jerome1232

If I was wanting to raise my like score all I'd have to do is say something about the missionaries coming over to visit again this week, and how there might be a  baptism in my near future . . .
Meanwhile, in the spirit of @Grunt's suggestion, I might need to head over to AGtalk.net . . .   😜

Actually:
—“Only in self-defense”
—“Yes, but don’t make me pay for it; and understand there may be consequences for your choice that you don’t appreciate now, and I’m not going to be held liable for those either.”  
—“Sometimes, in very extreme circumstances, subject to numerous conditions; and understanding that this is primarily the responsibility of the individual and not the government.”  
Those would be my respective answers to both your set of questions, and my own.   

Bull crap.

If you can't see how absurd this statement is I don't think there is much hope for you.

Does anyone think it is time the church expands their education and start opening up church run private school for highschool age kids?

Nope

Or, by example:
Possibility #1:
God: "Lehi, take your family and flee into the wilderness for the wicked seek to take your life."
Lehi: "On my way!"
...and then Lehi decides what to take and what to leave behind.
Possibility #2:
God: "Lehi, take your family and flee into the wilderness for the wicked seek to take your life.  Oh, and leave your riches behind."
Lehi: "Got it!"
...and then Lehi decides everything else about what to take and what to leave behind, but leaves the riches explicitly because he was told.
In both cases, what he does is "because of the commandments of the Lord", but only in one of these possibilities does the Lord explicitly tell Lehi to leave the riches behind.  And we don't know which of these possibilities happened, except that in the original account in the previous chapter all that's mentioned is the command to leave.
And either way, there's nothing explicitly forbidding use of the riches that were left behind.

Hey, DOT matrix printers are still used for printouts that have carbon copies!

This probably comes off colder than I mean it but so what? 
How does that have any bearing on the truth of the commandment?
The natural man is an enemy to God. Gay people struggle with a predisposition to a specific sin. It's difficult for them to live a chaste life. Right, guess what man? We *all* have predispositions to different sins. We all struggle to live the commandments. Some of us more than others, some of our sins make our lot in life difficult. Gods covenant path is often described as difficult, straight and narrow, this doesn't change the truth of His commandments. We all go through our own little "hells" on earth, but Iiving the commandments isn't what puts us there, sinning is.

I didn't realize we were playing a lottery.

Look, with safety, with being prepared. We don't usually play this game of "what are the chances of a fire, you don't *need* that extinguisher" We just take reasonable safety precautions against the unlikely but devastating such as a fire, or being attacked by a rampant gunman in a public place.

My house is not likely to catch on fire, and to defeat my point I actually don't have a fire extinguisher, ha!

I'm unlikely to get shot tomorrow, and again, I actually don't own a gun, haha.

But that's because I'm in debt and I need to pay that off before I go buy fancy things like guns and fire extinguishers. I probably had a point but now I'm just rambling incoherently and contradicting myself.

This probably comes off colder than I mean it but so what? 
How does that have any bearing on the truth of the commandment?
The natural man is an enemy to God. Gay people struggle with a predisposition to a specific sin. It's difficult for them to live a chaste life. Right, guess what man? We *all* have predispositions to different sins. We all struggle to live the commandments. Some of us more than others, some of our sins make our lot in life difficult. Gods covenant path is often described as difficult, straight and narrow, this doesn't change the truth of His commandments. We all go through our own little "hells" on earth, but Iiving the commandments isn't what puts us there, sinning is.

Man you guys are a joke. I’m done already. Peace.

So you don’t *really* have a problem, conceptually, with the sort of “hell” you accuse us of creating.  It’s just that we are doing it to The Wrong People. 
In other words, the problem isn’t that we’re asking people to do extraordinarily or irrationally hard things; the problem is that you think this particular hard thing shouldn’t have to be done by this particular subset of people.  

I'm not fond of games, I'm fairly sure you know full well what the scriptures say.
The priesthood has a long history of being restricted by lineage.
The commandment to not have sex with your own gender has a long history of absolute "thou shalt not" statements. 
Totally the same you are right. I can see how you might get confused on that. I'd invite you to give both of these topic a read.
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
 
Now can you find anything that words the commandment to not have sex with your own gender as a temporary thing? How then is the priesthood restrictions by lineage the same as doctrine regarding marriage and chastity? 

