Iggy

The child is 18 but I've been told she may be "delayed" mentally. Hard to tell. I only had a brief conversation with her. If so I wonder if CPS should be involved, even though she is 18 in years.
Yes from what I understand the wife is "crazy", whatever that means. I asked the RS president if she was worried about the wife being extremely angry when she gets home and finds out all her stuff has been thrown away. She said, Yes but this was her husbands decision to do this so he'll have to be the one to face the consequences.
The husband has been involved since day one. He has bad habits himself but he was the one who contacted the RS president. He has been taking loads to the dump. The daughter has helped, too. Although her own bedroom needs lots of help, too. 
RS and bishop say they are going to work on getting them the help they need. I don't know what that entails. Again, I have no stewardship and may never find out since I bailed on the cleaning part. 

We have been repeatedly warned we are living in the last days.  The terminology has morphed over time.  I remember hearing "we are in the last two minutes of the last hour," as I was a youth.  That changed over time to we are living in the last days.  A few years back that changed to "we live in perilous times."  The Family: A Proclamation To The World contains this warning, "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."  Those warnings are contained in the scriptures and the writings of apostles and prophets.  We have received warnings about the calamities and catastrophic events of the last days in conference and fireside addresses.  All things are spiritual to the Lord, including temporal things.
The current prophet just warned us again.

Sheesh.
I had to think and think and think to figure out what on earth you were talking about. I thought "mordorbund has lost it" for a bit...but then it hit me.
JaG's reference to DAMU.
On a side (but very related) note:
I HATE ACRONYMS!

Here's an example:
I was listening to some Millennials discuss political topics the other day. At first, I was appalled by their utter lack of understanding of anything having to do with the US form of government. Don't they teach basic civics in schools any more? Or is the rising generation simply beset by terminal stupidity? But as the fog of their confused, seemingly irrational speech slowly lifted, I began to see that, deep down, there was actually some foundation for what they were struggling to say...
Sounds like a great start for an essay, doesn't it? It's an example of what Alexander Pope called "[to] damn with faint praise".

Well said. The problem is (often, not always) not with the ideas, but with the presentation. I actually mostly agreed with Heather's infamous article a couple of months back, but her "not a member of Elder Oaks' fan club" presentation doused any enthusiasm that the column might otherwise have generated in me.
Sister Mangum's implied approach seems to be: The gospel message is offensive on first hearing, and the gospel as preached by our fathers and grandfathers triply so. Therefore, we must overlook our initial impression and instead listen more carefully to tease out the eternal truths that are there.
I suppose this is solid advice in any generation and at any age, but the implication rubs me wrong. Instead of saying, "I approached a certain gospel topic wrong, and it took a while until I could see the truths being presented," the article seems to say, "Those old generations said things funny, in a way that decent people today can't grasp immediately, but we have to be patient with our forebears and tease out the truths they articulated." Again, this is not incorrect, but it seems to suffer from massive implicit presentism. If Sister Mangum's article were the only example of this, I would chalk it up to a mere immature worldview by a specific writer, or perhaps just an unconscious slip. But it seems like this is the default attitude of the article authors for ThirdHour.

How to Study Prophetic Counsel from the 20th Century (And Not Go Crazy)
Answer: The same way Nephi received the words of his father. The manner for studying and learning from prophetic counsel in the 20th century was the same manner for those who heard Adam's counsel -- God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Is it even worth responding to these articles any more?

So sorry, I did not ask you to do that for me. It was for your own information. I already read it and was totally fine with it.

Both of you enough of your *The Sky Is Falling* nonsense.  Neither one of you even went to Ancestry dot com to research what they do and do NOT do with the DNA information. I did. Before I even purchased the DNA kits. 
@Just_A_Guy I actually expected more from you. Such as Due Diligence.
And just because you BOTH really pissed me off, here is AncestryDNA Privacy Statement in its ENTIRETY.
 

I am okay with that like I said - Husband and I don't have any skeletons in the closet.

