Anddenex

Latter-day Saints keep on trying.  They don’t assume that, because a commandment happens to be really hard, it no longer applies to them; and they don’t demand to be mollycoddled in their little (or big) acts of willful rebellion.

My sin is prejudice, judging, and lack of love.
Do I really need to stop my sin, or should others just accept me for who I am?

Derail alert!
That is fantastic.  I am the SS President and I am going to implement this if my bishop gives me the okay.

I just want to say, if I could build a neighborhood and pick my neighbors, these are the people I would want living in the houses closes to mine (in no particular order, except that I started my list with people who I feel like I understand well and appreciate, but who others are choosing to be offended at rather than getting to know them well enough to appreciate1 - something that is unfortunate for said offendees; and that's part of my point - these are good, solid people who could be a blessing in your life, if you'd let them, but who are no more likely that I am to tolerate getting walked on, or to coddle to one's drama / over-sensitivity to rational commentary):
@Vort @Carborendum @NeedleinA @Anddenex @mordorbund @NeuroTypical @Just_A_Guy @Grunt @person0 @MormonGator and @LadyGator @LiterateParakeet (our politics would never agree, but we'd have a weekly meeting with @anatess2 and @NeuroTypical where we'd try each others' pens and ink) @pam @Sunday21 (though our politics would never agree, and I'd have to hide the guns when she comes to visit, and leave them at home when I go to visit) @prisonchaplain (who would make sure we were all remembering to be Christian as well as Mormon) @Jane_Doe (even though she'd probably make me look kinda dumb) @estradling75 (but just so the rest of us could give him a hard time by walking on his lawn) @mirkwood (but maybe several houses down, so he wouldn't have to see me coming and going with my fountain pens) @The Folk Prophet (though we would probably argue a lot before realizing we agreed with each other - it's unfortunate he was driven away from here by a member not willing to work through that) @Traveler (though we'd probably annoy each other quite often) @askandanswer (but only so we could regularly dose his property with Noodler's Bay State Blue) NOTE: If you're not on the list, try not to be offended.  It's possible you're a victim of my poor memory.  It's also possible I'd add you to the list if I knew you better.  It's also possible you wouldn't like living next to me any more than I'd like living next to you.  (Apparently I can be quite blunt.)  And I seriously doubt my feelings toward / memory of you is something worth getting offended over.
1IMO, this is the best reason to participate in a wide variety of threads, including those about trivial things - it lets you get to know other people's personalities, which makes it easier to appreciate them as humans rather than as posters.  (ETA: It also lets other people get to know you.)
Robotically Yours,
zil

Amen!

