Anddenex

Joseph Smith had a big problem with polygamy.  It was so big that he tried to beg God not to command it of him.  His concern was not even for himself but for Emma.  This problem was so big that God had to send a heavenly messenger to bring the fear of the sword to Joseph Smith.  In the early days of the restoration, polygamy WAS a part of the restoration of the doctrine of Eternal Marriage and Eternal Families.
In those days, Christianity believed in 'Til Death Do Us Part.  So much so that when their spouse dies, they can marry another and not be held on moral account by their pastors even as they believed that polygamy is against God's will.  This teaching was not complete.  The issue was that Marriages and Families do not end at death when sealed under proper authority.  So, 'Til Death Do Us Part, becomes inapplicable after the sealing ordinance is restored.  BUT the practice of marrying another after the death of one spouse is a correct principle (the Catholic Church did get a lot of things right that they successfully preserved).  As part of the restoration of eternal marriage and families, God saw fit to command Joseph Smith to marry another while Emma was still alive.  This taught Joseph Smith that there is no difference between marrying a 2nd spouse after the first spouse dies and marrying a 2nd spouse while the first spouse is still alive.  There is no difference because the first marriage did not end at death.
But, Joseph Smith still had a big problem with it and begged God that he be spared from it on account of Emma.  God, of course, required of him the restoration of eternal marriages.  Joseph Smith tried to hide it from Emma.  That did not work out too well.  Emma gave Joseph a hard time over it.  God revealed to her that if she does not allow Joseph to follow God's commands on the matter that she will be held accountable for this rebellion.
Is it wrong for a woman to desire that her husband only marry one spouse?  No.  God commanded polygamy only to a few select elders of the Church.  But if one of those elders is your husband, then yes, the woman will be held accountable for preventing her spouse to follow God's commands.
Make sense?

I think the whole premise of this is your reasoning that Marriage will be exactly the same as it now in the Celestial Kingdom, we don't know what we will be like when we are perfect and have perfect knowledge.   What we are promised in the scriptures is that everyone will be happy with where they are placed so I am happy for Heavenly Father to sort it out.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
(Doctrine and Covenants 121:34–40)
 

Wow - that must be a record.  22 question marks in one single paragraph.  jewels8, you're thinking about important stuff.  Maybe carve it up into bite sized chunks?

Because she understands that jealousy, possessiveness, selfishness are traits you can't bring with you to the Celestial Kingdom.
I myself do not have a problem with it.  My husband is such an amazing guy that it would be good with me if he follows the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to bless another with his spirit like he has blessed me.

For all you know, they had talked about this and came to an agreement. 

Yes, and yes. I would say for me it is, "This looks good," and "Other people will think this looks good on me."
When I purchased sunglasses I purchased with both mentalities, "I like the way this looks on me," and "Honey, what do you think, do they look good on me"?
But really, come on @Jane_Doe, let's be honest with ourselves, I make everything look "good" so it really doesn't matter what I wear. (100% joking -- I don't look good in my wife's workout pants )

Right after my mission, when I still lived in California, I routinely exchanged garments for regular under clothing before going to hospital/doctor visits.  Now that I live in Utah (and am generally older and more mellow), I have a hard time considering it to be as big of a deal.  The doctors out here have all seen plenty of garments--if they don't wear them themselves.

At times, yes.  If it's bad enough that you can't dress yourself, a patient doesn't have much say in the matter anyway.  Surgeries and tubes and wounds and stuff may need to be readily accessed, and garments could hamper that.   If the instructions from the doctors are "nothing but the hospital gown", there are usually legitimate reasons for that.  
If the hospital stay allows for underwear though, I'd vote you keep them on.  Our tushies are sacred too, and you just don't want anyone seeing that either.
I've had a handful of physicals and doctor's visits and whatnot over the years that caused me to sit there while medical personnel saw my garments.  It was never a bad thing.  Two or three times the doc said "oh - are you Mormon?".
 

I was always impressed with the lone Amalekite in Alma 23:14. We know nothing about him beyond his conversion and the negative character of his people, but I love that Mormon mentions him because it teaches two important lessons too me.
1. It doesn't matter how horrendous the culture of your people, country, family is, if you exercise faith in our Savior Jesus Christ and strive to follow his commandments you can be saved.
2. Don't apostasize! Thousands of wicked Lamanites converted due to the preaching of the Sons of Mosiah, but only one Amalekite would repent. It illustrates with numbers the hardness of heart that occurs when you reject the greater light. It's not that the great majority of Amalekites couldn't repent, as evidenced by the one who did, it's that they didn't want too.

