jerome1232

Not sure if you read my previous post, but anyway, the only thing that makes our Church true is the ratification by Christ Himself.  At it's most conclusive point, that is the only thing that would make any Church true or false, the validation or lack thereof by Christ.
So far, it sounds to me like you are trying to make a decision rather than seek an answer.  What methodology do you intend to use to seek Christ's validation of your plan to abstain from any denomination?  How will you recognize His answer?  Alternatively, do you have a methodology to determine Christs ratification, or lack thereof for the various denominations?

The point is obvious to anyone with an ounce of logical sense, and it is not that homosexuality == pedophilia. The point is that if God "gave" the OP homosexual attractions, then God also "gave" pedophiles their sexual attractions to children. So therefore, if a homosexual is justified in practicing homosexuality BECAUSE God "gave" him/her the homosexual attractions, then by the same logic, a pedophile is similarly justified in practicing pedophilia. I mean, God made the pedophile just as surely as he made the homosexual.
This is not an argument that says that homosexuality is evil because it's yucky, just like pedophilia. This is an argument that says that if you accept the logical connection that if God created a person with homosexual desires (a questionable proposition, but one accepted for argument's sake), then the person is justified in satiating that God-given desire, then by the same logic you must grant the pedophile justification for quenching his/her "God-given" desire to sexually interact with children, you must grant the zoophile justification for getting romantic with the pooch, you must grant the necrophile justification for fulfilling his sexual urges with corpses, etc.
This is a form of ad absurdum argumentation, showing that trying to justify an action because "God made me this way" leads to absurd conclusions. That is the obvious point being made.

So, in this answer I’m speaking only for myself; so take it for what it’s worth.
For me, there was no magic moment in the temple where lights blazed, angels sang, and I felt a spectacularly unique, life-changing, “holy cow, this makes EVERYTHING worth it!” moment.  (Certainly, nothing to compete with the passions of a teenager’s raging libido!)  I understand some people do have such experiences, and I respect them.  But, I don’t know that you should count on such a moment.  There are many universal aspects of the Gospel; but the Spirit also reveals itself in ways that are tailored to each of us.
For me, the temple is a piece of an ever-growing puzzle; the solution to which brings peace and growth and security and spiritual power.  For me those benefits come from the assurance of the Holy Spirit that one is living in accordance with God’s will; and that assurance comes at various times and places as I live my life—sometimes, yes, in the temple; but very often outside of it.  
The thing is, though, that as we grow in the Gospel we eventually reach a point where one element of living in accordance with God’s will is making and keeping temple covenants.  So in that regard my temple experiences are an integral part of my overall spiritual life and I wouldn’t trade them for anything.  Just as you believe that a relationship without fulfilling sex would merely be a “half-life”, I would say that spirituality without temple covenants would represent a catastrophic stunting of my walk in God’s paths.
But, if you reject the Church’s teachings on the law of chastity; then temple ordinances will present themselves to you as a stumbling block rather than a stepping stone.  Plenty of folks here will be happy to tell you how you’re wrong!  I will merely suggest that the disconnect will need to be resolved if you expect to maximize the power of your temple endowment.
To suggest that what we are is what God intends us to be, and that whatever we want to do is necessarily what God, in fact, wants us to do; doesn’t really jive with the LDS teaching of the Fall.  Moreover, if you believe in a god at all, then the proposition that everything on earth IS just as He wants it to be would make Him a pretty monstrous character.
And, @Carborendum is building towards a monumentally important point (probably more useful to you than anything I’m saying, and one that will serve you well regardless of whether or not you decide to date women in the future); so stick with him.  

Okay, that's a good definition.  But allow me to put a more practical substance to the idea.
Love is that all-encompassing desire to bring someone with you to Joy.  What is Joy?  Joy is that which is the goal of Christ's example.  He lived and taught principles for us to follow so that we may have true joy.
Therefore, Love is that all-encompassing desire to bring someone with us closer to Christ.  So when somebody says - I love you that's why I want to keep you safe at all times so I forbid you to talk to people or step outside of the house... is that love?  Well, that's not what Christ taught as a path leading to joy, so no, that's not love.  A husband and wife is fighting - the husband says, "I love you but you don't love me", the wife says, "I love you but you don't love me".  Who is right?  Well, Christ is the one who is right, so whoever is closer in following Christ's example is the one who is right.  Do you see what I'm saying?  
The Mormon Church is that one and only true Church that has ALL of the truths that has so far been revealed to man pertaining Christ.  Therefore, when you say "I want to love wholly, completely, and utterly" - that can be best accomplished through learning the truths of the gospel of Christ as taught in the Mormon Church.  Do you believe me?  No?  That's fine.  No man can make you believe this.  Such revelation (that the Mormon Church is the church that has all the truths pertaining Christ) can only be revealed to you by God through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.   You're not going to hell or anything.  We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to ALL men, not just fellow Mormons; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, even as they are taught by other organizations, we seek after these things.  After all, when an Atheist says Be Kind, it doesn't make it false just because an Atheist says it.  