My apologies if someone has already responded to some aspects in these two paragraphs; however, if so, I am adding a second witness. For a short history, I am the second son (sorry, no special powers as I am not the seventh son of a seventh son) of two converts. My mother was a Methodist before joining the Church, and my father was Atheist. At a young age I knew the whole story of my mother's conversion, and didn't know the whole story of my father's conversion until I was on my mission when I received a two page letter from him detailing his conversion.
The emphasized portions are the points I hope to clarify and to make clear if not already done so, and if done so, adding a second witness. The first emphasized portion creates a catch 22 of sorts.
1) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is true?
2) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is not true?
3) Whose responsibility is it to convince or testify of truth?
4) What is our responsibility in knowing truth?
If we seek to convince ourselves of a spiritual truth it is then very easy to -- at some point -- reject what was given through "logical" means. This is human wisdom which doctrine can be easily changed as the waves of the sea going hither one direction and then thither in another direction through shifts of mighty winds (wind can equal politics, changing times and season, progressiveness, etc....)
Before Saul became Paul, what convinced him that he was wrong? It wasn't his personal study. It wasn't the history of Jesus. It was an experience from God that he could not deny. He "convinced himself" that all of Jesus Christ's followers were to be killed. If you want to know the Church and Joseph Smith are what they say they are, read the Book of Mormon and then ask God. It will be by the power of the Holy Ghost that you will know this is true.
Take a moment to think upon Christ's life. Who was he? What was said about him? He surely made a big claim through scripture. What solid evidence did he have for it? One could say, "He performed miracles!" Another could say, "So did prophets but that didn't make them the Son of God!" One could say, but he raised a person from the dead!" Another could say, "So did a prophet in the Old Testament, but that didn't make him the Son of God, the Messiah!" When he started his ministry didn't people just say he was Joseph's son, no one special. What then convinced people of who he was? The Book of Mormon and the New Testament speak of the same source, "Father in heaven testifies to us!" Peter did not convince himself that Jesus was the Messiah because of Christ's history. It was not flesh and blood -- history -- that convinced Peter of who Jesus was. It was the Father, our Heavenly Father.
The scriptures make a big claim that Jonah was swallowed by a whale! What solid evidence besides the Bible do we have of this event? The scriptures make a big claim that a flood covered the earth! What solid evidence do we have of this flood, by which many modern scientist claim this wasn't so! Without such evidence how then do we know that a flood did occur? How then do we know that Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale? The Bible even speaks of an "ass" (I am quoting scripture don't hate me ) speaking! What evidence do we have to convince us of such a huge claim that a "ass" was able to speak? None, zip, zilch, notta! How then do we know? I know by the Holy Ghost, who reveals all truth, that this is true!
What "character" established are you looking for? Imagine living during Moses time. One history says, "Moses was a murderer." Another history says, "Moses protected and acted in defense of a brother. He was no murderer." Which do you believe? Let's look at the Book of Mormon. All the children of Laman and Lemuel and other were taught a different history than the Nephites were taught. They taught their children, Laman and Lemuel, to hate the Nephites because their brother sought to rule over them. What was true, and how did King Lamoni come to realize this? It was not by "solid" evidence -- temporal evidence -- which you speak of. It was through spiritual manifestation from God to Lamoni! It is the only way we know what is true when it pertains to God, spiritual enlightenment.
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, not because I convinced myself, but because God revealed the truth of it unto me. I remember the first time I learned how many wives Joseph Smith had. It took me back for a moment, and then the Spirit said to me, "It is true." I didn't need any solid evidence to convince myself of his character. The Spirit spoke to me and I knew. When I read history, that is bits and pieces from different sources, when the Spirit has already spoken to me the truth I will wait for other things to be revealed. Imagine for a moment if someone only had bits and pieces of quotes from you and from people who hated you and sought your destruction. How would they know the full context of what really happened? Thus a common statement I will make, when I see Brigham, when I see Joseph, when I see other past prophets and servants (i.e. Amulek, I will have some questions for him) I will ask them then. Not only that, think about Alma the Younger, and his history and character before he was changed through a visit from an angel from God (Ya I know, wouldn't that be nice in so many ways). How many people if they tried to convince themselves through character and history would they have joined? I am not excusing bad behavior. I am recognizing that God is in control. I am recognizing that God is the source of all truth, His truth, and I don't need to convince myself through history.
Excellent! This should be serious. This shouldn't be taken lightly! Everyone hear applauds you for this concept. No one hear expects you to take anything said for "face value." We only expect what the Lord has always expected from his children: to act with an sincere heart asking him to reveal the truth unto you and that you (general) act with real intent when the answer is given.
But you ask regarding solid evidence? There is solid evidence -- The Book of Mormon. It is the main source of solid evidence of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God! If the Book of Mormon is true, then all other canonized scripture is true! If true, then we need to be patient with Church history, what we have, and wait upon the Lord, while ignoring Pharisees in our lives who seek to take away our peace.
Your soul is definitely worth it.
.........................................................................
On a side note, at times, with all the "hate" we Mormons have received from people who consider themselves Christian, we can be on the defensive when we are seeking only to make a point. Here is a hard item and one that isn't easily detected online. When we are speaking with individuals in person, the intent is more easily understood. Let me point out this, and if repeating what someone else said, I am sorry, then I am adding a second witness.
As Mormons, especially those of us who have entered debates on other forums we often see a lot of the same "history" being passed with the same explanations, and we provide often the same answers. So when someone, we aren't personalized with, begins to share a "common" Anti-Mormon thread, our knee-jerk reaction may get the best of some of us, although we are seeking to be sincere.
For example, when I used to debate with people on youtube, there was a strong anti-Mormon who pretended not to be anti-Mormon because his aunt was Mormon. We had a lengthy conversation. I learned more about him. In that dialogue I cleared up misunderstandings and pointed out errors. I was able then to learn more about other things I was not familiar with at that time. I stopped accessing youtube, and when I got back on I noticed my account had been deleted -- gone. A change had been made and I didn't access my account and it was gone. So I created a new account, and begin to peruse old videos. This was about 2 years later or so. I noticed right away the same guy, as he had the same username. I begin to read his stuff and there he was, sharing the same old anti-Mormon literature and quotes I had previously spoken to him about. He continued to share and bear false witness, while considering himself a Christian and not anti-Mormon. The perfect sign of an anti-Mormon is someone when presented with facts and truth, and yet they keep spreading their falsehoods in hopes to deceive someone who is still learning -- particularly investigators to the Church or new members. They use sophistry at its best.
So, not to give any excuses, and to make it clear I am not considering you anti-Mormon, as I know you are seeking to learn more about the Church. When an anti-Mormon dig is quoted on this site, you may receive quick rebuttals of aspects that have already been answered. These rebuttals may come off hard, might be a bad day for one of us, not because we don't care about you, or are trying to be nasty. We just wish anti-Mormons would actually be the Christians they profess to be, and sometimes that will rub off in "online" text communications without any personal friendship.
Yes, and to reiterate, your "soul" is worth it, for you are of great worth as a daughter of God!
 

