yjacket

People by themselves seldom change their ways.  But people with the Lord super-charging them-- they can change.  They can indeed have every filthy spot and horrible crimson stain washes out to be white as snow.  That is the miracle of Christ's atonement.  

Completely 100%.  I have said previously we are required to forgive and forget.  But that forgetting, might just mean we don't have that person in our lives-i.e. we move on from them.
There is the modern idea in church culture that with sex outside of marriage is bad, but that as long as one repents it shouldn't be a factor in a marriage decision-hogwash.
I can come up with plenty of scenarios like that.  
What about a guy who did marijuana and cocaine, and who has now fully repented? Should those prior actions not be taken into account in a marriage decision.
What if the girl had an abortion? Should that not be factored into the marriage decision?
We can play this game all day long, but the truth is that yes actions have consequences and one is choosing an eternal companion to stick by and through thick and thin for the rest of your life and eternity.  One is not expecting a spouse to be perfect (no one is), but there better be a long gap between serious sins.  If it is like well I screwed around with my previous boyfriend a year ago, but I've been to my Bishop I have repented, I'm truly sorry-watch out.  If it was well, you know when I was 16 I was really dumb and messed around with only one guy, I'm now 22 I'm a totally different person now . . .okay maybe.
Actions have consequences.  And if I'm looking for an eternal companion one of the biggest factors is going to be their judgement.  Screwing around with multiple boyfriends shows a severe lack of judgement.  Sure they can repent and be fully forgiven-but that still doesn't negate the fact that they have a severe lack of judgement.  So yeah, I'm going to start having some serious questions about whether this is the right thing to do given their lack of judgement.

Gazing,
Look man, you are choosing an eternal companion, a mate for the rest of your life. Maybe you should break it off, maybe not.  Only God knows the answer to that question.  Don't beat yourself up in the least bit b/c you feel saddened, heartbroken, etc. by what this young woman has done previously.  Sexual relationships outside of marriage is a big deal. It is quite despicable that in today's society more people can't seem to realize fornication and the seriousness of that sin.  Popular culture, media, etc. all makes it seem like it is no big deal and that is rubbish.  It is a big deal-certainly a big enough deal that yes it can cause the re-evaluation of marriage prospects.  
Besides the obvious problems, if this young lady has had multiple sexual encounters, then does she have any STDs? As someone said in another thread, actions have consequences.  
If I can give you any advice in marriage, it is this and the #1 thing I will tell my children-under no circumstance be unequally yolked with your spouse. It is up to you to determine what unequally yolked means.

She is clean in God's eyes, but let's not kid ourselves, having sexual relations changes an individual.  Call it "used chewing gum" (I don't like the analogy) call it whatever you want but there is a reason why God commanded men and women to remain pure and chaste prior to marriage.  I find it despicable that members of the Church would do what they can do make a young man who has lived his life worthily (something to be commended for and honored) feel bad b/c he his having second thoughts b/c his potential spouse did not live like that.
What a sick society we live in.

This is total hogwash.  Are you worthy of her?  Give me a break. What is wrong with this world?  In today's society we castigate the individual who desires for, wants a pure, virtuous wife, who has lived her life as such and is heartbroken when he finds out that his potential mate fornicated prior to marriage.  
And he is the one who is unworthy?  Please, what utter complete rubbish, garbage and hogwash. 
 

It's only going to get much, much worse.  When the outgoing Chair of the California Democratic party stands on stage and says "**** Trump", you know we've got a serious problem.  The level of hatred and civil discourse is pretty bad.  While politics has always been dirty and nasty, there was also an understanding of civil decorum and that has degenerated quite rapidly.

This hearkens to a lesson that is a must-learn if an individual wants any measure of happiness in life.  "Life isn't fair".  It's never going to be fair and any attempts to make life "fair" will simply result in more misery as someone will be inconvenienced in the attempt to make life fair for another individual.
Yeah, it's certainly not fair that those with money have better access to health care than those who don't.  It's not fair that some are born in more "priveleged" places than others, be it country, race, family etc.  Life just quite simple isn't fair and the sooner one understands that concept, the easier life will be.
The beautiful thing about the Gospel is that it teaches us that life isn't fair and that that is okay.  The Prodigal Son, or even the vineyard workers who showed up to work in the evening and only worked 2 hours and got paid the same amount as those who worked the entire day. The beauty of the Gospel is that in the end, God will make it right and no one will claim "that's not fair".
 

