governor that will then decide the POTUS.  There are no states that do this.  All the states hold general elections.  If you ask me what I want in my State (I'm not American so it won't matter) - I want the State Congress to vote the POTUS in the general elections and I want the people to select the nominee to the general elections in closed party primaries.
 
 
 

What about a case where a woman makes that police report in good conscience, but the alleged rape is either unproven or at least unclear?  That takes us back to defining what's meant by "proven to be consensual."  It's got to be more than just an acquittal in court.

And that's a serious problem. I know of no child who has only a mother. Every child has a father, and that father (and men, in general) should have a major say in the question.
There is another reason men should weigh in on the issue: men pay for it. Abortion, in spite of laws to the contrary, is often a matter of taxes and men pay far more taxes than women.
Abortion is not a "women's issue". Abortion is a human issue. Remove men from the discussion, and we end up with a distorted picture and a non-solution.
Lehi

The electoral college exists to assure that the president is not selected by the people, but by the states. He is, after all, the president of the unites States of America.
Like the original senate, it is a fundamental component of federalism. Those who want a direct election for the presidency miss the fact that this is not a "nation" (under God or any other way), but a federation of sovereign states. Losing that, we'd all be subject to the power of cities, because, like it or no, that's where the population lives. And cities are, by their leech nature, going to take, take, take from the rural population.
Lehi

100% correct.
The GOVERNOR, is the President of the State.  Each State decide - in their own State Constitutions - how they're going to select the POTUS.   They also decide - in that same State Constitution - how they're going to elect the President of their State (Governor).  The Feds can't dictate that to them without having to amend the US Constitution.  States Rights and all that...

Now, as far as the RNC and DNC rules in electing their General Election Nominee:
The RNC and DNC are private entities that make their own rules.

The RNC rules are formed in the same pattern as the Republic (they're called Republican for a reason). In a Republic, the people choose their Representatives and the Representatives cast the votes to represent the will of the people. It's not the party bosses nor the people that choose the nominees, it's the Representatives (i.e., delegates). The current rule is that the candidate has to get a majority of the delegate votes to become the GE nominee.  The delegates convene and caucus and cast multiple rounds of ballots until a majority is arrived at.  The problem with this system occurs when the people are deprived of choosing a delegate to represent the will of the people (like if states let the party bosses or candidates choose the delegate by silencing the will of the people he represents instead of caucusing with them to give the delegate the opportunity to convince the people of the right choice and in the end choosing the candidate that is a reflection of the will of the people). Or when the party bosses or candidate chooses a delegate for a group of people who has no intention of carrying out the expressed will of the people he represents (unbound delegates - including those that get unbound on succeeding ballots). This is when the republican (small R) system is at risk of getting corrupted by sleazy or opportunistic politicians.

The DNC has a different rule. They follow the Democratic process (they're called Democrats for a reason). The DNC gives every group of people a delegate bound to their will. This delegate cannot be unbound (no 2nd ballot or 3rd ballot, etc. that can unbind them). To prevent mob rule, they assign a group of super delegates who do not represent the will of the people - rather, they are the "experts" or "voice of wisdom". So, it's completely like Dancing With The Stars where the judges are the super delegates and their scores get added to the people's votes to prevent someone who suck at dancing win the trophy purely out of popularity. The super delegates can provide a risk of corruption in the DNC side as they can be wined and dined and bought by candidates instead of expertly choosing the candidate that would best represent the party platform.   Third parties have their own rules of choosing their GE nominees as well.

You know, we're going to have five months to deal with the #NeverTrumpers if he gets the nomination.  And that contingency is by no means certain.  If Trump doesn't get a supermajority of remaining states, we're going to a contested convention where the odds are that staggering numbers of Trump delegates will defect after the first or second ballot.
So, it's fascinating to me that the pro Trumpers want us to be confronting this issue now.  But I understand that a common negotiating strategy is to talk as if the deal has already closed; and I suppose the electoral equivalent of that strategy is to campaign as if your guy has already clinched the nomination.

Some say the world is round; others say it is flat. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Assigning the following values:
Lemonade - .25 (like) Hawaiian Punch - .25 (like) 50/50 - 1 (Really Like) other mix - 0 (no go) The best solution for Case V turns a .875 delight to a 1.5, so if "Really Like" is 4 times as delicious as a "like" (as above) it's worth it. If, on the other hand, "Really like" is only 2 1/3 times as good (or less), you're better off leaving it alone and just drinking the two separately.
You're best case scenario for Case VI (2L of 50/50 and 3L of nogo) turns a 1.25 delight into a 1.5 (using those dummy weights). If "Really Like" is anything less than 3x as good (3 1/3) then you're better off leaving it alone.
And so long as any other mixture is "no go" then you'll save yourself a lot of calculating just pouring all but 1L lemonade down the drain. At least that boosts your 1.5 experience with the additional HP.

first signs of sunrise
filling the empty heart
the empty tomb

I would suggest that if the Spirit, angels, visions, or dreams reveals to you something that you cannot find publicly taught plainly in the scriptures or by Church leaders that you keep such revelation to yourself. http://askgramps.org/why-cant-we-talk-about-what-goes-on-in-the-temple/
Let us keep sacred things sacred.