I couldn't even get that far.
The first sentence of the article is a very irreverent manner of talking about God.  Just reading that sentence already makes me conclude that it's another article that shows to me that 3H just publishes anything they get without editorial review... or their editorial reviewers need to go back to Sunday School in addition to journalism school.

I love to read fiction novels about supernatural beings, vampires, werewolves, etc. Also, historical fiction novels. I love Twilight and have all the HARDBACK books. Love the TV series Supernatural. Oh, and as a teen, I read and loved all of my Mother's books by Georgette Heyer. When she finished the latest book, I read it. All the money I earned by selling white rat babies to the University of Washington, ironing my Uncles police buddies uniforms I gave to Mom to buy the books so she wouldn't have to super scrimp on the grocery money.
Oh and I am not even one whit embarrassed by admitting that I love ABBA! Or to telling anyone my gender and age. Female, 66 (soon to be 67)

That isn't love.  It is more like stalking.

I like @MormonGator

Ooh!  I spent a hundred bucks for mine, back a dozen years ago or so.  
It's fascinating stuff.

Ancestry is offering their DNA testing for $30.00 off, that is $69.00 folks. Today is the deadline. Oh, if you don't like Ancestry - ALL of the others are offering theirs at discounts too.
I purchased two kits for Hubby and myself - this years birthday gifts - will update with the results.

I went with Ancestry because both Hubby and I have accounts with FamilySearch & Ancestry and a good chunk of my relatives (who are not LDS) also belong to Ancestry and three of them have FamilySearch & Famicity accounts. I am hoping that there will be distant *Cousins* on Hubby's side who have Ancestry accounts and if there are any who have FamilySearch accounts we will be Over The Moon!

At the very least, the Church is authorized to make adjustments to the garment. I can't find a single reference that encourages members to garment DIY. To the contrary, it seems clear they don't want you messing with the garment:
The Church offers you an authorized service that solves your concern, I would personally go that route and simply remove doubt from the equation.

@CommanderSouth Since we are studying the New Testament this calendar year I have been using the complete Joseph Smith Translation alongside the KJV. NOT just the footnotes, but the Complete book. What a difference it makes. Talk about plain and precious truths being lost - omitted from the KJV. As for the church history being re-written, I don't see it that way. I see it as Father, through his living prophets has been giving us morsels that even the weakest of us can understand. Here a little, there a little. Line upon line. Precept upon precept. Milk before pabulum, pabulum before meat.

Going back to our New Testament study. Reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They have written about the same incidents - repeating the same instructions from Jesus Christ, yet each man has omitted one or more things, or added one or more things. But in reading them over several times and listing what I call the bullet points,  they are ALL saying the same thing.

As for comparing Jesus Christ's Church to the Baptist's, Protestants, Catholic, Lutheran, Christian, etc. isn't really a fair and true comparison. The LDS faith - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same now as it was when Jesus organized it originally.

As for comparing the history of the church, or the history of any of the latter-day prophets, seers & revelators told to us by various and sundry peoples aka their journals, letters, newspaper articles, said to a friend who then told a friend who then - - - etc., etc. Then claiming that said history has been rewritten is folly. Read the accounts with a pure heart, prayer and true intent by bringing the Holy Spirit into your heart. By ASKING Heavenly Father to give you a clear gift of discernment AND understanding. Ponder what you are readihng. Make notes. Lots of notes.

Bullet point those impressions, or highlight them.
Back many years ago when the church released those essays about church history, my niece and her husband's family went all ballistic and left the church over them. Their hue and cry - battle cry was "They lied to us. Everything that was said, taught from Primary, Seminary, Gospel Doctrine & Gospel Principles were lies. Lies, lies, and more lies." After her three Aunties patiently went over her complaints, point by point, and brought evidence of the truth of the recounting. No, there were no lies. Yes there was omissions. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Milk before pabulum. Pabulum before Meat.