The Church doesn't have a standing list of what styles of swimsuit are appropriate, but General Authorities have given specific counsel to avoid clothing that doesn't cover the stomach or that is low cut. Years ago, the Church did have a specific guideline to not wear "two-piece" swimsuits, meaning bikinis. 
One-piece swimsuits certainly aren't the only style of modest swimsuit, and all one-piece swimsuits aren't necessarily modest (you can buy plenty of one-piece suits that have cutouts or dip really low in the front, for example), but they're one style that tends to cover more skin than some other styles.

This hearkens to a lesson that is a must-learn if an individual wants any measure of happiness in life.  "Life isn't fair".  It's never going to be fair and any attempts to make life "fair" will simply result in more misery as someone will be inconvenienced in the attempt to make life fair for another individual.
Yeah, it's certainly not fair that those with money have better access to health care than those who don't.  It's not fair that some are born in more "priveleged" places than others, be it country, race, family etc.  Life just quite simple isn't fair and the sooner one understands that concept, the easier life will be.
The beautiful thing about the Gospel is that it teaches us that life isn't fair and that that is okay.  The Prodigal Son, or even the vineyard workers who showed up to work in the evening and only worked 2 hours and got paid the same amount as those who worked the entire day. The beauty of the Gospel is that in the end, God will make it right and no one will claim "that's not fair".
 

You repent to God when you break commandments (which damages our relationship with God) and want to become reconciled unto God (Jacob 4:11 and many other verses).  Being reconciled to God includes being forgiven. Forgiveness from God only comes on condition of repentance.  The church talks of repentance mainly in that context, but the principle is not limited to that context.

If you violate the rules/expectations of another person and thus offend them (and how you do that may not even be a sin to God) and want to be reconciled with them, you need to follow the same process (recognize, regret, confess, ask forgiveness, make restitution, commit to not doing it again) but in that case it is not about forgiveness, God commanded forgiveness is to be given if you repent or not.  Repenting makes it easier for somebody to forgive, but it is not required.  It is about restoring the relationship, if you want to restore it.
The victim gets to decide if and when the relationship is reconciled in their view and it will depend a lot on what the perpetrator does (or doesn't do) to fix what they broke.  Forgiveness and vengeance can't exist together, if a person is vengeful, they have not forgiven and the greater sin is in them.
 

There is forgiveness and then there is reconciliation, don't lump them in as one thing. A person who is wronged can choose to forgive if the offender repents or not, but reconciliation can only happen when there is both forgiveness by the offended and real repentance by the offender.

There is also a difference between divine forgiveness and mortal forgiveness.  Divine forgiveness comes only on condition of repentance, and when received it absolves us of the stain of sin.  God 'renumbers them no more' only after somebody has truly repented.  Divine forgiveness includes both forgiveness and reconciliation.  We mortals however are commanded to forgive whether the person repents or not, and our forgiveness doesn't absolve them of their guilt.  When somebody has not repented, neither God or us should pretend it never happened.
Nobody has a right to our love and to our trust, nobody has a right to have a certain kind of relationship with us just because they had that with us in the past.  Those are privileges that must be earned, and they can be lost, and they can be earned back again.  Consider a more extreme example:  you find out your babysitter has been sexually abusing your child.  You can forgive them and let go of your anger, but that doesn't mean you let them keep babysitting you child and you can both forgive them and banish them from your life.  The thing is you are not banishing them out of anger, hate, revenge etc. but because you children's well being requires it.  Likewise a person can forgive a cheating spouse but still divorce them when circumstances make it the best thing to do for all concerned. 
Forgiving somebody helps create an environment that encourages the sinner to repent and gives them hope that reconciliation is possible, but they still have to do the work of repenting for that to happen. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/09/repentance-and-forgiveness-in-marriage?lang=eng&_r=1
"There are situations where forgiveness does not mean staying in a relationship that is abusive or dangerous. There are some scenarios where divorce may be the proper choice."

