mordorbund

Or Hobbit.

Or Hobbit.

You SIR...are a gentleman and a scholar I might add.
 
I understand your dilemma and while I find your solution tempting, does not tying a knot in a sock when washing prevent uniform cleaning. I would think that dirt would get trapped in the knot. I would rather have socks on the wrong feet then to have one clean and one dirty sock. 
 
Instead I propose that when donning said socks to hold them open from the top allowing them to hang to the floor. While viewing them from above, gravity will reveal their true nature as they will either curve slightly to the left or the right depending on which foot they belong too. Once their disposition is unveiled you can then done the socks appropriately. 
 
Good luck good sir.

Broken windows theory. If we can't even keep our socks straight, what will become of society?

Just found out lastnight about a sister in the other Ward that meets in our building who is now in our ward. Her family had to put her in a Nursing Home. I am going to request to be her Hometeacher.

I love being a home teacher.  I go every month and make a point to be active in their lives beyond the official visit.  A couple months ago I texted my families and thanked them for letting me be their home teachers.  Such a blessing in my life to be a HT, I hope I am a blessing in their lives.

mrmarklin - Wherein do you presume that HTing excludes electronic communications and technologies and the like. I text my families all the time to check in on them, communicate with them about activities, emergencies, etc. I also visit them in person monthly.

I like how he mixed talk of working together in bipartisan ways and looking past party boundaries, with his lectures and smirking at the republicans, especially that part where he chastised them for not clapping, saying "That's good news, folks!"

Called on a less active Sister and I had the missionaries with me. We knocked on door and she opend it up and said.....come on in. I asked if she was sure she knew who we are....she replied yes..we went inside and visited. Her husband not a member was a over the road truck driver.
Long story short.....6 months later husband was taught the discussions and was baptized and they both are active today.

I love it when asked to do something specific. I've replaced water heaters, cut down trees, brought food, painted, landscaped, given blessings, etc. I love when families I no longer home teach still ask me for help or advice. I think I gained my testimony of HT when I felt wanted. 
 
I think OP wanted experiences of how we've been touched by our HT. I've had many many years with no HT. I never minded. Then I get a good HT that comes every month and keeps his visits short. He still shows he cares by asking the right questions. Right now, we have some health issues in my family. I love that my HT and wife's VT have being going the extra for us lately. At first, I didn't want food brought over, but to tell you the truth, it helps. I cook just fine and my energy level is just fine, but to not have to be concerned about something small is big. 

I was in Ward Council when the funeral of a young member of our ward was being planned. When discussing arrangements for the chairs being setup, the bishop waved it off saying "Bob's the hometeacher, I'm not going to worry about that." It was an inspirational moment for me as I came to understand the HT role in lightening the burden of the bishop. I never looked at HT the same after that.

I guess I have a hard time with the what the other factors are and how they outweigh mothers needs.  I mean in this case the hard part to me is the choice to terminate the pregnancy, before it naturally (and catastrophically) terminates.  The method we choose to do that isn't some how going to make the kid any less dead.  So I have a problem with the 'HOW' its done some how making me less guilty in the eyes of God. (And that is what I meant by Lawyerly)

That sounds awfully lawyerly to me (No offense meant to our resident lawyers).  I would think that once the choice is made/acknowledged that the child will not survive, then the Mother's health and wellbeing would take priority in how that comes about. 

The Church doesn't have a two-tier system for revelation. The prophets and apostles use the same Spirit and gifts available to the newest member. President Hinckley spoke of this matter in his interview with Mike Wallace:
 
 
Elijah was a prophet's prophet, and one of the forms of revelation in his toolbelt is the "still small voice".

And how. I would go further, and say the two are utterly irreconcilable. Neoplatonism, including Aristotelian metaphysics (and many other Greek philosophical concepts), is in many cases antithetical to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

I see quite the opposite, in the sense that it looks like those who say "Oh, well, it's just a subjective experience" are denying the reality of said experience. As TFP points out, all experience is subjective. So if you don't want to succumb to solipsism, don't discount "subjective" experience on that basis.

Fortune.  If I want fame I can use my fortune to buy it.
 
Japanese food or Korean?

False dichotomy :) Landline all the way - I hate people being able to call me anywhere and expect me to be at their beck and call.
 
Italian food or chinese?

In order to be frank, I have always been amazed by the sheer irony of inviting a Christian to read and pray, and the hesitation this invitation excites and the excuses provided (i.e. The Holy Bible never says to pray about spiritual truths or confirmatory bias) as reasons to reject the invitation.  
 