Then the declarations regarding same sex marriage, then later about the children in same sex households. Whoee, you would think that she, her husband, ALL of his near family (Mother, and all siblings & most of the spouses - Father did not enter into this *Stooopid Nonsense*) were gay, lesbian, trans, bi. NONE of them were - are. My nephew-in-law's heritage hails from LDS Pioneers. My neice on the other hand is first generation LDS. Both her parents are from NON-LDS families. My sister basically grew up in the church being the youngest sister to 4 siblings who were baptized at ages 16, 15, 14 and 14.


You bring up historical doesn't back up what has been taught in the LDS church. 
My point of view is that there is historical backing that has *not yet* been discovered. Remember also to take into consideration the author of each revisionist article. Their history within or even without the LDS church. For that reason alone, that is why calling upon the Holy Spirit is paramount in your readings. Discernment. To have discernment in which the Holy Spirit is able to testify of the truth to you, you must stay true to the covenants you have made with Heavenly Father.
Discernment is one of the major gifts that Father has blessed me with. As I have matured in age as well as in my knowledge of the gospel and principles of the gospel, this discernment has grown exponentially, and I have learned to listen, pray, ponder and then take heed of what the Father through the Holy Spirit is saying to me. I am able to discern via the internet, email & snail mail letters, videos, phone calls and of course face to face encounters.
Since *forever* we have been encouraged to pray before, during and after our studies of all church related lessons. It is the same with studying/comparing the different historical essays-writings of the LDS church/ LDS peoples. Pray, ponder then ask the Holy Spirit if it is true. Then listen. Truly listen.
 

True. But I would suppose that a temple matron's opinion is likely to be more informed that Random Sister Jones' opinion.

