MrShorty

Time to get the ban hammer out again.

Absolutely! A perversion of the most devilish strain. Must be wiped out! Bonfire of the Vanities! Where is my rack and thumbscrews? 

Lack of appreciating pineapple pizza - gateway drug to apostasy.

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.

Name checks out.

https://conservativememes.com/i/never-be-afraid-to-stand-up-for-what-you-believe-23e5482329bf489697849a4fcb9d3504

Maybe, and I hope that's how it is.  My concern is that if she's really as willing to convert as he suggested, she may very well do so anyway.  Maybe she's not that committed, or maybe she's prioritizing the prospect of marriage over her religion.  Either way, we have folks right here who have demonstrated that there's a middle ground, where both parties can respect each other's beliefs and still be a couple.  If that's still a deal breaker for him, well ok fair enough, and maybe she gets the lion's share of the blame for not having been more open sooner.
But I can't help but wonder... Our friend here seems very, very specific on what his expectations are in terms of a relationship.  Is it possible that she didn't feel secure telling him all the details?  Is it possible that she knows him well enough to know that she'd lose  him if he knew the details of LDS doctrine?  Because the situation now seems to be at a head.  Either she breaks from the LDS church, or she breaks from him.  Those are the options he's given her.  In either case, she's going to lose something precious to her.
That doens't sit well with some of us.

Hence my statement: "If you then judge that difference as being an unreconcilable deal breaker, then let her know you have judged thus, and leave the conversation as a single man."   
Inter-faith marriages are a LOT of work.  I know that first hand, even though I am extremely happily married.  I respect Abram's dedication to his faith.   If he finds the difference to be unreconcilable, he should break up.  

Point taken.
I do think it's worth pointing out that we (meaning the LDS side) have been coming at it form two different points of view.  One side is suggesting there's very little difference, while the other is suggesting there's a BIG difference.  (I'm on the latter).  I think it's important to acknowledge the differences, especially when they're significant.
Protestantism and Orthodoxy both hold the core view of the trinity.  We use a lot of the same language and terms, as someone pointed out earlier, but we mean very different things.  From the Protestant/Catholic view, the LDS doctrine may seem downright polytheistic... and I wouldn't want to have to argue against that.  If someone tossed that accusation my way, I'd probably just shrug and say "so be it."  Meanwhile, from the LDS view, (speaking for myself and my friends with whom I've discussed the issue) the doctrine of the Trinity looks a lot like a philosophical effort to have it's doctrinal cake and eat it too.  (No offense or criticism intended, just making a point). 
So basically that core view is incredibly important, IMHO and it's understandable why it rises to the level of "worldview" and not just "belief" or "doctrine."

At this point there does seem to be an open discussion of the Trinity. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the general counsel that @AbramM has received concerning his girlfriend is to have an open, direct conversation about where she is really at (committed LDS vs. not-committed and open to traditional Christian churches). After that is resolved, @AbramM has indicated he is willing to pursue or leave her, depending on where she is spiritually.
So...if the only purpose of the Trinity discussion here is to get the OP to believe there really isn't much difference between the two beliefs, with no input from his fellow Protestants, then I would suggest that that's odd. The difference is significant. It's so significant there's been the suggestion that LDS Christianity should be seen as a whole new branch, rather than as a Protestant denomination (an Idea I agreed with, btw). Can we say it's that big, and then that it's no big deal?

You're correct, I didn't present the right result, but I wouldn't change my strategy.  The risk that comes with playing always is that if your opponent chooses to only play when they don't have a 0, then I my winnings get diluted toward 0.  My biggest concern, then, is that I do have an opponent that is numerically literate enough to know that occasionally refusing to play when receiving a 0 increases their winnings at the expense of mine. But now we're getting into game theory, and not probability theory.  
So my strategy is to play only when I have a 1 or a 2, resulting in $25 per round.  Assuming one minute per round to play, distribute winnings, and reshuffle, that amounts to about $1,500 per hour, or the equivalent of a $3,000,000 annual salary as a full time position.
Expected values given below.
 