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/madison-u-sowell_measuring-flour-forgiveness/
“To forgive another” does not imply “to disregard judgment.” Certainly forgiving another does not mean that we hold in contempt the law of justice. In fact, Doctrine and Covenants 64:11 affirms that the one who forgives should embrace judgment and hold the transgressor—especially, I would argue, the serious offender—accountable for what he or she has done."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/03/forgiving-oneself?lang=eng
"Forgiving a sin does not mean excusing it. When we forgive a sin, we neither say it is OK nor that payment will not be required. "
While this is not from an LDS source, I think there is a lot of excellent points made here:
 

JJ,
Big difference between religious requirement and covenant vs. governmental requirement. With religion, I make a choice, I can opt in (i.e. make a covenant) and then I need to fulfill my obligations.  By your reasoning, tithing is theft b/c one is obligated to pay tithing in order to obtain a Temple Recommend.  We are told that to obtain exaltation we need to be Temple worthy and part of being temple worthy is paying tithing.
We do not absolutely in no way make a covenant with the government.  Simply because I was born in this country does not a covenant make.  There is no "social contract" that I signed, no oath of allegiance I made.
You are really, really confusing the issues.  More free by being under governments thumb???  Right, b/c you can back out of an agreement in being a citizen??
What are you smoking?
It is very, very simple.  I don't pay my taxes to Fed Gov. and I go to jail. Period.  That is theft, i.e. someone sticks a metaphorical gun in your face and says do what I say or you lose you ability to do anything.  When I take a job, I don't enter into a contract with the government, it's between me and the person who wants to hire me and nobody else.
UO not voluntary?  Read wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order
Membership in the United Order was voluntary, . . .Also read up on what happened, it pretty much every instance it failed within a couple of years.
Personally, for me the United Order is one of the very few things where I'm not sure exactly what God wanted JS to do. It doesn't give me heartburn, it's just that I've studied basics of economic action quite in depth (not economics per say but the underlying root driving of economics-i.e. the interactions between individuals) and the UO is something I can't make much sense of. Maybe it was revealed to demonstrate how things would be run in the Celestial Kingdom but not in this fallen state.  
I do know that in our current fallen state anything that tries to implement anything remotely like Socialism or the UO is doomed to fail.  Pretty much every single instance of the UO failed within 2-3 years.  The real story of Thanksgiving is the story of a failed Socialist experiment.  The Pilgrims implemented a communal/socialists society and they ended up starving themselves to death b/c of it.  This idea that the Indians saved the Pilgrims is utter rubbish.  The had a communal food storage that everyone was to donate their food to and everyone could take from.  It was a requirement as part of living in their society.  And they starved b/c of it-it was only after they ripped up that covenant and allowed everyone to keep what they worked for and planted that the next harvest was bountiful . . . and thus Thanksgiving. 
Every single instance in human history where Socialism has been tried has failed and failed miserably.
We have a much more complex society today-so the level of socialism it can handle is greater than just simply farming.  This isn't hard, it's actually a very well known phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons.  It boils down the the simple fact that if you don't personally own something, you don't take care of it as well as if you personally owned it. It's why people throw trash on the side of the road and I guarantee those 500 dollar fines do jack-really when was the last time you heard of someone being fined for throwing trash on the road?
So at a fundamental level, as a society we can handle more deadweight b/c we have more base productivity-if 1000 people are working and 10 are living off the 1000, well society can still handle it.  If 500 people are working and 500 are slackers, society might be able to handle it.  Eventually, if the level of socialism becomes great enough then you have 300 working and 700 slacking and society ends up in a death spiral. Now if those 300 are producing enough for 2000 people and the 300 can still get ahead enough things might be okay.
But fundamentally at some point . . .and it always happens with socialism, the 300 hard workers say screw this, why work so hard and let everyone else have my labor? Socialism at a fundamental level is pure absolute evil-it robs people of their dignity, their self-worth, their integrity, and ultimately it robs them of one of the most important things-the human spirit.
That's why I don't know why the UO, maybe it is a cautionary tale for us, maybe God is trying to warn us that even one of His Prophets who was called to set up a communal type society couldn't make it work given our fallen nature.  Maybe it's a warning against all types of socialism, maybe it's a type of things that are to be in the Celestial Kingdom or in the Millennium.  IMO the only way that the UO can ever work is for each individual to completely give up their ego, any type of coveting, to be unwilling to mooch off of others-except in times of emergency, to not think ill of one's neighbor because you see him working less. There are a lot of natural human emotions and reactions that each and ever individual must fully give up for any UO to have any hope of success.
Truly, the UO can only work in a 100% God-like people.