My apologies if someone has already responded to some aspects in these two paragraphs; however, if so, I am adding a second witness. For a short history, I am the second son (sorry, no special powers as I am not the seventh son of a seventh son) of two converts. My mother was a Methodist before joining the Church, and my father was Atheist. At a young age I knew the whole story of my mother's conversion, and didn't know the whole story of my father's conversion until I was on my mission when I received a two page letter from him detailing his conversion.
The emphasized portions are the points I hope to clarify and to make clear if not already done so, and if done so, adding a second witness. The first emphasized portion creates a catch 22 of sorts.
1) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is true?
2) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is not true?
3) Whose responsibility is it to convince or testify of truth?
4) What is our responsibility in knowing truth?
If we seek to convince ourselves of a spiritual truth it is then very easy to -- at some point -- reject what was given through "logical" means. This is human wisdom which doctrine can be easily changed as the waves of the sea going hither one direction and then thither in another direction through shifts of mighty winds (wind can equal politics, changing times and season, progressiveness, etc....)
Before Saul became Paul, what convinced him that he was wrong? It wasn't his personal study. It wasn't the history of Jesus. It was an experience from God that he could not deny. He "convinced himself" that all of Jesus Christ's followers were to be killed. If you want to know the Church and Joseph Smith are what they say they are, read the Book of Mormon and then ask God. It will be by the power of the Holy Ghost that you will know this is true.
Take a moment to think upon Christ's life. Who was he? What was said about him? He surely made a big claim through scripture. What solid evidence did he have for it? One could say, "He performed miracles!" Another could say, "So did prophets but that didn't make them the Son of God!" One could say, but he raised a person from the dead!" Another could say, "So did a prophet in the Old Testament, but that didn't make him the Son of God, the Messiah!" When he started his ministry didn't people just say he was Joseph's son, no one special. What then convinced people of who he was? The Book of Mormon and the New Testament speak of the same source, "Father in heaven testifies to us!" Peter did not convince himself that Jesus was the Messiah because of Christ's history. It was not flesh and blood -- history -- that convinced Peter of who Jesus was. It was the Father, our Heavenly Father.
The scriptures make a big claim that Jonah was swallowed by a whale! What solid evidence besides the Bible do we have of this event? The scriptures make a big claim that a flood covered the earth! What solid evidence do we have of this flood, by which many modern scientist claim this wasn't so! Without such evidence how then do we know that a flood did occur? How then do we know that Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale? The Bible even speaks of an "ass" (I am quoting scripture don't hate me ) speaking! What evidence do we have to convince us of such a huge claim that a "ass" was able to speak? None, zip, zilch, notta! How then do we know? I know by the Holy Ghost, who reveals all truth, that this is true!
What "character" established are you looking for? Imagine living during Moses time. One history says, "Moses was a murderer." Another history says, "Moses protected and acted in defense of a brother. He was no murderer." Which do you believe? Let's look at the Book of Mormon. All the children of Laman and Lemuel and other were taught a different history than the Nephites were taught. They taught their children, Laman and Lemuel, to hate the Nephites because their brother sought to rule over them. What was true, and how did King Lamoni come to realize this? It was not by "solid" evidence -- temporal evidence -- which you speak of. It was through spiritual manifestation from God to Lamoni! It is the only way we know what is true when it pertains to God, spiritual enlightenment.
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, not because I convinced myself, but because God revealed the truth of it unto me. I remember the first time I learned how many wives Joseph Smith had. It took me back for a moment, and then the Spirit said to me, "It is true." I didn't need any solid evidence to convince myself of his character. The Spirit spoke to me and I knew. When I read history, that is bits and pieces from different sources, when the Spirit has already spoken to me the truth I will wait for other things to be revealed. Imagine for a moment if someone only had bits and pieces of quotes from you and from people who hated you and sought your destruction. How would they know the full context of what really happened? Thus a common statement I will make, when I see Brigham, when I see Joseph, when I see other past prophets and servants (i.e. Amulek, I will have some questions for him) I will ask them then. Not only that, think about Alma the Younger, and his history and character before he was changed through a visit from an angel from God (Ya I know, wouldn't that be nice in so many ways). How many people if they tried to convince themselves through character and history would they have joined? I am not excusing bad behavior. I am recognizing that God is in control. I am recognizing that God is the source of all truth, His truth, and I don't need to convince myself through history.
Excellent! This should be serious. This shouldn't be taken lightly! Everyone hear applauds you for this concept. No one hear expects you to take anything said for "face value." We only expect what the Lord has always expected from his children: to act with an sincere heart asking him to reveal the truth unto you and that you (general) act with real intent when the answer is given.
But you ask regarding solid evidence? There is solid evidence -- The Book of Mormon. It is the main source of solid evidence of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God! If the Book of Mormon is true, then all other canonized scripture is true! If true, then we need to be patient with Church history, what we have, and wait upon the Lord, while ignoring Pharisees in our lives who seek to take away our peace.
Your soul is definitely worth it.
.........................................................................
On a side note, at times, with all the "hate" we Mormons have received from people who consider themselves Christian, we can be on the defensive when we are seeking only to make a point. Here is a hard item and one that isn't easily detected online. When we are speaking with individuals in person, the intent is more easily understood. Let me point out this, and if repeating what someone else said, I am sorry, then I am adding a second witness.
As Mormons, especially those of us who have entered debates on other forums we often see a lot of the same "history" being passed with the same explanations, and we provide often the same answers. So when someone, we aren't personalized with, begins to share a "common" Anti-Mormon thread, our knee-jerk reaction may get the best of some of us, although we are seeking to be sincere.
For example, when I used to debate with people on youtube, there was a strong anti-Mormon who pretended not to be anti-Mormon because his aunt was Mormon. We had a lengthy conversation. I learned more about him. In that dialogue I cleared up misunderstandings and pointed out errors. I was able then to learn more about other things I was not familiar with at that time. I stopped accessing youtube, and when I got back on I noticed my account had been deleted -- gone. A change had been made and I didn't access my account and it was gone. So I created a new account, and begin to peruse old videos. This was about 2 years later or so. I noticed right away the same guy, as he had the same username. I begin to read his stuff and there he was, sharing the same old anti-Mormon literature and quotes I had previously spoken to him about. He continued to share and bear false witness, while considering himself a Christian and not anti-Mormon. The perfect sign of an anti-Mormon is someone when presented with facts and truth, and yet they keep spreading their falsehoods in hopes to deceive someone who is still learning -- particularly investigators to the Church or new members. They use sophistry at its best.
So, not to give any excuses, and to make it clear I am not considering you anti-Mormon, as I know you are seeking to learn more about the Church. When an anti-Mormon dig is quoted on this site, you may receive quick rebuttals of aspects that have already been answered. These rebuttals may come off hard, might be a bad day for one of us, not because we don't care about you, or are trying to be nasty. We just wish anti-Mormons would actually be the Christians they profess to be, and sometimes that will rub off in "online" text communications without any personal friendship.
Yes, and to reiterate, your "soul" is worth it, for you are of great worth as a daughter of God!
 

