Anddenex

I have not seen the "A" dotted line. Will have to check.

I'm still using the previous version because I detest the current version.  In said previous version (which you could side-load if you want - but you can't have both installed at once), the very last color on the top row of colors is indicated by an "A" with a dotted line around it.  It allows you to mark without any color showing - you can still tag, add notes, add to a notebook, link, but you don't see a color change in the verse itself (no highlight, no underline).  You do see the little box to the side so you can select your "highlight".  (NOTE: This is the Android version.  I don't know if the Apple or other versions include this option, and I don't know if they kept it when they "upgraded".)

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.
If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.
If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.
If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.
If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.

I actually met a guy in this situation.  He married his wife, they had kids, and here ten years later, he was struggling with overpowering thoughts/desires that he's really a woman.  He was in therapy, both individual and marriage therapy, trying to treat the thing as a mental illness.  He was setting boundaries of behavior for himself, so he'd be able to stay on the correct side of them.  Shaving his chest was crossing a boundary - so he was struggling with swimming.   Wearing women's clothing was crossing a boundary.  He was abandoning a kind of medical treatment for a condition he may or may not have had, because the treatment involved a medication which causes males to grow breasts.  Looking at his bare chest in the mirror for longer than a minute was crossing a boundary - as was indulging in imagination trips about being femaile
Dood was struggling.  He was fighting a battle with himself, and with a bunch of society.  I went away understanding a bit more about why suicide rates are off the chart for folks in that situation - he was in anguish.  His wife had openly stated she'd stick with him as long as he did everything in his power to stay a him.  The minute he decided to shoot for being a 'her', wife would file for divorce.  That was her boundary.
Lots of struggles people have that I'm really, really, really glad I don't have.  This one is in the upper-third of the pile.  I have little I can offer in the way of advice or righteous judgment for folks in this situation and the decisions they make.  

Another idea that many cannot stomach is: the law of chasisty. Why would God care if we are not married? After all we love each other. Why should the state get involved?

An element regarding truth is that it is often hard to "stomach" if we do not have the mind of God. Nephi frankly declared to his brothers, "the guilty take the truth to be hard," which has multiple meaning pertaining to what it means by "guilty." Truth is often "bitter" until one is willing to accept the mind of God, thus truths are diluted (philosophies of men) to make them more appealing, or wrest them in order for the doctrine to be appealing, much like the Mormonhub trending article on Feminism (Heaven forbid any of my daughter becomes a feminist. I want them to be like their mother who understands their equality within stewardship and roles given by God). Think how the truth of "receiving all the Father hath" is a "bitter" pill for Protestant, Catholics, and other sects to "stomach." Does this change truth? No. Truth can only be received when our mind is one with God (in that thing, and we receive all truth when we eventually become "one" with the Father as Christ is "one" with the Father).
She is, however, speaking a truth here, "This is 100 percent my simple opinion and I really have no authority." Her false opinion is expressed (sadly among a domain "ldsliving"). She has no authority (very true). I feel the same way about this article as I do the feminist article, misrepresentations, and hopefully nothing my daughters will accept or become.

I just learned that someone I baptized on my mission has been sealed in the temple!  This is always amazing and wonderful news.  What makes it even more special, in this case, is that this brother's first wife died a few years ago, leaving him a single father, and he had gone relatively inactive (mostly due to work needs).  Then out of the blue he tells me he recently got married in the temple!  I waited for him to send a picture, which very clearly has the temple in the background, before I even fully believed it, because I somehow had it in my mind that it was unlikely.  I am filled with joy at the knowledge that this brother has progressed to such an extent!  He is the only person I baptized who I have been made aware has received the blessings of the temple.  I am so grateful to the Lord for blessing this man and his family.  I hope each of us can have these wonderful experiences throughout our mortal journey to see the true miracle of change working in our families, friends, and others lives.  This is the long game.  I hope that we will all be blessed at the final day to be overjoyed at the number of our brethren that will join us in the celestial kingdom!

"What word do I want here"? How about, a sincere, honest, genuine declaration that I made specifying I believe I am guilty of coveting (with an emoticon that sadly says, yes I'm guilty-- probably not everyday though -- exaggeration), and I wasn't suggesting that all who are working for economic gain are guilty of; however, I was only referring to the subject question, not the whole topic.
Tevye's inquiry in the beginning of the song, nothing inherently wrong with being rich or poor. Nothing to be ashamed of if you are poor (although the natural man holds poor in lower esteem), and it is not great honor either. Is he coveting, yes, merely because he is seeking the honor of man. Where does he want to build his house? How will the man in the town come meet him? The intent behind his desire appears to be surrounded around the honors of men, and if so, yes this is coveting. His desire is to build himself up for honors of men.
Scriptural words that enter my mind with covetousness, "I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction." (Alma 29:4)
To dream of something better doesn't equate with covetousness.
 

It is sad to see so many, not just LGBT, use the excuse "that is just the way I am" or "God made me this way". 
Many christian sects today are more damning than atheism. They teach that God made them from scratch and who they are is exactly how they are intended to be. Even atheists know they can become better people and often choose to.

No no no. Give me Relief!

High Council; however, my all time favorite calling is newly baptized primary children. I love the age groups 8-10. If I could choose my calling that is where I would love to serve.

Thanks for being a follower of Ask Gramps.