Balkanization of people is just the history of the world. Countries became countries b/c the people inside the borders of that country have extremely similar ethnicity, background, culture, etc.  
In general bad things happen when you try and shove different cultures together over mass groups of people . . .it just doesn't work well.  The Civil War, essentially you had two completely different countries trying to live under one banner.  They shared a common background of being colonies of GB, speaking english and fighting off GB but that was about it. The religion of the South was different than the North (baptists vs. Catholics and protestants), the underlying culture was drastically different (slavery vs. non-slavery . .. agricultural vs. industrial) and a war was fought over it.
Look at Iraq-it really should be three countries with the Kurds in the north, and Sunnies and Shias splitting the rest but after WW2, the European powers thought it would be a great idea to literally draw lines in the sand and call this box Iraq-big problems. It's one of the reasons WW2 started with Hitler.  After WW1 lines were drawn and ethnic Germans were put into countries like Poland. Part of the reason Hitler invaded those countries was to reclaim the parts that were ethnically Germans.
The history of the world is full of examples were the combination of different cultures ends up leading to really bad things-generally war or civil war. And the history of the world has examples of what happens when countries do not maintain cohesion in their underlying culture . . .they disintegrate.  
And the same thing will happen to the US, this idea of a huge melting pot is a myth.  Up until 1964 the immigration policy in the US was very strictly limited to European countries and cultures.  The individuals that came assimilated pretty quickly and within a generation there was almost no way to tell that they were immigrants.  That is quite different than it is today.  Immigrants today aren't giving up their culture and assimilating, they are bringing their culture here and saying "you must accept my culture or you are racist".  That will lead to very bad things in the future.  
All you need to do to see the future is to look at the Manchester bomber.  He was born in England to Libyan immigrants.  His name is Salman Abedi.40 years ago, with assimilation his parents would have named him Sal or Saloman or something British, but no, they immigrated to England and wanted to make England like were they came from so he has a name Salman . . .even though he was born in England he isn't English-it's a cultural takeover.  And unless people wake up to what is occurring right under their noses, more of this crap happens until you are the minority in a country you grew up in and your ancestors grew up in.
And I guarantee you other cultures aren't so understanding of minorities as modern Western cultures are. 