E[Winnngs; Both Play Always] = 0.25 * -100 + 0.25 * 200 + 0.25 * -100 + 0.25 * 200
                                                     = 0.25 * (-100 + 200 + -100 + 200)
                                                     = 0.25 * 200
                                                     = 50
E[Winnings; Me Play > 0, Opp. Play Always] = 0.25 * (0 + 200 - 100 + 200) 
                                                                             = 0.25 * 300
                                                                             = 75
E[Winnings; Both Play > 0] = 0.25 * (0 + 0 + -100 + 200)
                                               = 0.25 * 100
                                               = 25
E[Winnings; Me Play Always; Opp Play > 0] = 0.25 * (0 -100  - 100 + 200)
                                                                            = 0.25 * 0
                                                                            = 0
 
 

I'm trying to think of who this is, and coming up blank. But it's nice to know that (1) I have a friend, and (2) he has a hot wife. Good news for both of us.

@without_you - First, welcome! I'm sorry you're struggling. I haven't read all the responses but what comes to my mind is 'what you feed, grows' so I suggest focusing on your strengths and what you do have/did get. Focus on the positives and choose to be optimistic and trust that things happen when they're supposed to (even if we don't see/understand it). Wishing you all the best! 

It sound to me as if you are too needy.  You are too desperate.  Unfortunately this is a turn off for many people.
Of course, if you could find someone who is just as needy as you are, it might work out. 
In this you probably would need to look at those who may not be the most attractive girl out there, or she may not be the girl that is the cutest one you know.  Instead, you'd probably have to start looking at if the girl has a great attitude, or is a nice person before you consider their looks or attractiveness.  You start to look at the girl for who she is first, rather then the exterior appearance.
My thought is that you should stop worrying about it as strongly as you are.  Instead, focus on being a complete and whole person first.  To me, it sounds as if you suffer from depression or depressive moods.  Because you suffer from this it could be that you feel that finding someone will solve this (and this may be unconscious or in your subconscious even rather than a conscious thought).  You are in love with the idea of being in love.  You feel that if you just could have this issue you can have so much resolved in your life and things would become so much greater.
In truth, it solves nothing.  If you are NOT already happy with yourself, you will NOT be happy with someone else.  You will have a brief period of Euphoria and then you will be just as unhappy as before, except now you will be making someone else unhappy as well.  Instead, focus on being happy with your life and what you have currently.  This does not mean you should stop going to Young Single Adult dances or activities.  You should continue to do so and continue to ask girls out on dates.  You should not obsess about it.
Resolve to do something great with your life or pick up an awesome hobby.  Find something that can make you content with your life.
I am probably an introvert to a degree.  I LOVE books. I LOVE history.  I focused on that.  I was blessed to find the most beautiful girl and get married to her.  Not all are that blessed.  Even when I am not around her I still have things that I enjoy.  I still love history and I love working in history.  When I travel for research, I LOVE doing that.  That does not mean I love her any less, or that I do not miss her, but that I am happy with what I am doing and my life.  If she were gone tomorrow (I expect I will die first, so only hypothetical) I do not think I would have difficulties as I would still have my library of books to read and a LOT of history to still explore.
You need to be a complete person and be satisfied with  yourself.  You still need to strive for marriage, but don't make it such an obsession that it makes you depressed or unhappy.  Do the things necessary to try to find a spouse, but also focus on the good things in life.  Be happy with yourself so that you can make someone else happy, rather than expecting someone else to be the one to make you happy.
I'm sorry that you are feeling so down, unfortunately, the only one that can bring you up at this point is probably you.

Not that I disagree with anything that has been said, but there is a natural tendency for adults to automatically answer questions of children rather than modeling how they can  think for themselves---a skill-set that becomes increasingly more vital the older the child gets, though increasingly absent in today's world.
Granted, some questions and circumstances lend themselves better to teaching how to think rather than what to think, though we don't always avail ourselves of the opportunities to teach the how when age appropriate..
For example, in response to the first question (What are good ways to help me feel strong when I really feel weak/tempted?) One may socratically ask questions like: What ideas have ideas they have already come up with and tried? What has worked and what hasn't, and why? Do some strategies work better than others? Are you strong in some areas of your life? Where does your strength come from in those areas? What makes us weak? Do you involve others in your strengthening strategies--Particularly the Lord?  What happens if you give in to the weakness? Etc.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
 

