askandanswer

In Texas de rain is deranged.

It is not an issue of "Law". In States where drugs have been (or the use of) legalized, one must give this up in their baptismal interview to move forward. Also someone seeking to baptized who grows it, or sells it, the same would apply. It would certainly be a difficult tightrope to walk, to ask someone to divorce, if the behavior were to continue. Throughout the history of the Church, and I mean it's entire history, in any land and any age sacrifices have to be made to receive the blessings of the Gospel. We are all aware of the great example and prayer of King Lamoni, who prayed "...that he would give away all his sins to know him (God)". So it is today, we must all must be willing to give away our sins to know Him. This includes even things that we never considered sin before hearing the fullness of the Gospel. 
Also with that "long history" of the Church there have always been difficult choices, filled with emotion that pulls at the heartstrings of so many. But as we learn we grow in greater knowledge, and with that our understanding of what is "right" in the eyes of the Lord. I once went with the missionaries and taught a woman who took the lessons, attended a year a half of my Gospel Essentials class and was truly converted. She had been living with a man for 20+ years, and had two children by him. It was a strong family, a loving family, but no marriage. Both had been married before and just could not trust enough to commit. She wanted to be baptized, but her husband (and his was by "common law" and a good father) but he would not marry her. So in the end, it came down to joining the Church or breaking up a family. It was heart wrenching, and slowly other things she had given up, Word of Wisdom issues she returned too. Since she was not going to leave him, she felt like; what was the point?
This was decades ago, I pray that she and her family were finally baptized. The Apostle Paul, once wrote that, "in this life we see through a glass darkly". Maybe someday, we will all see all things clearly. When that day comes with perfect vision we will move forward, more quickly, without stumbling all over ourselves. Until that day comes we must move forward in faith, and "give away all our sins to know him". At least this is what my faith tells me.
 

Not quite.
Pornography is in the eyes of the artist as well as the beholder.  Let me illustrate:
1.)  The artist creates an art for the intention of sexual arousal.  This art is pornographic regardless of whether the beholder is aroused or not.
2.)  The artist creates an art that is not intended for sexual arousal.  This art is pornographic only to the beholders who are aroused by it.
Make sense?

ok, so here's what the stake public affairs specialist in our stake has been involved in over the last twelve months
Under the direction of the Stake Presidency, the stake public affairs specialist always invites our local Members of Parliament to attend stake conference, We usually have at least on attending,
Two sister missionaries were interviewed on our major radio station a few months back. Public Affairs were involved in that
When the youth did their trek last year, public affairs made sure there was an article in the main daily newspaper
When the stake did a helping hands project a while back, public affairs got it into the newspaper
When there are inter-faith gatherings or ecumenical councils, the church here will sometimes be represented by the public affairs person
Probably they've done more than this but these are the ones I know about. 

How about the guy who pleads with his children not to use drugs? Is he necessarily, or even often, someone who secretly really wants to use drugs? How about the woman who finds nudism repulsive? Does she secretly want to take it all off in public?
In general, I prefer to take people's expressions of belief at face value unless there is good reason not to do so. I understand the revulsion at the very idea of homosexual relations, so I see no reason to assume that all, or most, or even a large minority of those who voice such revulsion are secretly harboring illicit desires, any more than people who scream about how awful Mormonism is secretly just want to be baptized.

I agree with this. But openly criticizing the Church's leadership is never the appropriate way to address such concerns. Ours is not to steady the ark. And honestly, if it bothers us that much, maybe we need to do some true introspection and see if there really is some unChristlike feelings toward, not just homosexuality, but homosexuals.

The Church already came out about this.  If you are LDS and get "married" in a same sex relationship, you are to excommunicated.  So, no, the Church will tell them to divorce and then renounce the practice of same sex marriage before thinking about letting them be baptised.

I carry a spare green light globe and screw driver in my car so I can make a quick change when needed.

@mormondad, I only have one advice.  Sit down and contemplate... really think about it... in very concrete, honest, simple terms the answer to this question.
What do you mean by LOVE?
Then come back and tell me what you came up with.

Public affairs are always so tacky. I think affairs should best be done discretely. 

The 12th Article of Faith doesn't really come into play here, as no one is currently breaking the law or being encouraged to do so in the future.  All is well with the kingdom of man.
Now, if a person wishes to enter into the kingdom of God via baptism, part of that is promising to obey the Law of Chasity.  God will not be mocked, so don't get baptized when you're actively in a LoC shattering situation.  If someone is fornicating with a opposite sex person, they should quit fornicating (either by getting married or ceasing sexual activities).  If someone is having an affair with someone else, they must terminate the relationship.  If someone is involved in a SSR, they must terminate the relationship.  God will not be mocked.
In the meantime, all persons are welcomed to attend church and learn and grow as much as they want, before and after baptism.