It used to (and for a significant portion it still does), but the true South is dying real fast-with those "da#n Yankees" telling us how to run our business.  Apologies to the cuss-filter, but dang Yankees, just doesn't have the same ring to it :-).
Shoot I remember growing up a local city had the KKK march through town (only 25 years ago . . .not a fan of the KKK obviously), well that town today is now significantly Muslim.  Confederate monuments all over the South are being packed up and shipped off to museums.  It is a literal white-washing of history.  History is written by the victors and the South was able to maintain a good bit of it's history, but over the last 25 years it has been destroyed.
Up until probably the mid-80s-90s, the majority of the South was Democrat, or Dixicrats but as the Dems became more and more liberal, eventually the entirety of the South switched from Ds to Rs. The south's ideology didn't change, but the party that represented that ideology did change. For the most part in the South, Ds and Rs are split heavily on race. Most whites are R and most blacks are D.  What is happening in the South is that it is a magnet for jobs and migration.  A significant portion of the country from California to New England and the Northeast are coming South to get away from their stupid state governments and economies.  Unfortunately a lot of these transplants bring their northern/western ideology with them . . .the very same ideology that made their own state crap to live in.
These cities that had Confederate monuments are now majority black and as have black mayors, etc. and they are the ones taking down the monuments. Slavery was absolutely the worst decision this country ever made-if it weren't for slavery a lot of things would be very, very different.  The interesting thing about the Civil War and that time period was that the North was just as racist as the South-Black Codes for example.  Ultimately, the Civil War boiled down to political power rather than slavery.  Slavery was just a convenient excuse.  The North hated blacks, and didn't want them to be apart of their society-but they hated the South even more for things like the 3/5ths compromise that gave the South additional representation in Congress for slaves. It wasn't so much slavery, but the political power that the Southern states were able to hold b/c of slavery and the vast differences in opinion about the proper roles of government (the vast majority of small government founders came from the South).
So if you take down a statue of Robert E. Lee, why not take down a statue of Jefferson or Washington?  I imagine in my lifetime I will see the sandblasting of Stone Mountain in GA with the Southern heroes of the Civil War, Lee, Davis, Jackson.  It's very similar to what the Taliban and ISIS does in the middle east, but in the name of SJW we've got to take down those monuments!
Unfortunately most people just do not understand the absolute utter hell the South paid for losing the war (and they came close a couple of times to winning amazingly enough) and Fort Sumner was a much more complex issue were the South was politically outmaneuvered and ended up firing the first shot (even though prior to that they sent ambassadors to Lincoln to work out a peaceful resolution and he refused to see them). They lost everything and while it was nice that the North didn't execute any of the generals, Reconstruction was just horrible.
 

I appreciate honest attempts to tackle issues that some find troubling. I consider this to be just such an attempt. But I would like to see an article that has a few features:
It doesn't label questions as "tough questions". There are no "tough" questions. There are questions we can answer with confidence, and questions we cannot. In the latter group, there are questions we can reasonably speculate on and questions on which we cannot reasonably speculate. But none of these are "tough". Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or else he was not. That really is a binary choice. Those who claim otherwise are invariably those who want to grant Smith some prophetic abilities or insights here and there, but also want to maintain a hedge of deniability so they can keep issues at arm's length if they find them offensive (or, more likely, someone else finds them offensive) by saying, "Oh, well, you know, a prophet's only a prophet when he's doing the prophet thing." Joseph Smith was commanded by God to practice polygamy, and he did so under direct authorization from God -- or he was a liar. It's one or the other. No squishy middle ground.
Don't hide behind excuses or faux ignorance, claiming that polygamy is "puzzling". It is not puzzling. It's straightforward. Some men were allowed, or even commanded, to take multiple wives. In some cases, those "wives" were sealed to the man for eternity, but not married in this life; in other cases, they were indeed fully married, both for time and for eternity. In the former case, at least among the righteous practitioners, there is no strong evidence that the sealings were carnally consummated. In the latter cases, sometimes they were, sometimes not. Again, this is straightforward, not puzzling. It's weak sauce to claim we have no modern context for such things. The opposite is clearly true; many places on Earth still sanction polygamy (e.g. African and Middle Eastern countries). Modern sex perversions have made extramarital couplings common and even accepted in so-called "open" marriages. Some even practice what they term "polyamory", which combines polygamy with polyandry in a sexual game of musical beds. To suggest that we moderns are just too naive and unfamiliar with such exotic sexual practices is, well, laughable. The bottom line is: Quit apologizing for plural marriage (a better term than polygamy). It's a historical fact, and it is what it is. If you are a faithful Latter-day Saint, you need not love or relish the idea, but you do need to accept that it was the will of the Lord at the time. Today, it is not. In the eternities -- we don't know. Strong arguments might be formulated in either direction, but all such arguments are speculative. Until we receive revelation on the matter, we will not know. And we certainly will not be receiving any revelation on that matter until we stop hyperventilating and averting our eyes every time the subject is brought up.