Much of the temple ordinances depend on interpretation and other such items.  We KNOW that they had tabernacles and temples in the Bible, and some of the areas are not really explained in full of their usage in the Bible.  This could be due to them having similar things to us in that some items were sacred.  We know that they had sacrifice and the rules of sacrifice which composed the usage of some of the temple, but with the size of the temple and the area it composed, questions are still out there which archaeologist and historians attempt to answer.
With eternal marriage, once again, it also falls upon what one has as their interpretation.  From an LDS perspective, there is a LOT of evidence of celestial marriage.  Some of this falls into the retroactively changing of terms, ideas, and historical thought that has pervaded the LDS church in recent times.  When I was younger there was the idea that marriage, as spoken of in the Bible, when referred specifically as a marriage, was typically discussing that which was given of the Lord...aka...celestial marriage.  On the otherhand, concubines and others of such status were a lower state, or those that were not sealed together.  Thus, it was more than just a status item, it was literally a defining item between those who were joined in the covenant vs. those who had a temporal marriage.  This is why those children born to the handmaids of Leah and Rachel were literally, under the covenant, the children of Rachel and Leah as well in some thought processes that were given at the time.
I work with history.  I am not a Church historian.  I also see exactly what you are talking about in the church attempting to retcon some items which they had taught and accepted for over a hundred years previously.  I am also disturbed at it.  Much of the reason I am disturbed is that their historical sources are suspect in their new history that they seem to be writing and accepting.  The same could be said of their old sources, but at least they HAD at least ONE acceptable source.  Now, for some of the items that are being written (and it is typical as some of the sources are the SAME sources as that which the anti-Mormons utilized and those sources have almost ALWAYS been rather bad from a historian viewpoint...as in, unreliable and more based on rumor, speculation, and third party recounting rather than primary and first party...even those which SOUND as if they are a primary source tend to turn up to be worse than a secondary source when research is done) presently for LDS history in the church, the way it is being done is very disturbing.
I can say that most of the Anti-Mormon literature out there is not historically sound.  Most of those that I see expounding stuff on the internet typically are the same that would accept anything someone else told them and take it as a "fact" rather than trying to find the source material and track it down that way, or lack the training (and this covers 99% of them) to even understand how to track down to see if it's a valid primary source and if it even makes sense historically (a prime example are some of the trial records that some try to point condemn Joseph Smith, when in the context of what would have been recorded at those times in history makes absolutely no sense...which would lead a normal historian to want to investigate why such an abnormality exists and do tests to see if there are any documents, if they are actually valid, or if someone forged them).
So, it is even more puzzling that the church has accepted some of this stuff in recent years as acceptable. 
I do NOT have an answer for this or that will please you or anyone else who actually KNOWS how history works and the backgrounds of Church history.
The only thing I can say is that the Church is a vessel composed of and made for men.  The GOSPEL is the thing the church conveys to us.  It is the thing that the vessel carries of importance.  It is led by Men (I know, we say the Lord is the head of the Church, and he is, but 99.9% of the time he is not here talking to the prophet directly, showing himself to the members, and others in a direct leadership role.  Most of the time it is his servants that are in charge with him revealing a little bit occasionally.  So, yes, he is in charge ultimately, but realistically the General Authorities of the Church are the ones leading the church during the 99.999% of the time the are not actively receiving revelation directly from the Lord). 
Because it is led by men, there are opinions and things they do that are strictly from their own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.  This happens on a local level and continues up the chain.  If we develop a testimony simply of men and this vessel, we will be more troubled than if we develop a testimony of the Gospel.  The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is where the ordinances and saving covenants are taught and given.  It is where the principles of salvation are found.  The Church is what carries this gospel, but it is the GOSPEL that is essential.  The Church has come and gone throughout history.  It is a temporal vessel which is sometimes on the earth and sometimes not on the earth.  On the otherhand, the Gospel is eternal.  We need to be able to distinguish between the eternal gospel and the artifacts which compose the mortal items of MEN and POLICIES on the earth.
I will say that I have ALWAYS held the opinion that you cannot prove that the Book of Mormon is true from physical evidence (and the same holds true for the Bible).  In fact, much of the evidence out there would point out that there IS NO EVIDENCE.  Even worse, for the Bible and Book of Mormon, the evidence could be utilized to actually prove that they could not possibly have occurred and that they are not true.  If we rely on science and physical evidence as we see them on earth today, we are going to have a hard time accepting that the Book of Mormon or the Bible are true. 
In this light, those who believe in the Bible, when facing this evidence can either turn to faith, or simply abandon their beliefs.  As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have been blessed with an ability beyond that of the general Christian.  We can KNOW the truth of the Book of Mormon (and the Bible and other scripture) by the Power of the Holy Ghost.  In these dark times where MEN are being swayed and pushed to and fro by the winds of social pressure, temptations of all sorts, and the personal biases we are all suspect to, only the HOLY SPIRIT will be able to guide us to comfort and knowledge in the truthfulness and sanctity of the doctrines found in the Book of Mormon and the rest of the Scriptures.  If one reads the Book of Mormon daily, says their prayers in earnest and are true to the covenants and principles, they can receive the calming peace found from the Holy Ghost and not be as troubled in these times where men go hither to and fro by any switch in the tide.
Thus, the best answer I have for you is not one that many enjoy or want to hear.  It is not an answer that is given by the "facts" of men (either in the church or out of the church), nor is it a message where all physical evidence that we mortal men use points to Joseph and the rest of the Church leaders being perfection in carnate.  If you base your testimony on the "facts" and evidences given by the world, you will soon find yourself having a great deal of difficulty accepting anything in the gospel.  However, if you pray and ask daily for the guiding spirit of the Holy Ghost, faithfully read the Book of Mormon, and continuously search and ponder the scriptures you can find that you have the reassurances of heaven through the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Thus, this is my answer.  The ONLY peace you might be able to find in all of this is the same that has always been promised.  It is that of the Holy Ghost.  It is why many of us joined the Church and continue to stick with the church.  Even if things seem contrary to us between what the world says and what the church says, the Holy Ghost can confirm that the Gospel is true.  That the Book of Mormon is true, and that the ordinances we make are holy and sacred.  If we base our testimonies on the things of men today, we will only founder and lose hope and faith in all that we have been taught and learned.  Only by the power of the Lord and our own ability to listen to the Spirit can we daily reassure ourselves of the truthfulness of the gospel and the saving principles thereof.
Metaphorically...
Right now we are going through a literal Hurricane of popular pressure and temporal temptation in this world.  The Storms are raging around us.  The ship is the Church, the mast is the prophet.  The Rudder is the Scriptures and the Lord, and the rope tying us to the deck is the Holy Ghost.  If we do not make sure our ropes are secure and that we are paying heed to the rudder we will either be swept overboard or our ship will go wandering into the very depths of confusion.  For this day and the future (even more than now) I'd say that we need to ensure that we have the Holy Ghost leading us and that we are paying heed to the scriptures or it will be very easy to fall off.