We went to visit a family that was coming back to church after a period of inactivity. My companion told me they had been encouraged to read the Book of Mormon. The wife had read a little and the husband not at all, despite being encouraged with each visit. We decided that if he still hadn't read any, we would read with him in the next visit to so he could get a sampler.
As we talked, I asked the husband what kind of movies he enjoyed. He replied with Braveheart, and Gladiator, and other films like that.
So we read Ether 15. (the ward missionary with us was visibly nervous about this selection)
When we came back for our next visit, the husband had downloaded the book of Ether as an mp3 and listened to it several times. It was even playing in the background as we walked in the door.

We went to visit a family that was coming back to church after a period of inactivity. My companion told me they had been encouraged to read the Book of Mormon. The wife had read a little and the husband not at all, despite being encouraged with each visit. We decided that if he still hadn't read any, we would read with him in the next visit to so he could get a sampler.
As we talked, I asked the husband what kind of movies he enjoyed. He replied with Braveheart, and Gladiator, and other films like that.
So we read Ether 15. (the ward missionary with us was visibly nervous about this selection)
When we came back for our next visit, the husband had downloaded the book of Ether as an mp3 and listened to it several times. It was even playing in the background as we walked in the door.

We went to visit a family that was coming back to church after a period of inactivity. My companion told me they had been encouraged to read the Book of Mormon. The wife had read a little and the husband not at all, despite being encouraged with each visit. We decided that if he still hadn't read any, we would read with him in the next visit to so he could get a sampler.
As we talked, I asked the husband what kind of movies he enjoyed. He replied with Braveheart, and Gladiator, and other films like that.
So we read Ether 15. (the ward missionary with us was visibly nervous about this selection)
When we came back for our next visit, the husband had downloaded the book of Ether as an mp3 and listened to it several times. It was even playing in the background as we walked in the door.

I believe that in these cases nothing much might be said--especially if the couple were into their middle age, or the child was still living at home. However, I do know of cases in which younger couples, living together, were asked to find separate living arrangements, and certainly to remain chaste, until the wedding day.
Concerning mixed-faith marriages...if the only issue is one partner not being interested in conversion, I would hope there would be enough respect for his/her fiancé to honor the request for chastity during the few weeks before the wedding. If that amount of patience and understanding is not there now, how's it going to work later on (tithing, raising of children, observing WoW, etc.)?

Israel was delivered when they repented. Sodom and Gomorrah could have been spared had there been 10 righteous. To add another, Ninevah was spared destruction for three generations, because of repentance. God will judge when He judges, but as long as I have young children and loved ones in my life, I'll pray for mercy and deliverance. Let a future generation experience judgment--at least so long as there is a remnant willing to stand in the gap for their communities.

Historically, Christianity flourishes in persecution. Still, I love my country, and would like to see the Constitution upheld for awhile longer.  What concerns me is the extent to which elite college students have accepted speech codes and limitations on liberty, in the name of sensitivity, providing "safe space," and generally not being offensive.  At some point these children will be leading us. Will they decide that proselytizing is offensive, and should not be protected? Will they decide the conversions are generally coerced, and make it illegal to seek such for others?
There are voices demanding that churches be taxed. There have been attempts to subpoena religious talk notes. Some are even insisting that religious liberty is a concept that is inherently anti-LBGT.
It's easy to become pessimistic, cynical, or apocalyptic. Perhaps the LORD is calling his people to our knees?

I wanted to thank you all for working through this text with me without becoming hostile because we have some disagreements. 

I guess I do have a real answer to the question.
When you kiss someone, it starts things.  Things between the two of you, things inside you.  It is a way of forming an attachment that will be difficult to break.  Think about every "we just broke up" story you've ever heard.  Stories like that are not to bad before kissing starts.  The heart wrenching stories of pain and agony over breaking up have all happened after they've started the kissing hugging part of the relationship.
So you ask yourself - do I like this person enough to risk the hurt if she turns out to be a jerk?  Or just not the right one?  Do I know them enough to have an idea of if they're a jerk or not?   After the kissing starts, it hurts more to break up.  If she dumps you, it hurts more.  If you have to dump her, it's harder and yes it hurts more.
Now, pain can be a part of life, and I believe that everyone here will probably have their heart broken at least once as part of the mortal experience.  That said, you might want to have a clear understanding that the person you're about to kiss, is worth it.  You don't have to have a perfect crystal-ball understanding - that doesn't exist.  Just that she's worth the risk of being hurt over.  
Lots of people have "I remember my first love, and how much it hurt when I found out it wasn't meant to be" stories.  But you don't have to have a story like "I was such an idiot - what on earth was I thinking?  To get so hurt over her?  Dang was I stupid."
So make your choice and come back and tell us next week how it went.

