Daybreak79

This person is probably married with 4 kids by now.

Exactly.  
Doctrinally: Little or no problem. God has allowed/commanded it before, so I see no reason why he may not do so again. Many of my ancestors 4-6 generations ago practiced polygamy. It was difficult for them, but many things are difficult for many people. That doesn't make them wrong.
 
Personally: Moderate to serious problem. Not mainly for myself -- I'm pretty philosophical about the issue -- but the most important women in my life tend to despise and be terrified by the very idea of plural marriage. As far as I personally am concerned, frankly, I cannot think of any woman that would want to be married to me, especially as a plural wife. So I doubt it would touch me personally at all, though it would immediately affect many of the people I love most, e.g. my children.
  
Doctrinally: Very serious problem. This would disturb me greatly, because it runs so completely counter to my understanding of the very essence and meaning of the Patriarchal Priesthood. I acknowledge that the Priesthood is, from my perspective, the power of Jesus Christ, and Priesthood authority emanates from him, so he gets to do whatever he wants with it, give it to whomever he chooses, etc. I also acknowledge that women have always exercised the authority of the Priesthood; as Elder Oaks explained, what other kind of divine authority can there be? So I might be able to get over it. But it would challenge the foundations of my understanding of Priesthood, and by extension my understanding of the nature of our very existence as men and women and our roles in the eyes of God.
 
Personally: Minor. If you discount the enormous doctrinal problems such a thing would present to me, I would not actually have much personal issue with it. If I could get past the doctrinal issues and find a way to harmonize my understanding with this hypothetical OD3, I doubt I would find it otherwise objectionable.
  
Doctrinally and personally: Probably fatal. This so completely violates my understanding of the mind and will of God that, to be honest, I would probably require an overwhelming and utterly irrefutable revelation to continue.
  
Doctrinally: Extremely serious, possibly fatal. This is utterly unlike anything I have read in scripture or seen historically. The Lord simply does not deal with the nations of the earth in this manner, requiring his people to come out in open rebellion. They either flee the oppression or put up with it until the Lord sees fit to deliver them, either through confounding their enemies or allowing his people to be destroyed. Like #3, this would probably require a personal and irrefutable revelation before I would accept it.
 
Personally: Serious. We don't even comprehend what we stand to lose if we destabilize our governments. It would be foolish in the extreme, unless we are literally being persecuted to death or prison and we have no other recourse. In addition, I can think of precious few things I consider to be more despicable and disgusting than a disloyoal traitor. But if I overcame my doctrinal objections and decided it was of God (see "personal and irrefutable revelation" above), I am not sure how I could then disobey what I thought of as the divine word.

Odd class, odd person, a lot of things are odd here

My classroom of second graders this year... they're not what I would call the bad class and the group does not contain any particularly awful students, but it's such, to use a euphemism, an interesting mix! I have spent quite the time asking other teachers for input and insight into these kids! Not the typical challenge teachers think of, but certainly a challenge!
 
My maternity leave sub, a woman who retired several years ago after nearly 40 years of teaching but who realized her triplets will be soon graduating from high school and wanting to go on missions and therefore figured she'd pick up some sub jobs, messaged me today for chatting and confessed this was the oddest and most challenging class she recalls having in her career.
 
I'm not crazy! My class is an odd class!
 
 

To emphasize that it should not be made of sheet metal, which would reduce its insulative value.

Try not to buy #5 alone, or the cashier might get suspicious.

They're an important part of your food storage.

Most of the people who I've seen have issues with the use of "adieu" have never had first-hand experience attempting to translate words between languages.
Generally speaking, translation isn't an exact science. Your better translators will understand this and so will frequently use "close enough" words rather than attempting to force a translation for a word or concept that doesn't exist in the language they're trying to translate things into.
In this sense, "adieu" is likely being used as a "close enough" word because the sentiment expressed on the plates didn't have a proper modern-day equivalent.