Later on we also read, "and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times." If we look at the individuals mentioned, all mentioned are ones who performed works mentioned in the Bible, and not just the everyday works. Adam is mentioned with Eve, and Eve being mentioned seems appropriate (surprised though Mary was named as one of the daughters seeing her important work).
Sure, we could say cultural, as well as work performed on this earth. It could also be who was present in Joseph F. Smith's mind and heart. For example, when we all go to a reunion, we don't mention in our journals all who were there, but we do point out specific people who more have an impact on our lives, in this case, specific to the bringing forth of the gospel of Jesus Christ in all dispensations. At least one person is mentioned from each dispensation.
EDIT: None of the prophets were mentioned in the Book of Mormon save these words, "All these and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance," Moroni is mentioned solely to say who he testified of was there.

Public affairs are always so tacky. I think affairs should best be done discretely. 

I carry a spare green light globe and screw driver in my car so I can make a quick change when needed.

I've seen the damage that pornography addiction can do to a marriage. I wouldn't do anything until you have had this addiction under control for at least a year. Anything less would be premature and acting too quickly. 

In Texas de rain is deranged.

I carry a spare green light globe and screw driver in my car so I can make a quick change when needed.

I carry a spare green light globe and screw driver in my car so I can make a quick change when needed.

Growing up we had a special three legged pig. This pig saved the family when the house caught fire, waking everyone up so that we all got out safely. Someone once asked my dad why the pig had only 3 legs. He replied, with a pig this special, you don't eat him all at once!

If I'm the only tax payer on the road, the road is mine and i can do what I want

My very first thought about American traffic lights... Wow, it's amazing how an entire country of people are fully controlled by a box of lights!
In the Philippines, traffic lights are there so nobody would end up shooting each other over who gets to go first.  If your "opponent" is an empty space... there's no fight!  It's all yours baby. 
 
 

Right, the wild side of Provo, Utah.

Malcolm Turnbull (Aus PM)
Today’s vandalism of statues of James Cook and Lachlan Macquarie is a cowardly criminal act and I hope the police swiftly find those responsible and bring them to justice.
But it is also part of a deeply disturbing and totalitarian campaign to not just challenge our history but to deny it and obliterate it. This is what Stalin did. When he fell out with his henchmen he didn’t just execute them, they were removed from all official photographs - they became non-persons, banished not just from life’s mortal coil but from memory and history itself.
Tearing down or defacing statues of our colonial era explorers and governors is not much better than that. Of course Cook didn’t “discover” Australia anymore than Columbus “discovered” America or Marco Polo "discovered" China. I knew that when as a schoolboy I first read the inscription.
The statue gives a perspective of history from the time it was erected - 1879. Just as a history text in the Mitchell Library from the same era would do. Is the next step of this new totalitarianism to burn the 19th century histories of Australia as well, or should their yellowing pages be simply overwritten in crude graffiti condemning their long dead authors?
Old histories should not be burned, anymore than old statues should be torn down. Rather they should be challenged and complemented by new histories, fresh evidence and modern monuments.
Statues, inscriptions, monuments are all part of our history not simply because of what they record but of how it is recorded. We do not adopt every inscription on every statue or monument - it is a voice at a point in time.
How many ancient Roman monuments show slaves shackled to the chariot wheels of their Roman conquerors? Does that mean modern Italians endorse slavery? Or chariots?
Old statues and monuments which tell one version of events offer the opportunity to tell another. It might be another new monument nearby or an interpretative panel, after all contention and controversy enliven history....
Yes, there are many dark chapters of injustice, hardship and cruelty. And none crueller or more unjust than the dispossession of our first Australians. But we do not advance the clear eyed telling of the truth as we see it today, by trying to obliterate the reality of the different perspectives of times past.
A free society debates its history, it does not deny it.
It writes new books, it does not burn old ones.
It builds new monuments as it preserves old ones.
And above all, a free society recognises that the history each generation makes, and writes, builds upon the ones that came before to create our nation’s remarkable Australian story.

Here in Australia, we take a dim view of people who kill Australians. Speaking as an outsider, I'm surprised that some Americans erected statues to honour those Americans who killed other Americans and I'm surprised that today, there are many Americans who continue to defend such statues. I don't think the context in which the killings took place - a civil war - makes the wholesale slaughter any less bad, and those who oversaw it any less culpable. 

I like neurotypical's approach better; it at least has some sort of basis in a formal legislative process.