My apologies if someone has already responded to some aspects in these two paragraphs; however, if so, I am adding a second witness. For a short history, I am the second son (sorry, no special powers as I am not the seventh son of a seventh son) of two converts. My mother was a Methodist before joining the Church, and my father was Atheist. At a young age I knew the whole story of my mother's conversion, and didn't know the whole story of my father's conversion until I was on my mission when I received a two page letter from him detailing his conversion.
The emphasized portions are the points I hope to clarify and to make clear if not already done so, and if done so, adding a second witness. The first emphasized portion creates a catch 22 of sorts.
1) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is true?
2) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is not true?
3) Whose responsibility is it to convince or testify of truth?
4) What is our responsibility in knowing truth?
If we seek to convince ourselves of a spiritual truth it is then very easy to -- at some point -- reject what was given through "logical" means. This is human wisdom which doctrine can be easily changed as the waves of the sea going hither one direction and then thither in another direction through shifts of mighty winds (wind can equal politics, changing times and season, progressiveness, etc....)
Before Saul became Paul, what convinced him that he was wrong? It wasn't his personal study. It wasn't the history of Jesus. It was an experience from God that he could not deny. He "convinced himself" that all of Jesus Christ's followers were to be killed. If you want to know the Church and Joseph Smith are what they say they are, read the Book of Mormon and then ask God. It will be by the power of the Holy Ghost that you will know this is true.
Take a moment to think upon Christ's life. Who was he? What was said about him? He surely made a big claim through scripture. What solid evidence did he have for it? One could say, "He performed miracles!" Another could say, "So did prophets but that didn't make them the Son of God!" One could say, but he raised a person from the dead!" Another could say, "So did a prophet in the Old Testament, but that didn't make him the Son of God, the Messiah!" When he started his ministry didn't people just say he was Joseph's son, no one special. What then convinced people of who he was? The Book of Mormon and the New Testament speak of the same source, "Father in heaven testifies to us!" Peter did not convince himself that Jesus was the Messiah because of Christ's history. It was not flesh and blood -- history -- that convinced Peter of who Jesus was. It was the Father, our Heavenly Father.
The scriptures make a big claim that Jonah was swallowed by a whale! What solid evidence besides the Bible do we have of this event? The scriptures make a big claim that a flood covered the earth! What solid evidence do we have of this flood, by which many modern scientist claim this wasn't so! Without such evidence how then do we know that a flood did occur? How then do we know that Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale? The Bible even speaks of an "ass" (I am quoting scripture don't hate me ) speaking! What evidence do we have to convince us of such a huge claim that a "ass" was able to speak? None, zip, zilch, notta! How then do we know? I know by the Holy Ghost, who reveals all truth, that this is true!
What "character" established are you looking for? Imagine living during Moses time. One history says, "Moses was a murderer." Another history says, "Moses protected and acted in defense of a brother. He was no murderer." Which do you believe? Let's look at the Book of Mormon. All the children of Laman and Lemuel and other were taught a different history than the Nephites were taught. They taught their children, Laman and Lemuel, to hate the Nephites because their brother sought to rule over them. What was true, and how did King Lamoni come to realize this? It was not by "solid" evidence -- temporal evidence -- which you speak of. It was through spiritual manifestation from God to Lamoni! It is the only way we know what is true when it pertains to God, spiritual enlightenment.