Link to a Mormon Bishop's Guidebook - Click HERE   
[Over 50 pages of material] 
Simple tips, written by a recently released Bishop.  One man's attempt to help those who lead. 
 
From the first page:  
"Early in my calling I found myself wishing the church had a handbook, or guide, just for Bishop’s.  Yes, the church has handbooks, and Handbook 1 is for Stake Presidents and Bishop’s.  However, they are designed for a broad worldwide church, designed to help a Bishop in Cape Town, South Africa as well as one in Anchorage, Alaska.  I was looking for more down to earth, rubber meets the road guidance.  
 
I believe I could have been much more effective if I didn’t have to walk the ‘school of hard knocks’ that first year.  A little help would have gone a long way.  I get it, you need to experience many things yourself.  Just a little help though, up front, would have made me more effective and helped me be a better minister early in my service."  
This was written to help other leaders who could use a little extra guidance during those early months.  
I've heard from Bishops and Stake Presidents all over the world thanking me for the information.  If there's anything you think that should be added, please let me know. 
 
Enjoy!  
  

I will focus solely on this incorrect application, which another poster specified, regarding a letter of resignation.  There appears to be a movement online telling people that if they write a letter, a strongly worded letter, that the Church will not contact and just remove their name.  This movement, false as it is, specifies if you specify in the letter "Do Not Contact Me" that the Church will not contact, or rather that the Church can not contact you.  This is false.
 
While in a bishopric we received one of these uninformed letters.  We did what we were supposed to, verify the recipient, explain the covenants that will be lost, and to make sure the person understood fully the consequences of their decision. 
 
Imagine, if the Church actually honored this uninformed letter.  How easy it would be for someone, someone who harbors hate for another member, who could easily write a letter in their name, forge their signature, and specify "Do Not Contact Me."  The Church, the bishop or stake president will visit the member within their presiding stake/ward.  If not in their ward, then the information is passed to the right leaders.
 
Common sense goes a long way in the Church regarding the removal of a name from the Church.  There are also policies regarding a letter sent, and every attempt made to contact, and after so many days (I believe 90) the name will be removed if all efforts of contact have been accomplished.
 
People who send a letter to Salt Lake, will find that their letter will be sent to their presiding stake president and then their bishop, by which their bishop will seek to verify recipient.  
 
The letters are immaturely written (the copy and paste online ones).  If one wants to remove their name from the records of the Church, simply write your own letter, or the following Sunday (or during the week), meet with the bishop and let them know.  

I am so sorry to hear this, anatess. You have my sincere condolences.
 
I think we all are going to have to get somewhat inured to such things. I think they may become more common. Even the seemingly elect can be led away by the vanities of the world, dressed up to look noble.

I think you're almost 100% wrong. (Maybe 98%.)
 
If someone is being kept from receiving saving ordinances or such blessings, then yes, he absolutely has a right and a need to know why. But there is no "right" to being called to be a bishop. God calls whom he calls.
 
Why the 2% wiggle room? Because if my name were ever submitted for such an office and rejected, I would very much want to know why. It would not be my right to know why, but I would be curious. So in acknowledging that I would want to know (and frankly, I would never seek after any such leadership calling, because I am not an idiot or a masochist, but I would still want to know why I was rejected from consideration), I can't quite say I'm 100% opposed to what you say.

Dennis, I'm not LDS, so you need to help me understand your strong reaction.  You were aghast.  Why?  Most children do not make the decision to be baptized without their parents' approval.  LDS theology does not bar those not baptized in LDS fonts to eternal damnation.  Children cannot become members of the church without their parents approval.  Given all that, why is it so traumatizing to say to a child of gay parents that they cannot be considered for baptism until they are adults?  In fact, if the church were to do as you ask, and eagerly seek our the children of gay parents for baptism, would the LBGT community not be aghast?  "Why," they might ask, "would a church that condemns our lifestyle recruit for baptism from amongst our children?"  It seems the church could not win here.  Yet, you say this policy is what drove you to resign.  Why?

