Quin

Most certainly, particularly if you have interests that your spouse doesn't as that really only leaves you three options:
 
Give up your interest. Force your spouse to participate in your interest. Participate in your interest without your spouse.  
This applies regardless of if the interest includes other people or not. If you enjoy early morning runs but your spouse doesn't your options are the same. Though most couples would pick #3 without thinking about it. When it's nights out with friends, that's when they tend to stop and consider the options.
 
What, how often, and boundaries are going to be really marriage dependent (and will even likely change over the course of a marriage, with kids the how often is a bigger concern than without). Ignoring obvious extreme examples (some sort of contrived adultery party) the fundamental thing to keep in mind when coming up with an answer to those questions is what answers prevent damage to the marriage. As an aside, something to keep in mind concerning frequency is that while it seems obvious that "always" could cause damage, never could cause damage as well. 

When I was in high school there was a beautiful and wonderful girl that had polio and was unable to walk without crutches – usually she was in a wheel chair.  I never thought at the time to ask her out to a dance because she could not dance.  If I could go back in time - I would tell my earlier self to ask her to the junior Prom; take her to be best (most expensive) restraint in Utah and make the evening special.  I did not run with the most popular crowd but one of the more popular crowds because they were such a good and fun bunch.  We all knew her and liked her but she never got asked by anyone to any dances.  We just never thought a girl that could not walk would even want to go to a dance.  Many years later I learned that she cried many times because guys like me never thought to ask her out to a dance.

I'm confused.
When I first read what you wrote, I took it to mean that AFTER baptism you'd have to chose to change genders (again) in order to progress.
On re-read... Am I understanding correctly that your mission president says you cannot be baptized?
And even further... FIRST presidency is saying you cannot be baptized?
Purely do to being trans?
Because that would be news, big news, if trans people were not allowed to be baptized into the church.
Q

If you live in a city... You still can!
Clearly, you could go back to school, and try to get in on the standard k12 track
OR
Homeschooling is facing explosive growth... And needs teachers.
Because most HS parents only teach SOME of the classes.
We farm out the rest.
Whether it's academic, physical, etc..
I got my neighbor (Stanford basketball, trying to get into highschool sports for over a decade, but it's practically impossible) involved in the local homeschool network a few years ago... And took her homeschooled varsity team to State (HS'ers in my state have a right to play on or compete against public school teams).
It's a market that is only just barely being tapped (or is completely untouched).
And HS students have serious time to devote to passions (at the highschool level it only takes about 2-3 months to complete a years worth of academic. So if you want to train your team 5-10 hours a day, you've got students who can actually meet that schedule).
Just a thought / something to look into.
Q

And what if someone prayed to find out a particular answer and while searching found their answer on FAIR?
 
In General Conference last month Elder Holland said:  "Defend your beliefs with courtesy and compassion but defend them."
 
There is so much bad information out over the internet, it is our responsibility to replace the bad with the good. That is one of the objectives of FAIR and many other organizations like it.  That is even the objective of lds.net.
 
How does an organization that publishes our beliefs encourage contention?  Contention comes about by those who want to argue or try to disprove our beliefs.

Faith is not more pleasing to the Lord just because it is rooted in ignorance.
 
To the extent that apologetics are seeking to provide truth, contextualize problematic issues, and generally leave a window open for belief, I support them.  Where I think they run into trouble is when they endeavor to "prove Mormonism right", spout phony history, or try to water down our beliefs to make them more acceptable to the world.

This is going to sound brutal, but . . .
Why would you want to end up with someone who doesn't bring out the best in you?
Maybe, in time, your (ex?) boyfriend will be that kind of person. But that isn't who he is right now (and as far as he's concerned, that's not who you are right now, either). Marrying someone (heck, dating someone) who you know falls short of your standards, and justifying that dismissal of your own standards with assurances of what you hope that person will one day become, is a very poor idea.

Having been a member all my life and growing up in a dysfunctional family...I would go back and encourage myself to pursue a College education.....I so wish I had and would love to be coaching high school sports somewhere.