Well, if you want to know who NCOSE is.... they’re not your right-wing Christian fundamentalists who were the puritans back in the day.  Rather, they got started by social liberal Catholics (even aligned to the DNC) who are feminists trying to counter the sex-positivity slice of the feminist pie.  A lot of them identify as sex-negative feminists which can get confusing because it makes them sound like the old Christian puritans which they’re not.  They tend to hold this modern feminists idea that “there’s a patriarchy and men are either rapists or rapists in training especially in college campuses, women can’t be rapists because they don’t have power in a patriarchy” and this thing about “Just because a woman initiated foreplay doesn’t mean the woman consented to sex”, etc etc.  NCOSE has successfully taken video games out of circulation through their activism because... “they’re a training tool for young men to engage in sexual assault.”
Disclaimer:  I neither agree nor disagree with NCOSE’s ideology.  I just get tired of groups calling my sons rapists in training.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia appears to agree with my interpretation.
Not that Wikipedia is an unimpeachable source, but in matters such as these, it seems to be reasonably reliable. Certainly the taxation issue was involved, but when tied with the representation issue, the South was more inclined to want to count its slaves as people. The compromise gave the South 47 representatives (out of 105; 45%) in the House of Representatives instead of the 33 (31%) they would have had if only free people had been counted.

No insult intended to MrShorty, but I believe this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what was going on. It was the NORTHERN states, not the Southern, who wanted slaves to remain uncounted for population/representation purposes. The South wanted to eat its cake and have it, too, by keeping slaves and then counting them as population to be represented. The North said, in effect, "If you're going to participate in the abhorrent practice of human slavery, you can't double-dip by counting them as population, too." The South would not go for that*, so the "compromise" was reached. But I do get tired of hearing how horrible it is that African slaves were "only counted as 3/5 of a person." That is IMO an ignorant misrepresentation of what was happening.
*I don't really blame the South for not accepting the non-slave-counted population, given that the Southern states were thinly populated (with free people) compared to the Northern states. Refusing to count slaves would have made the South a permanent minority presence in the House.

I consider the electoral college to be the “we are not your darned colonies, sir!” message from the small states to the big states.

Errrm... not to nit-pick but saying 3/5s of a person is a really terrible way of depicting the compromise.  The compromise did not make slaves 3/5s of a person.  They were considered either 100% person by the Northern States or 100% property by the Southern States.  The compromise simply meant that the federal government will only count 3 out of every 5 slaves as taxable or representable not that every slave is now 3/5's of a person - they were still 100% person in the Northern States and 100% property in the Southern States even after the compromise.
 
 

Now you know why it was held in a stuffy brick building in June/July in a mid-Atlantic state.

It is interesting to me how many of the compromises that make up the US constitution are based on this particular problem -- how to balance the representation of small states and large states. The Electoral college is one. The bicameral legislature (with one house's representation based on population and the other house where each state is represented equally. As abhorrent as it is to us, the compromises that allowed slavery to continue and count each slave as 3/5s of a person for population purposes. And, if my memory serves correctly, if the delegates had been too stubborn on any one of these issues, the constitutional convention would have disbanded and who knows what our nation would look like today.

Oh yeah, Canada and Mexico both control everything. lol
 

HOLY COW!!!!
I did not realize Canada would get so much of the vote!

I am not too sure there are any rules against this. It is said we are to obey the law of chastity. Is kissing violating that? Probably not. I have never heard of a straight up kiss requiring a confession to the bishop. As for the same sex/ gay thing. Probably the same rule applies. Have not heard any different. As soon as you leave first base as in hetero relationships then I guess confession is in order. Go ask. You may have a whole new problem on your hands esp if your parents don't know so there's that too. I imagine most bishops will tell your parents if you are a minor.
You may want to approach your parents first if you are a minor. Growing up in a home with bishop and on up level priesthood, I can tell you my father grew rather tired of people lined up to confess stuff that didn't need to. It is an education issue. Im thinking no need but others may think yes go see him bases on the same sex aspect. No one really went there.