Anddenex

It would be nice to know a lot of things up front, but you just have to do you best and adapt as needed when plans don't go as hoped for.  My wife dropped out of university when we married even though she was a year ahead of me due to my serving a mission.  She took a job at Sears to support us while I went to school, and later got a job closer to home and campus until I graduated.  We had kids before I graduated though and had a friend watch our kids while I was in class. 
When I graduated we moved as I started a job and she became a stay at home mom, but it was on a very, very limited budget.  Starting salaries are not designed for a husband, wife and 3 kids.  plus she would not earn enough at a job to pay for daycare for all of them.  She did get a temp job when I was out of work for a long time, and she did work cleaning houses while the kids were all in school, but it wasn't until more than 20 years after we got married that we finally had the means and opportunity to allow her to go back full time and get her degree.  She finished her master's this past May in fact.  If you ask her, she'll say it was a far better life plan to chase kids at 20 and do homework at 40 than the other way around.

She has a right to expect him to do his best to provide for the family but nobody has a right to any particular income level.  If his best at the moment means she needs to work too then that is how it is.  The proclamation on the family lays out that husbands and wives are to assist each other.  Eve worked alongside Adam.  They need to pay tithing and be frugal with what they have and seek a way to improve their lot if they are not content.  Sometimes 'my husband doesn't earn enough' means 'not enough to sustain my spending habits'. 

I'll just leave this here.
 
I'm sure there will be another talk on the subject in a month.

I think divorce is a GREAT idea, as long as we are talking about her divorcing herself from her parents.
I was unemployed for over 2 years after the high tech crash in 2000, and it wasn't from lack of trying.  I finally got a job that payed the same rate I earned tutoring high school kids while I was in university, where employees were treated like dirt, and it was a 2 hour bus ride there and 2 hours back home every day.  That lasted a couple years then they laid everybody off and I was unemployed for 1.5 years after that.  Were times hard, you bet they were, but even when in-laws, parents, and others were casting a disdainful and suspicious eye my way over my failures, my wife stood by me and pushed back at their less than kind remarks.  She never turned on me and called me a failure or attacked me for what was happening and I needed that because I was down on myself over it enough on my own.
It wasn't until 2008 that I landed a good job that started to set things right, and when I got it I prayed that I would not forget the lessons I learned from that trial.  We came out of it with a stronger marriage than before and a lot more. 

Divorcing somebody you love over a low income is so shallow, so materialistic, so gold-digging, so immature, so short sighted, so selfish, so unchristian, so loving mammon rather than God.  Joseph Smith wasn't wealthy, Christ wasn't wealthy, Lehi lost all his money to Laban and lived in a tent, Job lost all his wealth, would she divorce them if she were married to them?

If two separate companionships are teaching the same family, yes that is a problem. I remember receiving the warning and when the warning was received I wouldn't be able to update/save the new companionship. This was a few years back though.
The idea of two families home teaching each other isn't uncommon, and when I have seen it done it usually is because the EQP knows they will home teach each other. Some people prefer home teaching friends.
If it concerns you, as you are in a calling with Stewardship in this regard, address the concern with the EQP.

The short version of my answer is that it's just fine for you to hang out in the pub with your friends as long as it doesn't hinder your spiritual life in any way (which it certainly doesn't have to).
Long version:
The appearance of evil.  This might be the most common concern.  People see a known Mormon go into a bar and they start jumping to ridiculous conclusions about what that Mormon is doing in there.  To avoid the possibility that someone will reject investigation of the church on such grounds, many folks avoid the appearance. If you struggle with avoiding drinking, don't make your life harder (whoever you are, member or not). What @MormonGator said. Life-long Mormons, depending on lots of details, may not have friends who frequent bars.  Their friends who do may never invite them because it's known Mormons don't drink. Personally, while moderate drinking on the part of others wouldn't bother me, I would not want to be in the middle of a smoke-filled room.  (I like my lungs and am hoping they'll stay pink a long time.   ) I've had mixed experiences: In high school, my employer sent me across the street to a bar to get change (we were out).  It was dark inside and every person in there looked miserable.  It was enough to convince me I wanted nothing to do with such places. In Moscow, the embassy had its own bar inside.  I would go there sometimes with friends.  No one thought for a minute that my orange juice was anything but orange juice - though we made jokes about it.  I was not spiritually damaged by the experience. Also in Moscow, I went to a farewell party for someone who was returning home (at their apartment, inside the embassy compound).  Everyone but the Mormons got plastered.  My plastered friends thought they were having fun and everything was hilarious.  They weren't having fun.  It wasn't hilarious.  Another friend and I walked the two of them home (at separate times).  Not sure they would have made it otherwise.  Again, no one thought I was doing anything against my religion because they knew me well.  Again, I wasn't harmed by the experience (though it wasn't much of a party). I do have an amusing story of one of the walks home, if someone wants to hear it.  The other walk home was just pitiful (he wanted to steal a case of Pepsi - while a security camera was looking down at him; then he got all vulgar and literally licked photos of his wife, while crying (his wife was alive and well, just not present at the time, there were no problems in his marriage, no idea why he was crying) - it was kinda sad). So, you know, I reckon it depends on what kind of experiences you're going to have. 