My initial thought in response to your post was, 'If you require someone to convince you, you aren't doing it right in the first place'.  I still think that's a true statement, but I will ask a couple of (hopefully) thought provoking questions anyway.
To which denomination do you believe Peter and the other original 12 Apostles belonged?  If you had lived as a Christian in their day, would you not have belonged to that denomination? If there is a denominational equivalent today of the original Church, should you not want to associate with said denomination?
If for some reason you feel you do not and cannot believe that there is a denominational equivalent to the original Church, then you should just keep doing what your doing because, aside from social benefits, there would be no reason to align with a particular denomination.  However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the denominational equivalent of the original Church established by the Lord and promoted by His original Apostles.  If we are what we claim to be, is there a reason you would not want to know it?  Philosophically speaking, if there is such thing as a true religion and a true denomination, are you not interested in knowing what it is?
Is it justifiable to remain uncommitted to any denomination if you haven't first 'proven' to yourself that there is none to which you ought to commit?

It's kind of been said but it's not that we'd prefer everyone to be Mormon.
We simply aren't one christian denomination among the 2k+ other christian denominations out there.
We simply aren't one choice of many on God's path.
We are Christ's church. We are the only place on this earth that contains all of the saving principles needed to get you back to your father. We are the only place on this earth where priesthood authority exists.
That's why you should be Mormon. All other christian denominations have the truth in part, and most of them do their best to teach God's word as best as they can see it. But here, in Christ's church, this is the only place you'll find a prophet holding God's priesthood receiving revelation for God's church. As it's been mentioned, the first place to start would be the scriptures, in particular the Book of Mormon, and prayer and fasting.

I agree with you somewhat—certainly most Mormons aren’t going to eat, breathe, and live the Journal of Discourses or be up on late-breaking Mormon scriptural or historical scholarship.  
On the other hand, if you’re the sort of person that says “OK, Mormons, hit me with your best shot” and then in the next breath straight-up say you can’t be bothered to take a serious look at that religion’s holy writ—methinks that level of apathy and willful ignorance is not in harmony with Mormon ideals or Mormon culture.  

Do you want any actual feedback on this, or is it a soap box and done thing?

Haven't really seen any need to respond on this thread, but this just caught my eye:
Uh..........seriously?

MArried for 5 years, I'll assume educated and have a career started? Don't overthink it have a baby.

I have no idea!

I gotta be blunt, my eyes cross in funny ways when people starting getting into Trinity theology.

Star ears has ALWAYS been an assault on science. Especially in the OT. 

It's reverse heat.

Southern Baptists, like all protestants are Trinitarians.  All Trinitarians believe the same about the different roles of God the Father and God the Son.

The baby blessing is a non-saving Priesthood ordinance. As far as I can tell, its purpose is primarily social, to introduce the child to the ward and make him/her a part of the community, and to allow the father a chance to exercise his patriarchal Priesthood in a loving manner. It also serves as a convenient excuse for the ward clerk to generate a Church record for the child.
Primarily one of gratitude to God, of love for your child, and of optimism for the future, whatever it holds.
Again, I personally believe the goal is primarily societal. You are offering a public patriarchal blessing to your offspring. It may be a "non-saving" ordinance, but it is a sacred occasion.
It is a Priesthood blessing, offered by the authority of the Priesthood.
Start the blessing by addressing the Father, stating your authority, and saying that you are giving the child a name and a blessing. Declare the child's name. Then address the child and offer your Priesthood blessing according to the Spirit. This is primarily a blessing, not a prayer to the Father, so don't ask for this or that. Pronounce what the Spirit directs. Close in the name of our Savior. Don't worry if the blessing goes for five minutes or for fifteen seconds. That part makes no difference.
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#202

Just our local Christian Church, not AOG but similar

Yes.  In Trinitarian teaching, the Father is the creator and law-giver and the OT is all about the Father preparing man for the coming of Christ.  This is different from the LDS teaching that the OT is Christ, the creator and law-giver, preparing man for his mortal atoning mission. 

I find it very interesting how LDS and Trinitarians cite pretty much the same verses as explanations to their beliefs.

I guess the fact that you were asking about it indicated to me that it was bothering you at some level. Sorry if my inference was wrong.
"Before Abraham was, I am." LDS take this scripture to mean, among other things, that Jesus was proclaiming himself to be the "I Am" that spoke with Moses -- that is, Jehovah.

It is not.  God the Father being the God "speaking" before Christ's birth in Bethlehem is the universal belief among Trinitarians.  Christ is eternally begotten.  That means that he is not created ex nihilo in Bethlehem, he is an eternal being that has always existed.  But his birth to Mary is believed to be when He started His interaction with man.

There you go.  Next time you're in Priesthood meeting and you hear "Does anyone have any missionary experiences they'd like to share?" you've got your thing to say.

I mean in defense "Jesus the Christ" isn't the easiest read. This companion book seems to explain language, talk about updated archaeology, *and* offer commentary on commentary on scripture.

Some of us need all the help we can get.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Watch-Study-Reveals-Statistical-Evidence-of-Book-of-Mormon/s/87899

@Fether. You could teach some additional classes eg teacher training, temple class. Ward history person? Family home evening organizer for singles? Does your local temple need help? Ward bulletin? Greeter?
If that does not work, please send someone to my ward!