I did not build the Today's Class website, I simply modified the graphic to match the design of the rest of the site.

If we document the names in the Houston cemeteries, can we count their baptism as completed?

Well, if you coded the website this would incorporate hours of coding and time spent. I also didn't realize there were more pages then 5, and there are actually more pages then I at first thought. According to what I have seen, I can see you charging $1500 for the site.
It may not be appealing in some ways, but the work put in and number of pages could easily be $1500, especially if they love it, which is what matters most.
EDIT: did you build Today's Class website with this?

You are right, but you are missing the point. (Or more accurately, they -- those who would buy the ticket -- are missing the point.) People want to eat their cake and have it, too. They do not really want to be saved from their sins; they want to be saved in their sins, not understanding that "salvation in sin" is an oxymoron. People think only as far ahead as the tip of their own nose. $10,000 for eternal happiness? A bargain at twice the price!
But of course, it is not. Because the people who want to be saved in sin would be excruciatingly miserable standing before God. They would infinitely prefer to be cast out altogether rather than be in the presence of the Divine. That's what they're missing: Heaven isn't for people who jump through the hoops and dance prettily. It's for people who want to live in heaven. And literally the only people who will dwell for eternity in pain and misery will be those who freely choose to do so, because they prefer it to heaven.

Got it.

Oh? 

Correct @Vort and @Jane_Doe held a conversation about clothing and modesty. It was pretty clear to me that Vort was mentioning how one dresses can indeed distract, and that we do have responsibility. No one here ever stated (including Vort) that if a person is dressing modestly, and someone has "lust", that the person dressing modestly should change attire. No one here even eluded to this -- thus my puzzlement and confusion with this line of thinking. If someone is turned on by a modest clothing with flower patterns, then that individual need to check themselves. If a person is dressing immodestly, the print, hue, or pattern doesn't matter, then yes they have responsibility to dress modestly. It would be the same silly discussion if a man was turned on by "long-hair" and then came up to a woman with long hair and said, "I find your long hair lustful, you need to cut it." We all would look at him and laugh (Maybe the girl should slap him to try to help him come to proper senses). But for some reason with modesty, if a woman is dressing immodestly, and a man comes and says, I am lusting, then it turns into -- It is not my responsibility, as if in totality it isn't. The notion is false.
The principle is easy. If you are dressing modestly, then the other individual (male or female) needs to remember the commandment regarding lust. If you are dressing immodestly (yes we all know modesty vs. immodesty if we are honest with ourselves), then indeed you and I have a responsibility to change our attire (by commandment, and by self-respect and self-value for ourselves).
My mother is one who is more curvy (now older she is more droopy ), and she wore modest clothing that fit her curves (still does). If a man came up to her and lusted -- his issue -- not my mothers (my mother dressed modestly). If my mother was wearing immodest clothing to show off her curvy nature, with intent to get attraction from men, yes, she has a responsibility before the Lord and herself to change attire.

I'm irresistible.

GirlNextDoor
It is your responsibility to conduct and dress yourself in a manner befitting entering into God's house. How you made get effect others is secondary. It is true that modesty is the means by which the Lord has given you to show that respect, and to not draw attention away from the business of worship. It's one Sunday a week, we should all be asking ourselves is that too much for the Lord to ask of us, one day and n seven? 
I did not grew in the LDS Church, but one Sunday, my brother was driving me to Church, soI changed into Jeans. My Nanny (my Grandmother) stop me and asked where I was going. Before I began to answer, she asked, "are you going to Theron's house?" I replied "no", she then asked if I "were going to Mark's house"; I said no. I told her I was going to the "Lord's House", she said, "I thought so", and she made me dress for Church. She has been gone for 45 years now, but every Sunday, I dress as if she was watching. Such was the lesson she taught me. And I act as a watchful eye for my grandchildren should they to decide to go off plantation.  