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, not because I convinced myself, but because God revealed the truth of it unto me. I remember the first time I learned how many wives Joseph Smith had. It took me back for a moment, and then the Spirit said to me, "It is true." I didn't need any solid evidence to convince myself of his character. The Spirit spoke to me and I knew. When I read history, that is bits and pieces from different sources, when the Spirit has already spoken to me the truth I will wait for other things to be revealed. Imagine for a moment if someone only had bits and pieces of quotes from you and from people who hated you and sought your destruction. How would they know the full context of what really happened? Thus a common statement I will make, when I see Brigham, when I see Joseph, when I see other past prophets and servants (i.e. Amulek, I will have some questions for him) I will ask them then. Not only that, think about Alma the Younger, and his history and character before he was changed through a visit from an angel from God (Ya I know, wouldn't that be nice in so many ways). How many people if they tried to convince themselves through character and history would they have joined? I am not excusing bad behavior. I am recognizing that God is in control. I am recognizing that God is the source of all truth, His truth, and I don't need to convince myself through history.
Excellent! This should be serious. This shouldn't be taken lightly! Everyone hear applauds you for this concept. No one hear expects you to take anything said for "face value." We only expect what the Lord has always expected from his children: to act with an sincere heart asking him to reveal the truth unto you and that you (general) act with real intent when the answer is given.
But you ask regarding solid evidence? There is solid evidence -- The Book of Mormon. It is the main source of solid evidence of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God! If the Book of Mormon is true, then all other canonized scripture is true! If true, then we need to be patient with Church history, what we have, and wait upon the Lord, while ignoring Pharisees in our lives who seek to take away our peace.
Your soul is definitely worth it.
.........................................................................
On a side note, at times, with all the "hate" we Mormons have received from people who consider themselves Christian, we can be on the defensive when we are seeking only to make a point. Here is a hard item and one that isn't easily detected online. When we are speaking with individuals in person, the intent is more easily understood. Let me point out this, and if repeating what someone else said, I am sorry, then I am adding a second witness.
As Mormons, especially those of us who have entered debates on other forums we often see a lot of the same "history" being passed with the same explanations, and we provide often the same answers. So when someone, we aren't personalized with, begins to share a "common" Anti-Mormon thread, our knee-jerk reaction may get the best of some of us, although we are seeking to be sincere.
For example, when I used to debate with people on youtube, there was a strong anti-Mormon who pretended not to be anti-Mormon because his aunt was Mormon. We had a lengthy conversation. I learned more about him. In that dialogue I cleared up misunderstandings and pointed out errors. I was able then to learn more about other things I was not familiar with at that time. I stopped accessing youtube, and when I got back on I noticed my account had been deleted -- gone. A change had been made and I didn't access my account and it was gone. So I created a new account, and begin to peruse old videos. This was about 2 years later or so. I noticed right away the same guy, as he had the same username. I begin to read his stuff and there he was, sharing the same old anti-Mormon literature and quotes I had previously spoken to him about. He continued to share and bear false witness, while considering himself a Christian and not anti-Mormon. The perfect sign of an anti-Mormon is someone when presented with facts and truth, and yet they keep spreading their falsehoods in hopes to deceive someone who is still learning -- particularly investigators to the Church or new members. They use sophistry at its best.
So, not to give any excuses, and to make it clear I am not considering you anti-Mormon, as I know you are seeking to learn more about the Church. When an anti-Mormon dig is quoted on this site, you may receive quick rebuttals of aspects that have already been answered. These rebuttals may come off hard, might be a bad day for one of us, not because we don't care about you, or are trying to be nasty. We just wish anti-Mormons would actually be the Christians they profess to be, and sometimes that will rub off in "online" text communications without any personal friendship.
Yes, and to reiterate, your "soul" is worth it, for you are of great worth as a daughter of God!
 