I'm not fond of games, I'm fairly sure you know full well what the scriptures say.
The priesthood has a long history of being restricted by lineage.
The commandment to not have sex with your own gender has a long history of absolute "thou shalt not" statements. 
Totally the same you are right. I can see how you might get confused on that. I'd invite you to give both of these topic a read.
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
 
Now can you find anything that words the commandment to not have sex with your own gender as a temporary thing? How then is the priesthood restrictions by lineage the same as doctrine regarding marriage and chastity? 

Welp, I’m quitting again. I hope I can make it longer than last time.

This post-2016 elections county map illustrates without any doubt that the USA is not designed as a Democracy.  Clinton won the popular vote.  Trump won the electoral vote.  If the US is a Democracy, Clinton would be President and the direction of the country will be decided by the coasts.  The US is a representative Republic though, so Trump won to reflect the will of an equal representation of State Electorates.

This has been discussed at length, numerous times.  My thoughts can be found here (explaining the irrationality of same-sex union in eternity) and I don't have time to track down the other post I previously made - it was most emphatic.  Simply put, the ban was not outside the historic norms for Priesthood and always included the understanding that it was temporary, it also never denied the reality of our species.  Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, has always been flatly condemned with no mention of that condemnation being temporary, and it does indeed deny the reality of our species.  Meanwhile, man + woman (+children) has always been taught, commanded even, as an eternal principle, with no deviation, variation, exception, or temporariness to it.

In the days of Moses, the priesthood was restricted to the Levites - thus, blacks could not have the priesthood.  In the book of Abraham (esp 1:26), we learn that the descendants of Ham were restricted from the priesthood (whether this restricted blacks or not is irrelevant - it restricted someone - the fact is that the priesthood has always been restricted from someone - or, more accurately, limited by very specific criteria to only those meeting said criteria).  Oh, and by the way, from the beginning, at the very least, the priesthood has been limited to males - that's a pretty large and clear delineation, and the only one that has ever had the appearance of permanent / eternal (I don't know that we're certain that it is, but it seems pretty certain).  All the other limitations have had a more temporary appearance.

I'm not fond of games, I'm fairly sure you know full well what the scriptures say.
The priesthood has a long history of being restricted by lineage.
The commandment to not have sex with your own gender has a long history of absolute "thou shalt not" statements. 
Totally the same you are right. I can see how you might get confused on that. I'd invite you to give both of these topic a read.
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
 
Now can you find anything that words the commandment to not have sex with your own gender as a temporary thing? How then is the priesthood restrictions by lineage the same as doctrine regarding marriage and chastity? 

You don't believe that we will torture small dogs in eternity. What scripture is that from? You don't believe that we will stand on our heads on a concrete surface for all eternity. What scripture is that from? You don't believe that we will be 89 feet tall and have three heads in eternity. What scripture is that from? When the prophets said that those of black African ancestry were not permitted to hold the Priesthood, it was true. And has already been pointed out to you more than once, the teaching was always that, at some future date, that restriction would be lifted. Such has never been the case with homosexual relations, which from the beginning have been recognized as a perversion of the true order God has ordained.
My impulse is to classify anyone who uses "homosexuality-is-just-like-blacks-not-having-the-Priesthood" as a liar. But as Carb pointed out in another thread, we can't know that. It would be tragic to dismiss an honest but deceived person as just another liar. But allow me to observe that in such a case, it is incumbent upon the sincere-but-ignorant person to actually understand the arguments against his position (whether or not he agrees with them) and to quit using the same false comparisons.

I would be open to two-tier type of system somewhat like Germany. But I'm mostly an idiot about these things, from what I've read of their system it seems like it strikes a good balance.

The stake is the basic organizational unit of the Restored Church. Wards are convenient divisions that form congregations, but the stake is the level at which the programs of the Church are implemented. A stake president is, in a very real sense, a prophet for his stake. My opinion is that many or even most Latter-day Saints don't understand the importance of the stake as the gathering place for the Saints. Until last April, all the high priests in a stake formed a single quorum. I really liked that symbolism.

This guy is often on-point as well:

Well if you think that me thinking my time is more valuable because I have 7 years of college and several degrees, then yes, I guess I am an elitist.  But I don't view it as such.  I view it as spending 7 years educating myself and sending much of my own money to get there.   And yes, I believe in paying more to someone who has more capability.