The party line from The Strength of Youth', which I strongly believe to be divinely inspired is: no passionate kissing. Which I interpret as a quick peck on the lips. Personally, I do not think this is appropriate for the first or second date. Ewww! Only if you think the guy could be the 'one' on maybe the third date..maybe. No holding hands until maybe 3rd date. You are trying to assess if you have feelings for this person. Getting physical just muddies the water! You need to think straight. Do you want to end up married to someone because they are a great kisser? Personally, I think you should go grocery shopping with prospective spouses. 

Hi madasahatter,
A good testimony rests on the foundation of knowing what you believe, and why you believe it.  Go through this exercise:
- What do I believe about ordaining women?  
- Why do I believe that?
- If you don't have a good reason, find out what you should believe.
You'd be amazed at how difficult it can be to answer that second question.  You may realize that you have no depths to the issue other than "I believe ordaining women should be ok", and you believe it because "other churches do it".   Push yourself on the 2nd question.  Does it sound like a good reason to believe something?  Can you hear your mother in the back of your head saying "if your friends thought jumping off a cliff was a good thing..."  
Keep in mind, I'm not saying this is your example.  I've gone through the exercise a lot of times across years, and I'm often disappointed with the realization that I just don't have a good reason to believe something I've always believed.  Often I've realized I believe something only because I see other groups saying it's ok.  That's not a good reason.

As I have read and thought about your comments, I can't help but think about the cartoon imagery of a person with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. You know how it goes, both sides whispering different opposing things to the  individual. While in cartoons this imagery may appear funny, in real life however, it is not very fun at all because it causes "Doubt". Sometimes serious doubt, doubt that paralyzes you, doubt that makes you question everything around you down to your own self identity. Which side is right? Which side is better? Which side is telling me the truth? Which side leads me to happiness? If everything I've ever been taught is wrong, then really who am I? Doubt is real. 
It sounds like you are at a crossroads, is your doubt going to destroy you, OR are you going to allow the Lord to help you turn that doubt around and make you stronger than ever. 
Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
You are the not first person to have a faith crisis. You are not the first person to hear, see or read something that appears "troubling" about the church, church history or current policies. You are not alone. In fact there are some of "us" on this very forum who have experienced a faith crisis before. 
At some point you need to make a choice, a real choice... which voices are you going to listen to? Those on your left shoulder or right? You are fence sitting right now, so choose a side. By your own words:
Results of the CHURCH SIDE: 
1. "I found security in the church growing up and was pretty happy."
2. "I still feel the spirit and feel that it's true,"
3. "I want to stay in the church and on a spiritual level I feel like it is the right thing to do,"
Results of the ANTI-SIDE:
1. "made me feel broken"
2. "life seems really dark and meaningless"
3. "I just can't trust it"
 So, what joy, happiness, peace to your soul has all the "anti-mormon stuff" brought you? You sound smart enough to understand why we are advised not to read anti-mormon stuff. If internalized, it breaks us down, takes us to dark places without meaning/hope and creates trust issues... exactly what has happened to you. 
Joshua 24:15 "...choose you this day whom ye will serve...".  
The Spirit trying to pull you back OR the Anti-Mormon stuff?

Conclusion: 
1. Decide to follow the promptings of the spirit that you expressed above in "Results of the CHURCH SIDE"
2. STOP being involved with anti-Mormon stuff (misery loves company)
3. Have faith that the Lord can help you turn this experience into a strength!
4. If you have questions/doubts... ask strong faithful members for faithful answers instead, ask how they deal with complex issues and still remain as strong as ever. 
5. As mentioned above by LP & Tesuji: do your sincere prayers & scripture study to bring the spirit to you on a daily basis. 
6. We are here to help too!
 

God said an earthly probation was necessary, but He never said sinning had to be a part of that learning process.  We did that ourselves.
We know that when Adam and Eve were left alone in the Garden, they were promised that God would return eventually with further instructions.  What if those instructions would have created a situation where Eve's partaking the fruit was done with full understanding of the ramifications and represented a covenant, rather than a product of a satanic deceit?  What if, given a different chain of events in the Garden, the earth and its inhabitants could have been had paradisiacal glory for its entire temporal existence rather than just the last thousand years?  How do we know that mortality had to end through death, rather than through translation as it will in the Millennium?

Yup, and we all sang along too.
https://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/our-primary-colors?lang=eng