If you could go back in time and give yourself advice, what would you say?
People who encourage you to break the law of chastity should be shunned. You do not need to be polite to them.
You need to have daily scripture study and prayer even when you are really busy
Romantic partners who think they are better than others will eventually decide that they are better than you.
Pray before study sessions.
Make friends with the married women in the ward when you are a single adult. These ladies have a lot to teach you.
Before contemplating a degree look at the job ads to see what type of jobs are on offer and what they pay.
University professors have no idea about the job market
Stay close to Heavenly Father and discuss your fears with him.
Gaining weight can be life threatening and can cause irreparable damage.
Be polite to everyone, unless they are trying to lead you astray
Most extended warranties are a waste of money
Before you buy a house, count up all the little costs. Renting can often be cheaper.
Being cool or fashionable is a complete waste of time and money.
Try to get out of college/university with a degree that allows you to make money and allows you to move if necessary. It is hard to move if you are a cop or a teacher because you are moving from one union shop to another- at least in Canada.
If your bishop asks you to make a major change in your life, pray and get your own confirmation.
Go to the temple if you need to make a major decision

I think you missed my point.  If you have a message that something like..."I'm not available right now.  Just want you to know I'm not sick, dead or injured.  Leave a message.
 
That particular message doesn't help if you really are sick, dead or injured.  Mainly the dead part.

1.  Would Satan try to speak false guilt into our lives?  Would he trip up a young married with the thought that sex is dirty--no matter what--in direct contradiction to Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians 7?  Absolutely!
 
2.  Churches do not speak about sexless marriages.  They either do not know this is a serious issue or it really is not all that common.  However, my guess is that most pastors, counselors, and bishops would, at minimum, advise these couples to find their way to intimacy.  Personally, I'd do a slow-walk through Paul's counsel in 1 Cor 7.
 
3.  Prophets speak when told to speak by God.  Either it is not as wide-spread of a problem as some here imagine, or yes, the counsel may be taken as ammunition by abusive spouses to demand intimacy at-will.

It gives a whole new meaning to "Starlight Lounge"
  
Hey.... I seem to recall mention of Armies of Heaven!
Q

Many times I have tried (and failed) to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. But my lack of understanding doesn't invalidate another person's belief.  If a Trinitarian person says the believe that God did NOT beget himself due to reasons XYZ, then I have to acknowledge that's what they believe (even if it makes zero sense to me).

The same way we justify "worshipping" (what does that even mean, anyways?) the Father, but not (under most circumstances) the Son or the Holy Ghost:  Father, through His servants here on earth, has instructed that He is to be the sole object of our worship at this time.
 
I don't pretend to know why the Father has set things up the way that He has at this point in time.  Some scholars suggest it may not always have been thus--for example, the interior of the temple of Solomon had representations of trees, which may have been an allusion to "Asherah"--a female consort of El, according to some traditions.  But then again, some of the most repulsive and horrifying religious rituals ever developed were riffs on the notion of the interplay between a male and female god and/or divine procreation ("divine matings", child-sacrifice, or what-have-you).  I think the First Commandment was borne of God's knowing that, on the whole, mankind just isn't ready for an active relationship with Heavenly Mother and everything that entails.  Maybe, someday, that will change; but I think it doubtful as long as our society's values--particularly its obsession with sex, its disdain for child-rearing, and its disregard for human life generally--continue lurching towards Gomorrah.
 
 
The idea that Jesus was conceived through a physical act between the Father and Mary was taught by Brigham Young and, I think, Joseph Fielding Smith; but the Church has not formally embraced the notion and lots of (I daresay "most") Mormons just plain don't believe it. 
 
But, for discussion's sake, let's say it is in fact the case.  Well, if I marry a woman, and she dies, and I marry a second woman and conceive children with her--aren't I "cheating" on my first, deceased wife--who (per Mormon theology) is still conscious somewhere in the Spirit world, and with whom I will ultimately be reunited?
 
Mormonism claims to know more about divine family relationships than any other religious system; but we would be rash indeed to claim to know everything.  You're dealing with the religion that pioneered modern Western polygamy, for goodness' sake!  The Law of Chastity (including the current prescription for monogamy) is clear, and Mormons live it so devotedly that it's very hard to conceive of a situation where it might not be applied exactly the same way as it is in the here-and-now.  But given our history and our theology (specifically, D&C 132)--of necessity, Mormons have to keep a bit of an open mind when faced with difficult questions regarding love, marriage, fidelity, and relationships in general.
 