Who is this “Jane_Doe” you keep quoting, and why do I never see any of her posts?

This is only from your experience.  I have not experienced such things.
This is my advice:  If people are getting offended by your questions, there are 3 possibilities - 1.) "they" don't like being questioned, 2.) "you" need to change the way you ask the questions., 3.) you misunderstood the tone of the responses to your questions.  Either way, the easiest way to find out if they just don't like being questioned or they are "triggered" by the way you ask the question is to.... tat-tada, try changing the way you ask the questions.  This would, of course, require some humility and admit the possibility that your manner of questioning may not be conducive to open discussion.  Or, you can just ignore the responses you consider negative (misunderstood or not) and respond only to the positive ones so the conversation moves forward - you can't change other people, you can only change yourself.  Or, to get more bang for the buck, you can ignore the responses you consider negative and respond only to the positive ones while also applying some humility and reflecting on the way you communicate.
Anyway... I'm not the most "nice" in the way I communicate (cultural differences - Bisaya folks are very direct), but I try to be more conscious of the way I say things.  My journey towards learning has always been positive ones - although, I don't count my days as a rebellious teen-ager arguing with the priests and nuns in my Catholic school because, looking back, I was a full-of-myself-know-it-all-pompous-snit that needed to be put in her place.
 

Ask any question you want here, I personally have zero issue with it, nor do I believe anyone else does quite frankly.
The questions are not the issue, it is the tone, insinuations and accusations that tend to follow said questions that usually cause the sticking points. Please don't confuse the two here, they are two completely separate issues.
Approach 1: "Hi everyone, I found "x" in my studies, there appears to be a conflict. Can anyone help me better understand "x"? Thank you
Approach 2: "Hi everyone, I found "x" in my studies, there is a conflict, I know it. I can't trust the church, they are dishonest about "x". (<----ish)
One approach gets you a variety of helpful members contributing.
The other approach (especially if used over and over) gets you less of a variety of helpful members contributing and a group of people that are simply tired of hearing and hand holding Approach 2.
Change the tone for the better and see if the responses don't also change in your favor.