Yep, that's it. I have also often heard non-LDS Christians claim that Peter "executed" them, which is a staggeringly ignorant thing to say. From a modern LDS point of view, the whole thing is clear and obvious: Ananias and Sapphira entered into a covenant of consecration similar to the united order. After doing so, they intentionally broke their own covenants, then lied to Peter's face about the matter. The Lord held them to the terms of their covenant. I can only hope that, in losing their lives, they saved their souls.

I will point out that true full forgiveness doesn't quite work like that. https://www.lds.org/youth/video/forgive-and-forget?lang=eng
The Lord "remembers no more" our own sins and we are required to do the same with our fellow brothers and sisters. In a marriage this can take time-but if a marriage is to survive this the offended party much eventually forget this grievous sin. The first step is to let the anger, hurt, pain go.  But eventually one must forget this sin took place.
A marriage cannot survive if in 5 years time every time the spouse goes on a business trip she is wondering if he is messing around.  Or if when they get into an argument in the back of her head she is thinking-"you scumball, you cheated on me and I forgave you/stayed with you, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to xyz".
I'm not saying that forgetting has to occur immediately as it will take time; but if it doesn't occur the marriage will continue to be broken. It is one of the reasons why divorce is justified in cases of adultery; marriage is built on the ability to forgive and forget your spouses trespasses.  And for most people forgetting that your spouse committed adultery is a very large task. If in one's heart the only way to forget and forgive the adultery is to divorce-then as much as it pains me to say it divorce is probably the better option. Again IMO it is one of the reasons why Jesus said adultery is an acceptable reason for divorce.
It's where I personally decided a long time ago that heaven-forbid my spouse ever does this to me, I will forgive and I will forget the 1st offense.  The scriptures say that a man returning to sin is as a "dog returning to his vomit", the 2nd time I will forgive and forget without their presence in my life.

First off,  this didn't come on "suddenly." It's been building a long time.   Secondly,  I can almost guarantee you that he's into pornography.  He displays all the signs. I know since I was addicted to the filth for 47 years.  I just didn't have sexual relations outside of marriage. He can change if he wants to, but he must change for the right reasons.   Otherwise,  he will continue to have problems.  It can be overcome;  I know because I'm completely clean and have a strong marriage.  However,  you need to be prepared for some serious shocks and pain.  His bishop needs to know everything if your husband hopes to overcome this.  If he's serious about saving the marriage, and changing,  he will need your help.  It will be a long, tough road, but it can be done. 

It used to (and for a significant portion it still does), but the true South is dying real fast-with those "da#n Yankees" telling us how to run our business.  Apologies to the cuss-filter, but dang Yankees, just doesn't have the same ring to it :-).
Shoot I remember growing up a local city had the KKK march through town (only 25 years ago . . .not a fan of the KKK obviously), well that town today is now significantly Muslim.  Confederate monuments all over the South are being packed up and shipped off to museums.  It is a literal white-washing of history.  History is written by the victors and the South was able to maintain a good bit of it's history, but over the last 25 years it has been destroyed.
Up until probably the mid-80s-90s, the majority of the South was Democrat, or Dixicrats but as the Dems became more and more liberal, eventually the entirety of the South switched from Ds to Rs. The south's ideology didn't change, but the party that represented that ideology did change. For the most part in the South, Ds and Rs are split heavily on race. Most whites are R and most blacks are D.  What is happening in the South is that it is a magnet for jobs and migration.  A significant portion of the country from California to New England and the Northeast are coming South to get away from their stupid state governments and economies.  Unfortunately a lot of these transplants bring their northern/western ideology with them . . .the very same ideology that made their own state crap to live in.
These cities that had Confederate monuments are now majority black and as have black mayors, etc. and they are the ones taking down the monuments. Slavery was absolutely the worst decision this country ever made-if it weren't for slavery a lot of things would be very, very different.  The interesting thing about the Civil War and that time period was that the North was just as racist as the South-Black Codes for example.  Ultimately, the Civil War boiled down to political power rather than slavery.  Slavery was just a convenient excuse.  The North hated blacks, and didn't want them to be apart of their society-but they hated the South even more for things like the 3/5ths compromise that gave the South additional representation in Congress for slaves. It wasn't so much slavery, but the political power that the Southern states were able to hold b/c of slavery and the vast differences in opinion about the proper roles of government (the vast majority of small government founders came from the South).
So if you take down a statue of Robert E. Lee, why not take down a statue of Jefferson or Washington?  I imagine in my lifetime I will see the sandblasting of Stone Mountain in GA with the Southern heroes of the Civil War, Lee, Davis, Jackson.  It's very similar to what the Taliban and ISIS does in the middle east, but in the name of SJW we've got to take down those monuments!
Unfortunately most people just do not understand the absolute utter hell the South paid for losing the war (and they came close a couple of times to winning amazingly enough) and Fort Sumner was a much more complex issue were the South was politically outmaneuvered and ended up firing the first shot (even though prior to that they sent ambassadors to Lincoln to work out a peaceful resolution and he refused to see them). They lost everything and while it was nice that the North didn't execute any of the generals, Reconstruction was just horrible.
 