(I'm using Backroads' post as a springboard for discussion, but my comments are directed generally, not targeted at Backroads.)
You are correct about my intent. But the idea does not lead to problems. Rather, the idea is inherently nebulous. Once we have satisfied the minimum bar of modesty in dress, thought, and action, then we go about trying to see if we can help our sisters and brothers in their weakness.
"Oh, but that's not FAIR! It's THEIR problem, not MINE!"
Yes, true. Obviously. We all know this. But that is beside the point. Can you imagine if our Father or the Christ were to take this attitude with us? We would be forever lost. Should we follow Cain's insolent hatefulness in sarcastically asking, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Or should we see if we can help, despite their weakness?
"Well, there's nothing I can do! If some guy is such a pervert that the sight of female shins sends him into a tizzy, he's a lost cause!"
Possibly. But this is a variation of the previous attitude of "not my problem". It is that attitude that concerns me.
Should we tell our teenage daughters, "You must not wear that perfectly modest outfit, because you will tempt the boys!"? No, of course not. That is putting the onus where it does not belong.
Should we tell our teenage daughters, "That's a beautiful dress and makes you look great. But when you look great, the boys get all hot and bothered, so you should probably tone it down and try to look a little dumpier"? No, that's silly. While it's not as inappropriate as the previous example, it's dumb to tell a beautiful young woman to be less beautiful because it somehow "helps" the young men. The whole attitude is wrong, though not as much so as the previous example.
Should we tell  our teenage daughters, "Your shorts and blouse are perfectly modest, and you look great. I have found out that there is a certain person who has a weakness he's struggling against, and when he interacts with attractive young women in shorts, his thoughts tend to go down a path he doesn't like and wants to avoid. What would you think about wearing something else, like those nice capris?" You know, this seems reasonable to me. It doesn't put the onus of the anonymous young man's weakness on her. It doesn't make it her problem. But it does offer her the opportunity to do a favor for a brother in his weakness. I think that is perfectly appropriate.
Is my example strained? Yes, perhaps a little. Is it utterly unrealistic? I think it is not.
Previous generations have perhaps taught their daughters that they (the daughters) had responsibility over the impure thoughts of the young men of their time. They were told, implicitly or sometimes explicitly, that modesty in dress was to help the poor young men -- who after all were at the mercy of their libidos and could hardly be expected to remain chaste when so sorely tempted by a young woman's bare shoulder or (shudder) cleavage.
The solution to this is, of course, to put the onus where it belongs. To a first approximation, a young man's libido is the young man's responsibility, and no one else's.
What I hear being preached by many on this forum is an unwarranted extension of this philosophy. Remember the "to a first approximation" caveat above? Not only is a young man's libido his own responsibility, but no one else has any responsibility at all to help him.
When we teach this to our daughters, we are teaching them to be narrow, uncharitable, and selfish. That is my beef with this conversation. I'm all for putting the blame where it belongs and keeping the onus on the correct parties. But when I write something as seemingly obvious as I wrote -- that in some cases it might be worthy that a young woman go beyond the minimal demands of modesty and choose to make a small sacrifice to help out someone weaker and struggling -- and others take umbrage at it, that indicates to me that there is a problem. That might be a problem with reading comprehension, or it might be a problem with basic charity for our fellow man. Or maybe something else, though I don't know what that would be.

One other point that I don't this has been brought up yet is the context of the OP: Namely, counsel given to the youth.
These Young Men are at an age where a surprising amount of sexuality bursts in upon them. Wise parents will often teach their teenagers to drive without the radio on first so they can master the fundamentals. As @Vort mentioned, I think wise leaders try to set up an environment for young men to learn without damaging themselves or others. Kind young women can assist in this.
These Young Women are at an age where a surprising amount of sexuality bursts in upon them. With it comes a great amount of power previously unknown. Wise parents frequently restrain a child's physical and temporal freedoms, only granting them more as they prove trustworthy. I think wise leaders try to set up an environment for young women to learn without damaging themselves or others. Disciplined young men can assist in this.

Well, I can think of some designs that are immodest. For example, I've seen lots of designs that outrageously flaunt the female chest, and basically call attention to the breasts in a very immodest way. I'm not talking about size or shape of the chest, I'm talking about thinks like words saying "Why don't you look at my face?" right across the chest, or other such nonsense. Then there is the large, oversized shirt which has a cartoonish curvaceous torso wearing a bikini printed on it. ..basically a funny shirt when juxtaposed with the actual figure of a large person wearing it.

I agree.

I agree with you more or less @Anddenex. I've been reading this forum for a while and I don't think anybody was advocating blaming women for men's problems. Honestly I was more taking exception to the idea that a man should walk up to a woman and criticize her clothing. To me that smacks of being a Pharisee, and my argument was mostly that unless it's an extremely bad case (ie topless) or you have some sort of responsibility for the ward or part of it (Bishop, Relief Society President, Young Women's President) you shouldn't be walking up to people in your ward and criticizing their clothing.