 
I agree that we don't become complete carbon copies/clones with the exact same likes/dislikes/hobbies/taste in aesthetics.  On the other hand:  the only ones who attain exaltation are those who have completely and genuinely managed to subject their will to that of the Father.  The ones who would radically change the fundamentals of the Plan of Salvation once they attained exaltation (e.g., Lucifer), don't make the cut in the first place.
 
You don't "lose" your free will, under the Father's plan.  You give it to Him freely, and then He molds you into something better that you could never have become on your own.

You have single handedly ruined CTR rings for me.
Q

Kimball's no liberal; but his colleague on the bench put him in a very difficult position.  Kimball says "The state has placed plaintiffs and their families in a state of legal limbo".  Actually, it's the federal bench--particularly, Kimball's colleague Shelby, who has created the problem.  But Kimball can't really come out and say that--different judges on the same court have to at least present a facade of unanimity, for the sake of their court's prestige.  I suspect Kimball's privately hoping the 10th Circuit stays his ruling.

"We are not asking for perfection.  The work of the Lord is done by ordinary people who work in an extraordinary way.  The Lord magnifies those who put forth effort......."
 
Pretty sure 18 year old men are imperfect.  Also, is a relapse really representative of lack of sincerity in repentance? At some point it may be, depending on the sin and level of transgression.  I'm not sure this particular sin rises to that strict of an interpretation.  I would not categorically state that someone who relapsed with this particular problem is unrepentant, or was unrepentant. 
 
It seems like we as LDS in general take a pretty extreme line on this type of stuff, and is there a possibility we are stifling progression?  If this is the great sin that prevents someone from serving a mission how much better off is that potential, otherwise worthy missionary at home?

I guess I'm missing the point on Commandment 10 here.
 
 
The 6th Commandment is correctly translated as "murder" not "kill." 
 
Your comparison to anger is puzzling in this context.  If someone's life (child in this example) is in danger, it really does not matter if I am angry or not, as to whether or not there is justification in my actions.  I am protecting life, angry or not, which is the justification.  Disciplining is a whole different animal.  Nowhere does it say that self defense/defense is allowable only if we are not feeling anger/hate.
 
Now if I harm someone soley because of hate/anger we have a whole different scenario.

My understanding and quotes I have provided have all been from LDS sources, not my own understanding.
 
His talk is about when the addiction becomes sin.  Let me paraphrase and summarize what Hartmon Rector is saying; Sin is when the spirit also becomes addicted.  Note his words; "it is not just the physical body that is addicted..."  Which is exactly what I have been saying.  The problem is when the spirit takes on the characteristics of the body.  The body's "addiction" is not an issue.  It is only when the spirit that can make choices also becomes "addicted", that is the thing that is taken with us to the next world.  If it is "just" in the body then it is not sin and it is not a problem.  The body will do what it does.  Our test is a spiritual one, whether the spirit will take on the passions of the body or not.  I think you need to learn through the spirit of discernment and weed out the garbage of the wisdom of the world.  The phrase that you selectively cut off from the quote you gave right before the start of your selection reads "Resurrection is a process whereby after death the spirit returns and reunites with the body and they become again a living, immortal soul, immortal meaning not subject to death or separation. I believe it is primarily the spirit that sees, hears, feels, knows passion and desire;... "  Therefore he is only refering to the things that are carried with us to the next life.  He is not refering to the things that turn to dust upon death.  The important thoughts, passions, sights, sounds, desires etc. are the ones that are internalized to the spirit as that is who we really are and will carry through to the next life. I totally agree with Hartmon Rector when he says the struggle that we deal with is the spirit, because that is what we will carry with us and that is what we will be judged by, not the addictions of the body.  Remember he said it is not "just" the body that is addicted (when there is sin).  Read further on in the talk, he is talking about sin only.   Sin is when the spirit makes a choice.  There are passions from the body, i.e. - sexual drives, hunger, striving for power and control, domination, anger etc.  The sin is when the spirit adopts those as her own.  I agree with Hartmon Rector in that discussion.
 