It's not called - Sunday Silk.  It's called Sunday Best.
So, what it is supposed to be is you thoughtfully choose your best clothes to wear on Sunday.  If all you have is t-shirt and jeans, then you choose your best t-shirt and best jeans to wear to church.  If you can do better than t-shirt and jeans you go get the better outfit that you can afford.
Now, if your work asks you to wear business suits and you refuse to do it, you'll get fired.  If your football team asks you to wear the proper uniform and you refuse to do it, you can't play.  God asks you to wear your best that represents your respect for God.  You won't get fired if you wear something you think is Sunday Best but others think is not.  But there are at least minimum standards of modesty - for endowed members, it's easier because you just need to make sure your Sunday Best covers your garments.
In any case, if you walk into church in your t-shirt and jeans and feel so out of place it distracts you from your worship, then it's not a good thing.  At the same time, if you walk into church in something else and you feel so uncomfortable it distracts you from your worship, it's not a good thing either.  You'll have to figure out a happy balance taking into consideration what is the best way for you to focus on worship and help others focus on worship as well.  This flows out of the commandment to love others as you love yourself.  Not just others and not just yourself either.  And all of you trying to fulfill the first commandment to love God.
My husband has 3 suits that he rotates wearing to Church - suit and jacket pair.  My 2 teen-age boys tend to grow like weeds so they only have 1 suit jacket and suit pants each that they wear every single Sunday.  We live in Florida, it's waaaaay too hot to wear suit jacket, but my husband and kids walk into the air conditioned ward building and put on their jackets.  Most of the guys in the ward don't wear the jacket.
I wear business clothes to church.  My best clothes is my Maria Clara gown made of abaca fabric and hand embroidered on the shawl.  I don't wear that to church because it is too flashy and would make me stand out and become a distraction.  So, I choose my next best - my business clothes.  I have a couple of pantsuits that are one of my very best business clothes so I sometimes attend church in pants.  My only indulgence on Sunday is my shoes.  I love shoes and have several pairs that are fancy.  I wear these to church.  Not many people pay attention to what kind of shoes people wear so I don't feel like I stand out and become a distraction in my 4-inch high heels especially when there are 14 inches between my husband and I.
Hope this helps.
 
 
 

Basically I got told that trousers are fine but like suit trousers.   Im not a dress fan either so I wear a suit skirt and blouse to Church every Sunday with black flats.  I do like looking my best for Church.     
The guidelines for dress you can find in a booklet on the lds.org website called For the Strength of youth.  I got given this book when I was looking into the Church (I'm 32) but the standards of dress are the same what ever age. 

As you've noticed, dresses / skirts are the norm.  Unlike @SilentOne, the only time I've seen a woman at church wearing pants was when she was an investigator, coming from or going to something that got in the way of putting on her "Sunday clothes" or similar anomaly.  I have seen some of the young women / girls wearing some sort of stretchy, shin-length pants under skirts.
As for hating dresses / skirts: My one and only memory of pre-school is the first day.  My mom made me wear a dress.  I remember very clearly clinging to the inside door handle of the car for dear life, refusing to go (because I had to wear a dress).  Mom literally had to pry my fingers from around the handle and drag me kicking and screaming into the pre-school.  I have no similar memories of going to church (though I have never liked wearing skirts and likely never will).  I tell people that I only wear a skirt for God (in church and in the temple) - and it doesn't bother me doing it for Him (I could not care less what other people think of my attire, but I do wish to show love, respect, and submission to God by dressing in my "Sunday best").
FWIW

I always distinguish OT and NT, in that the OT times (in the BoM too) the church was led by Jehovah, who at the time was the non-physical Jesus Christ, but they didn't fully understand the resurrection or the physical substance of the Father.  It was only after Christ came that the physical resurrection was understood as applying to God, and so I have no problem with people then (and even now) understanding God as a great spirit.  But Christians should understand that God (the Son) came to Earth, and was resurrected in physical form, so claiming Christ is anything but a physical being just makes no sense to me.  He  never shed his body, but ascended Heaven in physical form.
So, God (the Son) was  both the great spirit of the Old Testament, and the physical God of the post Resurrection.