You are over thinking it PC..
 
By this action the LDS gave a big poke in the eye of the "Homosexual Agenda"   You know the one that says the only way you are not a hater, and a bigot is if you embrace our lifestyle.  This group was riding high on success from pushing through gay marriage...  But instead of buckling under to their victory the LDS church doubled downed.  Saying you can change the laws but you aren't changing us or God's word.
 
Needless to say that provoked a reaction.  And that is what you are seeing.

You are allowing your common sense to overcome the knee-jerk PC (sorry) reactionary within, the little voice who insists on (1) being approved of by the cool kids and (2) showing at the top of its (your) lungs how smart and progressive it is.

I'm confused.  How much of a change is this?  Active same-sex involvement has always been a sin in your faith.  Choosing to engage in a civil marriage, to solemnize that sin is a "doubling-down" on the sin, and a rejection of repentance.  So, would not calling such apostasy really be a case of stating the obvious?  As for denying underage children of same-sex parents baptism, I would imagine that the number of such parents willing to see their minors baptized in a church that considers their life choices to be grave sin would be few and far between.  If the child wishes to join, despite his/her parents, or these parents really do not care, asking the candidate to wait until adulthood hardly seems harsh.  Indeed, if the restoration is true, it should be worth waiting for.
 
So...what am I missing?

So many people, including active members, are letting the thoughts and philosophies of the world dictate their thoughts instead of doctrinal and church teachings.
 
Many of the negative comments I've seen on lds discussion boards on facebook have been from members who state they are active, recommend holding members.

One doesn't want to be too dismissive of anyone who turns their back on the gospel.  On the other hand, one can't help thinking of 1 John 2:19:
 
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

So this mass exodus...  Is really just a cleaning up of church records?  So that the records more closely represent what we see in the pews on Sunday?

Most of those people had already left the church.  This just gave them something to stand behind to justify their actions.

And sometimes we need private family time.  If we find ourselves only finding family time through church activities we need to re-evaluate.

You guys need to learn a magical word: "No".
 
"No, I won't go to the barbecue this week.  I want to spend the night with my spouse"
"No, I won't go to addiction recovery class.  I need to stay home and rest."
"No, I won't let you make me feel guilty for taking care of myself and my family."

I understand, especially the part of wanting to be with your family sometimes rather than going to activities all the time. I can relate a lot to that. I've come to the realization that people don't understand how to communicate with people like us (those of us who don't need ward activities to feel close to our ward), so they ask "why weren't you there?" and we feel guilty for missing. Your family is important, especially with a baby on the way.
 
If you feel like your husband's calling is too much, you are very much allowed to voice your opinion in a meeting with you, the bishop, and your husband. We have responsibilities with callings, and if we feel we cannot put in 100% that is necessary for those callings, we are allowed to communicate this. We have to keep an open line of communication about these issues or we do result in just not coming to Church, which I promise isn't the right choice. The Lord wants you there on Sunday, and participating in activities at your level of comfort and availability (this is subjective to all). 
 
I'm pretty "antisocial" (more so introverted) and I don't like the socializing aspect of our culture, but I understand why it is so important. A lot of people need that socialization and constant amount of activities to go to. Then there are people like me, and maybe you, who don't need this and actually don't want it. This is okay. 
 
Voice your concerns (you specifically and your husband) to the appropriate ecclesiastical leader in a honest and heartfelt way (if you haven't already done so). At least that is what I would do if I was in your scenario. 

I don't have a problem with this policy and I have a grown son who is gay and living with his partner.  He has already asked me my thoughts on it.   I can very well understand the position it places on families and the reasoning the Church has made this policy.

Basically it sounds like they're applying the policy that already exists for children of polygamous families, to children in households headed by a gay couple--no baptism until you're 18 and out of the house, and you have to specifically renounce your "parents'" lifestyle.