You are exactly right...you are not permitted to challenge the church on anything. When I was growing up, if I brought up things  like you have my parents would chew me out and tell me to just accept it and move on. Just like you get here in many cases.

Hi Blossom76, nice to meet you.
I looked at this before and I would like to bring some historical facts to the discussion in order to understand this apparent discrepancy.
The answer is: John C. Bennett. When he reached Nauvoo in 1840 he became Mayor and also Assistant to the Prophet in a very short period of time. He stayed in Nauvoo for a period of approximately two years. However, after just five months of being there Smith started having suspicions with regards to his personal life, his truthfulness about being a bachelor and overall his moral conduct. There were rumors circulating about Bennett and it reached a point where Smith decided to investigate. He chose not to expose him several times, and even though some might criticize Smith's decision, I believe he acted in good faith hoping that Bennett would change his ways (which he never did) despite the fact that he was given multiple chances by the Prophet.  It was later discovered that Bennett was married and was unfaithful to his wife with many women. She ended up leaving him.
When Bennett started seducing LDS sisters, things started to go downhill from there for Bennett, Smith and the practice of Plural Marriage. He explicitly tried to seduced LDS sisters to have sexual intercourse with him and told them that no sin would fall upon them ("spiritual wifery"). Upon discovering this practice, Smith could no longer keep this hidden.  He was disfellowshipped.  It should be noted that Smith knew about these many encounters and tried very hard to give Bennett as many chances as possibly. Later on though, after observing the true natural of this individual, Smith regretted that decision and asked for forgiveness.
When Bannett left Nauvoo, he left bitter. He wrote many letters and even published a book. In all these publications, he attacked the very same, sacred doctrine of Plural Marriage that Smith has been trying to prepare the Saints for and has attempted to introduce to a very small group of Latter-Day Saints. Bennett was indeed putting the whole Church at risk and people were wiling to listen to him (and believe him too) because he was close to the Prophet. Even created a lot of confusion among the Saints who did not know what to believe.
In Times and Seasons, the piece you quoted about denying Plural Marriage continues:

Here's two ways to lose with certain people:
1- Decline to preach the gospel to, or baptize, the children of same-sex households.  Because that would put them in an impossible situation of having to choose between God and their parents, following one and rejecting the other. 
Result: Get blamed for splitting up the family, luring children into brainwashing centers and teaching them their parents are horrible hell-bound sinners.  Guilt for the suicide of any kid in this situation is laid on the church's head.
2- Preach the gospel to, and baptize, the children of same-sex households.  Teach them the gospel, which includes God's plan of happiness, a traditional definition of marriage, goals of marrying someone of the opposite gender or nobody. 
Result: Get accused of "segregation, clicks, people not accepting them and not helping them."  Guilt for the suicide of any kid in this situation is laid on the church's head.
Keep in mind, people in these marriages are always telling is this ISN'T like smoking or drinking or sinning - this is a central issue that makes up the core of their being.  Not something that can just be set aside without harm.
So, if the church is what it is, then God is the one directing our actions here.  If it isn't what it claims to be, then I guess it's a whacked-out cultural club with quirky cliques and segregation.  Why would anyone want to be in that club?

Ayup.  And at least in part, for the same reason—don’t want to have little kids going home and telling Daddy that he’s got to divorce Mommies # 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.

3a. It is not ONLY children in a same-sex marriage that are barred from baptism until maturity. The Church also has a similar prohibition on the children of polygamists.

It is true that folks struggling with gender identity and transitioning and surgeries and hormone therapy tend to have horribly high rates, not only of attempted suicide, but actually committing suicide.   It's absolutely horrible.
Grabbing that truth and using it to score points against the other side?  Did you at least wait until their bodies cooled down?
Hopefully you're not done changing, Changed, because that's a really crappy tactic. Kind of the opposite of helpful.
 

I've come to realize that we Evangelicals should have been and must be oh so careful in lobbing the secular accusations of the world against faith groups we may disagree with on doctrine. The same salvos can be tossed at any church that practices rigorous Christianity, and we would offer the same response. You're spot on.