Read the whole story from the start.   In the beginning, King Lamoni has no understanding of God beyond "the Great Spirit".  Ammon is trying to work with what King Lamoni already knows and help him to move from that starting point toward the truth.  This is how we all learn pretty much anything.

I have tried to find some logic to callings.  I have served in bishoprics and seen the callings from both side and have determined that trying to attach logic to who should have what calling is not a worthwhile endeavor.   I have considered that the L-rd calls those most worthy.  Well I have received enough calling to know that is not true.  I have considered that callings are based on talents – but again there are so many calling that prove this completely false.  Well then perhaps calling are given to help us develop new skills or insights.  Too many examples that is not correct.
The only logic I have been able to come close to making some consistent sense of why G-d wants all his Saints to fulfill callings is that if we did not have callings we would not serve with a proper attitude.  Bishops spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get all his ward members engaged in the divine attitude of service
 
The Traveler

Have you tried asking your bishop for a list of people who are available? 

Yes. This is how a Ward works also. This happens often, and there is nothing wrong with it. Ideally we would like our people to remain the same and work together like a well oiled machine for years to come. Remember that the Bishop is viewing a bigger picture than any single aux/group/quorum. We smile, call someone else and move on. Good luck!!

And here is somewhat of an irony between our relationship with God, fear and love. In this life, those who fear God will one day have an absence of fear when we stand before him (we have shown that we already love him). Those that do not fear God now, will come to fear him (fear being that God is just and true).
Similar to the notion in scriptures (New Testament), if we seek to save our life now (a lack of fear/love for God) will one day loose it (that is the fear, the loss of freedom/exaltation), and those who loose their life will one day save it.

And here is somewhat of an irony between our relationship with God, fear and love. In this life, those who fear God will one day have an absence of fear when we stand before him (we have shown that we already love him). Those that do not fear God now, will come to fear him (fear being that God is just and true).
Similar to the notion in scriptures (New Testament), if we seek to save our life now (a lack of fear/love for God) will one day loose it (that is the fear, the loss of freedom/exaltation), and those who loose their life will one day save it.

Yes, that is my understanding, we are not to be afraid of Him directly. Having a healthy understanding, fear so to speak, of consequences for our decisions, that is good.

And here is somewhat of an irony between our relationship with God, fear and love. In this life, those who fear God will one day have an absence of fear when we stand before him (we have shown that we already love him). Those that do not fear God now, will come to fear him (fear being that God is just and true).
Similar to the notion in scriptures (New Testament), if we seek to save our life now (a lack of fear/love for God) will one day loose it (that is the fear, the loss of freedom/exaltation), and those who loose their life will one day save it.

Thank you so much! I look forward to reading the talk too thank you!

This is true also. My focus was upon "fearing God," and what this means. A good example in scripture of what you have specified is the lost manuscripts and due to Joseph Smith putting a friend above God's will, we lost important scripture. A great conference talk was from Elder Lynn G. Robbins, "Which way do you Face?" Highlights what you specify. To fear God is to appropriately place him before man. Fear God thus means to me, love God more than anything else and understand his words are true.

This is true also. My focus was upon "fearing God," and what this means. A good example in scripture of what you have specified is the lost manuscripts and due to Joseph Smith putting a friend above God's will, we lost important scripture. A great conference talk was from Elder Lynn G. Robbins, "Which way do you Face?" Highlights what you specify. To fear God is to appropriately place him before man. Fear God thus means to me, love God more than anything else and understand his words are true.

IMO, yes, that is correct.  Our "fear" of mankind shows up in a gazillion ways (once you start to think about it) and it takes effort to make sure you're always choosing God over men.  I believe @Anddenex hit upon a key to making that choice easier - learn to love God.

This means that an individual loves (reveres and respects) God and recognizes that God is just and true (mercy will not rob justice and vice-versa). His word is his bond. This means that when he says a judgment will come, it will come.
 

Thank you. For some reason I have always taken it to mean that we should always choose Heavenly Father and His teachings over the world...that even if it means someone may not like us or approve of us that what matters is that we are following our Father in Heaven. He wants us to worry more about His opinion of us than we do about others opinions of us, Is this incorrect?

"Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion." (2 Nephi 26:29)
 
Note that this does not mean that all paid clergymen are practicing priestcraft, as is sometimes taught in the Church. Our own apostles and other General Authorities (and mission presidents) draw a stipend, and thus are "paid clergy". I hope none of us think they are practicing priestcraft.
 
Priestcraft is all about glorifying the person himself. It is an imitation of what Lucifer did premortally. Anyone -- ANYONE -- who seeks to draw fame, glory, and attention to himself by setting himself up as "a light unto the world" is practicing priestcraft. That means that legitimate Priesthood holders can practice priestcraft; doubtless there have been cases of this very thing, and probably are cases of it right now.