Confirmation bias is especially promulgated by Atheist’s (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/nothing-fails-like-prayer/) with regards to prayer in general as they specify, “Across the world, billions of believers are praying millions of prayers each day; it is hardly surprising that some of them come true just by chance.” Thus, when a Christian (one who professes to believe in prayer) uses the same logic — I esteem it to be ironic.  If a prayer leads to confirmatory bias then the prayer wasn’t sincere indeed.
 
The object of prayer (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/prayer?lang=eng&letter=p) is thus provided, “Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them.” If one is seeking to confirm what they already believe to be true, then they aren’t approaching our Father in heaven with sincerity and to align their will with Gods.  They go before God like the hypocrites with itching ears as provided in our New Testament (2 Timothy 4:3; https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.3?lang=eng#2), “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;” (emphasis added).
 
On the other hand, an individual who has studied, researched, and has felt something to be true and then kneels before their Lord in prayer and humbly petitions (not hoping to be confirmed but to either be confirmed or rejected), “Through my studies, through my personal research, I believe this to be true, is this true?” is different than what I heard on my mission, “Lord, I already know the Book of Mormon is not true, but I have been asked to pray about it; so…I am praying to know if it is true.”  Not surprising this individual returned with a “Yep, it isn’t true and I prayed about it”; although, they never read the Book of Mormon with any real intent and sincerity as we asked, “Did you read the Book of Mormon?” — “No.”
 
My father, when initially introduced to the missionaries (as a young men in his twenties) visited with them for a few weeks.  He woke up one day and decided that when the missionaries come over today I will not invite them in and specify that the Church wasn’t for him.  One of the missionaries provided a promise and that the promise would be fulfilled come Sunday (one week).  My father considered there would be no harm in accepting the invitation and promise believing, come Sunday, the promise would be left unfulfilled and he would be rid of the missionaries. Sunday approached, Sunday came, Sunday went and a few weeks later my father was baptized.  I don’t see any confirmatory bias with the experience of my father’s conversion and prayer. 
 
However, I believe Joseph Smith’s explanation (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.10,13?lang=eng#9) of the first vision is the best example of how to approach God regarding the invitation to pray when he explained, “In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions [which obviously occurs today still], I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” Joseph Smith continues, “At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God.”
 
Let’s actually provide an example in this thread alone regarding different interpretations of the same scripture as I quote you in response to SpiritDragon, “Also, The First Corinthians quote there is taken a bit out of context….” Is this a personal bias to confirm your current theological belief, or is the interpretation provided by LDS prophets and members correct?  Who better to confirm truth then God, or will I come to the truth by listening to the arm of flesh argue their interpretation and why their interpretation is correct?  As for me, the answer is simple, I will study it out myself and then ask God who has promised to answer prayers and whom will not deceive me.
 
As pertaining to the Atheist dogma mentioned regarding prayer in general as a confirmatory bias, I often view this promulgated through this avenue: A family prays their daughter will be healed when sick.  The daughter is healed and feels better.  The family praises God.  The Atheist however profanes, “The doctors did all the work and look at these simple minded folk giving praise to God instead of giving praise to real people who saved their daughter — there was no miracle.” If you have had a prayer answered then you already know you can pray with a sincere heart and with real intent to align your will with God’s will and he will answer.  When a son/daughter of God seeks to align their will with God’s will confirmatory bias is removed because the son/daughter is less concerned with being right and more concerned with honoring their God.

I have it on good authority that it works according to individual righteousness.

Why is that a problem in the context of this thread? The question is, "explain what you believe". Well, we believe because we  have revelation stating as much. Here it is.
 
 
On a more general note, the Gospel Principles lesson referenced in the OP even included some related scriptures for this particular topic. D&C 132:20–23:
 
 
That's the scriptural definition of 'gods' in the sense that Mormons use the term. For more, you can find additional scriptures like D&C 76:59–70:
 

So Satan is not entirely evil? Or Satan does not exist? Or Satan is somehow in a different category of being able to exist even though he lacks the existential element of good?

One good reason to be a Mormon is so that, when you read posts like this, you don't spew your coffee all over your keyboard.

If we're not to judge people at all, then we must trust everyone implicitly.  We should also marry the first member of the opposite sex we see upon coming of marriagable age, since picking one by any other means would require judging.
 
Personally, I try not to judge anyone by the hand they were dealt in life, but I certainly will judge them by what they choose to do with it.

MoE, where would you draw the line in terms of justifiable abortion because of unexpected deformities/illnesses in the fetus itself?  I mean, certainly something that makes the child non-viable or threatens the mother; but couldn't the argument of "the decision to conceive didn't contemplate this development, so abortion is acceptable in this pregnancy" be used to justify the abortion of fetuses that are discovered to be missing a digit, or likely to have CF, or having Down's Syndrome, or carrying a genetic sequence that corresponds to homosexuality?  How do we separate "life is hard, and you deal with it" from "dude--I didn't bargain for THIS!!!"