@changed, Josh Alcorn committed suicide because, in spite of his Y-chromosome,  your side told him that he would never be happy until he cut off his boy parts; and because your side told him he shouldn’t have to wait two more years for adulthood before doing things to himself that his parents believed were inappropriate; and because he had a typical juvenile urge to hurt his parents as viscerally as possible.
If you’re going to start trying to make me feel guilty for the tragic, selfish actions of a misguided teenager I never met, I’m going to turn it right back at you.  Because your side benefits from this, not us.  You are the one exploiting this child’s death in the name of ssssssssexxxxxxxxxxx now!!!!  Your side dominated the Reddit echo chambers where this kid spent his time, and in which he planned his actions.  Our side would have told Josh to focus on the things that make life worth living as a teenager. Study.  Plan for college.  Get your driver’s license.  Get outdoors. Get involved in the community. Make good friends.  Serve the people around you.  Find your individual value, and make a contribution.   Your side told him that if he couldn’t get exactly what he wanted exactly when he wanted it, then his life had no effective value and he may as well roll over and die.  And so he did.  And now his death is being used to spread that same toxic message to even more kids in his situation.  Do you have any idea how sick that is?
Call it philosophical friendly fire, if you wish; Josh Alcorn was clearly killed by your side.  And when you make cynical attempts to profit from his death through posts like the above, I’m tempted to say that you guys aren’t really all that sorry he’s dead.
LGBTQ suicides will only abate when the advocates who claim to care about the issue concede that celibacy/chastity, while a difficult life path, is at least a legitimate and valid one. 

Changed, you post this like we do these things.  This is called weaponized compassion.  Making us feel bad for things we don't do.
Here's a fact:  The suicide rate of transgendered people is ALSO high for the ones who has transitioned.
Here's another fact:  There are educators now who tell 6 year olds they are transgendered and should take hormone therapy.  6 YEAR OLDS.

Again, these rates have been climbing along with acceptance of homosexuality. Also increasing are STDs and domestic violence among homosexuals couples as well as divorce rates, etc. (see HERE), , 
Each of these upwards trends are not coincidental, but directly related. (ibid) They are the result of increased immorality within the broader culture , and not the discomfort from moral promptings voiced by a decreasing religious community, or even various levels of rejection therefrom.
Until we get this, the problem will continue to increase and the fatalities climb. We need to stop confusing the solution with the problem.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That was a misplaced blame. High expectations is a fundamental strategy for success. On the other hand, risk factors for suicide include a number of health, environmental, and historical factors (see HERE), none of which include striving to become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Mt. 5:48) 
The stress and anxiety factors that  put one at risk for suicide, aren't high achievement, but loss of loved ones (for which the church offers comfort and some relief ), divorce (which the church discourages), and loss of job (which the church helps alleviate through its employment services).
The church also discourages other risk factors for suicide, such as substance abuse--alcohol, drugs, etc..
The church also provides a sense of community and purpose and meaning, which helps lesson health risk factors like depression.
In other words, the church isn't part of the problem (to be  blamed), but part of the solution--even with its imperfections.
As for the high rate of suicides in the Inter-mountain West, it is largely attributable to genetics--i.e high percentage of Scandinavian descendants.  
Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Again, doesn’t determine causation.  People use anecdotal evidence to confirm their bias, ignoring the fact that the push to normalize deviant behavior encourages it, leading these kids to unfulfilling and difficult lives.  

To all my LDS friends, and any LDS leadership that cares to take counsel from a Pentecostal jail preacher, please, no, do not go the way of post-modern Christianity. It seems so easy, so popular, so relevant, so accepting/loving/neighborly to interpret scriptures in light of the culture--rather than interpreting our culture in light of God's word--but doing so is folly. The world will NOT love you back. It will use and abuse you, and then discard you. Easy religion and easy churches will die once persecution comes. People join them because they are non-offensive, yet spiritual-seeming. Once society and culture deem all religion offensive, members will flee the easy-going post-modern churches in droves. I'd much rather engage in conversations with those who live like me than with those who claim to believe like me, yet who've placed cultural acceptance above divine revelation (sadly, I have in mind some of the pastors and churches in my very own fellowship). Stay the course! Please.

I clicked your link and saw that suicide is up across states from 2005 to 2014. Utah was 10th in 2005 but jumped up to 5th in 2014 (why aren't there any years in between?). What happened in that decade to cause the jump? Was it the Church's stance on homosexuality, a stance publicly stated in '95's Proclamation on the Family, and legally defended in Hawaii and California? Nope, that was before 2005. What's happened since then? What has happened across the nation to increase suicides, but especially to exacerbate it in Utah? Maybe @Just_A_Guy has an idea?