Call your exec sec now and set up an appt with the bishop. There's no point in delaying and continuing to feel the way you do. It'll be ok!

First of all, take a deep breath. You both made a serious mistake, but the fact that you want to repent of it is absolutely a wonderful thing. Jesus Christ loves you and your husband. Repentance makes you feel better. The only one who wants you to be terrified about seeing the bishop is Satan. If he can trick you into being too scared to go, he can keep you under his thumb. Don't let him fool you! Your bishop will guide you through the repentance process. While I can't tell you for sure what you will have to do to be fully forgiven, only your bishop can do that, I doubt it will lead to excommunication for what you did. If someone comes in wanting to repent and showing true remorse, any penalties given tend to be much lighter, than if they arrogantly reject the process the Bishop presents to them.
Also, and this is important, the moment you start talking to him relief will flow over you. That burden you have been carrying for 2 years willl start to ease, and you will feel God's love flowing over you. Remember what God tells us about forgiveness in Isaiah 1:18:
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
Jesus Christ loves you sister. He loves your husband. You guys made a serious mistake, but he is waiting to forgive you. God bless the both of you.
 

Answering the "how does this go" question-- 
You give your executive secretary a ring/text/email/whatever and say "I would like an appointment with the Bishop". He says something like "ok, does Wednesday at 7 work?"
You and hubby go meet with the Bishop and talk about things.  There's no pitchforks or shaming or anything like that.  The Bishop has heard this type of thing a million times before.  He is there to HELP you-- to help guide you to the Savior and be washed clean.  The Bishop is a coach to help you be the best disciples of Christ you can be (there was a excellent sports talk on this in the Priesthood session yesterday).  The fact that you and hubby both acknowledge that you messed up and have such remorse about it is already a huge step in the direction of repellence and becoming clean.  The bishop will help you become fully clean, and for you to know that you are clean-- shedding away this burden.  
You and your hubby are individuals and will have an individual path to repentance, so no one here can tell you the exact specifics of it.  But there's no calling your parents telling them you messed up (you guys aren't kids).  There's no huge red letter written on you.  This is between you and the Lord, with the Bishop coaching you on that journey.  

Lets walk through the effective differences...
For baptisms the bishop's always had to give approval.  For kids this always included an assessment of the support at home.
Three years ago the church also added the need for First Presidency approval in this particular rare case...  
The only difference I really see is that three years ago the church gave the bishops an out...  "I can't approve this the first presidency has to"  Now it is back to being the Bishop's call.
How many Bishop's do you really think are going to allow a child to be put in the situation @Jane_Doe is describing?
Notice how this change is also empathizing people (aka bishop's) to consider the ramifications of the action.
The real difference I see some members have "a baptize everyone and let God sort it out" attitude.  Blocking it for three years hopefully cooled that mindset, to where reasonable understanding and assessments can happen.
 

IIRC, the Church backpedaled off that absolutist application almost immediately.    I’d have to look it up, though.  
As far as gay marriage no longer being “apostasy” per se—the thing is, we’re now going to have situations where a) married gay couples are trying to say, with a straight face, that they aren’t having sex (honest!); and b) married gay folks are being specifically asked during the course of their disciplinary councils, whether they are having sex.  This is only going to get more interesting . . .