The sad thing is that in Seattle, like everywhere else in America... a lot of parents are happy to let somebody else take care of their children.
Summer vacation is coming on and parents all around me are panicking... Oh no!  We have to take care of our children again!  I find it disgusting.
I get lots of questions - where do you send your kids for camp?  Uhm, I don't.  They roam the neighborhood with their bikes, go fishing in the backyard, catch frogs and lizards, shoot their BBs at cans, play hoops in the neighborhood court, climb trees.......  WHAT?  You let your kids roam the neighborhood on their own?  Uhm.  Yes.  I taught them how to survive the great outdoors.  Why, didn't your kids' camp teach them that?

My condolences in going through this absolutely horrific experience.  
Whether you know it or not, in effect your husband and you are already divorced-yes you might still have a piece of paper and a sealing-but in his heart he divorced you.  My guess is that prior to this acting out he had already divorced from you in his heart . . .and you might have also done the same and possibly unknowingly.
I don't know this is the case, but it is something to think about.  For some reason in today's society, once children come along women are expected to become mother's first and foremost and everything they do centers around and revolves around the children. If they don't do everything and anything they can for their children they are a "bad mom" and no woman wants to have the thought of being a "bad mom".  So what inevitably happens in many families is that as soon as children come along the husband takes a backseat to the children.  He is expected to play second fiddle with the woman he married to his children.  This is so completely backwards it's utterly stunning that people buy into this myth.  Children are and should be appendages to the marriage not the marriage focus itself.  
Since both men and women in today's society come into marriage without a dang clue as to what it actually means to be married (mainly b/c cultural messages of marriage are so completely messed up), it is no wonder why men seek the arms of another woman outside marriage, it's not wonder why women feel overwhelmed and completely stressed out at the thought of raising 1 or 2 children! Heaven's to Betsy our grandparents raised 6-7+ in a much less convenient society, yet we can't handle one or two. 
Married today simply means well you don't mess around with other people and that's really about it-when it goes so, so much more beyond that. The proper attitude for both parties is to work together, to strengthen each other, to work together as a team to build something bigger than each person individually. To know that the most important person on this earth is their spouse, whatever their strengths and weaknesses. To know that the marriage existed before children, to know that the most important thing you can teach your children is that mom&dad love each other and that 1st and foremost they are husband&wife, and to know that when the children are gone husband&wife will remain.
Now your husband certainly did somethings that are worthy of excommunication and worthy of divorce. Does that mean he will be excommunicated or that you should get a divorce, maybe-maybe not. I would caution against doing anything rash, but certainly the answer to the question of a legal divorce can only come from God. A lot of that really depends on how penitent he truly is and how he approaches this.  
The Bishop needs to be made aware of this physical affair with this other church member and your husband and certainly go to your Bishop for counseling regarding this issue; but remember your husband's sins are not your sins. You cannot control your husband like a little child.  Unfortunately in today's society we see too much of this controlling aspect out of spouses and it doesn't lead anywhere good. I would not deactivate his accounts for him nor delete them.  If he isn't penitent-he'll just create additional ones later on and then you'll always be wondering well did he create another one or did he not.  And in fact you controlling the situation will simply make him more resentful towards you. If you leave them up, then more likely than not if he returned to his activity he would do it on the same account and it will be easier for you to find this stuff out. If you leave them up and he out of his own volition decides to take them down, then he is recognizing his own problem, taking ownership of it and working to resolve it.
It's like porn filters; they are good for ensuring that kids and innocents don't find their way into something bad; but for someone who is already on it they will find away around it b/c they aren't taking ownership of the problem, someone else is and until they take ownership of the problem and fix it themselves they will always find a way around.
Take this as an opportunity for some real introspection on marriage, what you want it to look like and how it can look better; Have you set more of your energies towards work, career, children over you husband? Have you been too controlling? How have you tried to become one with your husband in the past? How can you do better in the future?
I can't say this strongly enough-nothing you have done in the past regarding your marriage excuses his behavior nor gives him the right to do what he did.  His sins are his own and he must fully repent of them.  
He will need the Atonement of Jesus Christ now more than ever before in his life.  And by the same token you will need the power of the Atonement now more than ever. Not to repent of sins, but to forgive. Forgiveness does not mean consequences are not attached to the sin (i.e. you may end up divorced), but forgiveness does mean that the hurt, bitterness, and anger are taken away.