Go ahead and quote a talk from 1970 and I will give you one from April 2013, Elder Bednar so that you have further understanding of this discussion beyond the general discussion available in 1970; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).
The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."
 
"We are here to bridle all of the passions of the flesh."  Elder Nelson 1985 (15 years after your quote); "If our faith be united in prayer that we may be edified together, I should like to speak about our quest for self-mastery. In so doing, I would converse as a loving father counseling one of my own children.
Before you can master yourself, my precious one, you need to know who you are. You consist of two parts—your physical body, and your spirit which lives within your body. You may have heard the expression “mind over matter.” That’s what I would like to talk about—but phrase it a little differently: “spirit over body.” That is self-mastery."
 
President Eyring 2008; "We all were taught by Elohim, the Father of our spirits. We loved Him and wanted to be like Him and to be with Him forever. He told us plainly what it would require for us to have that joy. We would have to receive a physical body, with all of the trials that would bring. We would be subject to illness and have within our bodies the processes which would finally lead to death. And our bodies would have in them powerful cravings for physical satisfaction."
 
Part of the discord I think comes from having different definitions of "addiction",  "Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (gambling) that can be pleasurable but the continued use of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work or relationships, or health. Users may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others.
The word addiction is used in several different ways. One definition describes physical addiction. This is a biological state in which the body adapts to the presence of a drug so that drug no longer has the same effect; this is known as tolerance. Because of tolerance, there is a biological reaction when the drug is withdrawn. Another form of physical addiction is the phenomenon of overreaction by the brain to drugs (or to cues associated with the drugs). An alcoholic walking into a bar, for instance, will feel an extra pull to have a drink because of these cues."
 
There is the "pull" from the body, then there is the choice made by the spirit.  At what point the line is crossed, the point at which the spirit takes on the characteristics of the body and it becomes a spiritual choice, God will judge that in any given person.  You and I cannot judge that, we cannot see the inner man like God can.   It is not 100% of the time a choice made by the spirit.  As even Hartmon Rector, Jr says "sometimes" it is. You and I cannot judge that in any given person.

Hi, lastlily.
First off, welcome aboard--both to the church, and to this website.
The older I get, the less I like the phrase "have to confess." I'm not sure, for most situations, that it establishes quite the dynamic that's supposed to exist between church members and priesthood leaders.
But I would heartily encourage you to counsel with your bishop over this. I think you'll find the extra support helpful.

As others are mentioning, this isn't really the Church-of-You-Did-Wrong-And-Must-Now-Be-Punished.  There's a guy sitting behind that desk in church, who would love to know about the struggles you're having kicking some addictions.  He may be able to be supportive and help with the spiritual end of things.  

Irreverent though it is, I often think of this.  Usually it gives me a needed moment of release, and then I can think seriously again without simply seeing red.
 

Posted Today, 09:01 AM
I expected that a good many in the LBGT community--even from "moderates,"  would respond, "See?  How does it feel now that YOU are on the receiving end?"  Power does corrupt.  On the bright side, Christians do well under persecution.  We become stronger, and more Christ-like.  We grow.  I'm told that China now has more Christians, in raw numbers, than the United States.  They've been forged by the fires of persecution.  It may be an irony that LBGT payback (is that not what "see how it feels?" amounts to?) revives Christianity.
 
 
I think what most think isn't so much "how does it feel now" as much as will this teach humility that was lacking in the past.  Are the gays going over board, you bet, we need to learn our humility as well, but that being said we were shown that when Christians had the power they were corrupted by it and abused it with pride and little humility.  The did not follow the golden rule they just sought to rule.  The gays are just as guilty now don't get me wrong, but neither side really ever handled it with grace.

Okay, I'll pose this as a question.  Is the LBGT community--those pushing these kinds of decisions, anyway--engaging in payback for the centuries of Sodomy laws and our sexual teaching against that which they do?  In other words, is this really mostly about revenge?

I disagree, one can have values without religion.
One can have morality without it and one can be a good person while having no faith in something bigger.