"Gramps", of course, has the same authority as...Bill, Tom or.....me. That is to say, none. Fortunately, the answers there are typically well supported by scripture and apostolic quotes, etc...you know...the same stuff they teach at church.
Yes you are...
...maybe you just don't like the answers.
...so are the scriptures...and general conference talks...and devotionals...
The thing is, church doctrine is not established by consensus.
Actually the manuals encourage discussion. They practically mandate it. But...we are a lay church, and that means that sometimes untrained doofusses who have no idea how to teach often do. C'est la vie.
Because we aren't really supposed to deviate from Gospel basics.
Only if it's apostate or disruptive.
And yet...once again...gospel truths are not defined by consensus.
A. Not when it was apostate or disruptive. B. I reject your philosophy that church lessons are meant to be scripted and have no flow. The manuals reject that as well. But...imperfect people make up the church including the teachers.
Really? Ever been to the temple?
Speak your mind as the Holy Spirit directs, don't say apostate or disruptive things, and stop relying on open forums to build your faith.

If a person is "angry" and still unable to move forward without thinking about partner, then don't date until the "anger" has subsided, or in good check. If this takes a month, a few months, a year then wait.
If a person is unable to stop thinking about their previous partner (romantic love) then stop dating and don't date until this is in check also.
If on a date you can't stop talking about "ex" relationship, then don't date until the relationship can be about what is in-front of you (general), not what is behind.
 
 

I was separated for almost 4 years before I finally gathered up enough money to file for divorce. During all that time I never dated. I would have liked to have had a meal out with my single male friends. Or gone to the local performing arts programs or to the movies. BUT as a LDS woman, that just wasn't in the cards. I totally understood, and agreed. So, what I did was invite the missionaries over for dinner, a married church couple and the gentleman I wanted to have a meal with. Win, win, win.
By the way, in my branch and the neighboring ward there were no single men between the ages of 50 and 80, that were worth two shakes of an eagles feather.

If a person is "angry" and still unable to move forward without thinking about partner, then don't date until the "anger" has subsided, or in good check. If this takes a month, a few months, a year then wait.
If a person is unable to stop thinking about their previous partner (romantic love) then stop dating and don't date until this is in check also.
If on a date you can't stop talking about "ex" relationship, then don't date until the relationship can be about what is in-front of you (general), not what is behind.
 
 

If a person is "angry" and still unable to move forward without thinking about partner, then don't date until the "anger" has subsided, or in good check. If this takes a month, a few months, a year then wait.
If a person is unable to stop thinking about their previous partner (romantic love) then stop dating and don't date until this is in check also.
If on a date you can't stop talking about "ex" relationship, then don't date until the relationship can be about what is in-front of you (general), not what is behind.
 
 

If a person is "angry" and still unable to move forward without thinking about partner, then don't date until the "anger" has subsided, or in good check. If this takes a month, a few months, a year then wait.
If a person is unable to stop thinking about their previous partner (romantic love) then stop dating and don't date until this is in check also.
If on a date you can't stop talking about "ex" relationship, then don't date until the relationship can be about what is in-front of you (general), not what is behind.
 
 

If a person is "angry" and still unable to move forward without thinking about partner, then don't date until the "anger" has subsided, or in good check. If this takes a month, a few months, a year then wait.
If a person is unable to stop thinking about their previous partner (romantic love) then stop dating and don't date until this is in check also.
If on a date you can't stop talking about "ex" relationship, then don't date until the relationship can be about what is in-front of you (general), not what is behind.
 
 

If a person is "angry" and still unable to move forward without thinking about partner, then don't date until the "anger" has subsided, or in good check. If this takes a month, a few months, a year then wait.
If a person is unable to stop thinking about their previous partner (romantic love) then stop dating and don't date until this is in check also.
If on a date you can't stop talking about "ex" relationship, then don't date until the relationship can be about what is in-front of you (general), not what is behind.
 
 

Do you believe that if I get cut off in traffic and think "Swear word swear word swear WORD!" but don't say the words that I haven't sinned?
Do you believe that if I lay in bed dreaming about having sex with a woman that isn't my wife that I haven't sinned?
It seems fairly clear to me that the thinking we do is distinctly part of what constitutes our works.
Incidentally, how do you reconcile the concept of lusting being the same as committing adultery in the heart with the idea that the thought isn't a sin?
Also, we're taught that one of the greatest sins is the sin of pride? Isn't pride pretty much fully a sin of thought? Does it not center fully in what we think of ourselves, others, and God?
The idea that thoughts lead to actions does not argue for whether the thought itself is or is not a sin. The discussion of whether it's a worse sin or not isn't meaningful as to whether it actually is or is not a sin to think certain things.
We are commanded in several instances to control our thoughts (some scriptures below). Does the "why" of this mean they are not commandments and that the breaking of them doesn't require repentance? Follow the logic. If pornography leads to adultery is the pornography viewing thereby rendered "not a sin"? Or the same for yelling and fighting leading to murder? Does that mean the yelling and fighting weren't sins. Do only the ultimate sins count? The fact that sinful thoughts lead to sinful actions is an important idea to understand, but the thoughts are still sinful.
A few scriptures for consideration:
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/55.7-11?lang=eng#6
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/prov/23.7?lang=eng#6
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/8.22?lang=eng#p21
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/heb/4.12?lang=eng#p11
For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.6?lang=eng#p5
Look unto me in every thought; 
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/6.36?lang=eng#p35
Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.45?lang=eng#p44

@brotherofJared, I'm curious. How do you reconcile your views with the idea of "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" in D&C 121?
And:
"Behold, I send you out to reprove the world of all their unrighteous deeds, and to teach them of a judgment which is to come." D&C 84:87
and v 117
"And verily I say unto you, the rest of my servants, go ye forth as your circumstances shall permit, in your several callings, unto the great and notable cities and villages, reproving the world in righteousness of all their unrighteous and ungodly deeds, setting forth clearly and understandingly the desolation of abomination in the last days."
and:
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." 2 Tim 4:2
and:
"And again, verily I say unto you, those who desire in their hearts, in meekness, to warn sinners to repentance, let them be ordained unto this power." D&C 63:57
and: 
"Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." D&C 88:81
Etc.
?