And GOOD RIDDANCE it would be when we finally get out of BSA.  My only hope and prayer is that the new Church program (which I would expect to be a worldwide program and not just an America program) will have a lot of teaching on making Men out of Boys in the mortal world and not just the eternal future.  The world needs spiritually upright and moral boys with natural world skills to provide for their families.  When the Men are strong in masculinity, the Women become strong in femininity, especially, Motherhood.  We should strive to have a situation where women won't HAVE to leave home to provide for their families except for extreme circumstances.  This kind of thinking is now considered "radical".  We need to bring it back to "normal".
I'm teaching Bear Scouts Super Science this month.  I can teach Super Science just as well without needing an "adventure belt loop" to go with it.
 

I think it speaks more to a properly run program.  Done right, every boy coming out of the 11-year-old program should be 1st class rank.  Once you get to that point, except for the Eagle Scout project to advance in rank you really only need to earn merit badges (a total of 21).  Generally speaking if you attend a BSA scout summer camp you can earn 5 merit badges in a week there.  In 4 years that's 20, once you hit Life you can start working on your Eagle project and that's doing nothing else.
For a moderately motivated young man and an okay troop they should easily get Eagle by age 15. For a very well run troop getting Eagle by 13-14 should not be uncommon.
Once you pass a requirement you don't get "tested" on it again until you Boards of Review and up until your Eagle BoR they are pretty basic and you are specifically told by BSA that it is not a test.
If you talk about gundecking requirements, complain about today's modern "everyone gets a trophy" culture b/c that is the exact same culture that leads to "gundecking".
But again in a very well run troop, getting Eagle by 14 should be pretty common.

I think it speaks more to a properly run program.  Done right, every boy coming out of the 11-year-old program should be 1st class rank.  Once you get to that point, except for the Eagle Scout project to advance in rank you really only need to earn merit badges (a total of 21).  Generally speaking if you attend a BSA scout summer camp you can earn 5 merit badges in a week there.  In 4 years that's 20, once you hit Life you can start working on your Eagle project and that's doing nothing else.
For a moderately motivated young man and an okay troop they should easily get Eagle by age 15. For a very well run troop getting Eagle by 13-14 should not be uncommon.
Once you pass a requirement you don't get "tested" on it again until you Boards of Review and up until your Eagle BoR they are pretty basic and you are specifically told by BSA that it is not a test.
If you talk about gundecking requirements, complain about today's modern "everyone gets a trophy" culture b/c that is the exact same culture that leads to "gundecking".
But again in a very well run troop, getting Eagle by 14 should be pretty common.

The Boy Scouts of today and the Boy Scouts of 45 years ago are two different organizations with a common background.   The idea of homosexual scout masters and transgender  scouts would have been laughed at when I was a kid.  Todays scouting organization is becoming more about political correctness and appeasing the communist left.  Correct Christian morals and standing on principles has taken a back seat to political correctness.