SilentOne

That's a temple recommend. Temple worthiness involves living so that you get the paper without lying. During the course of the courtship, my knowledge of their actual worthiness should improve, especially when combined with prayerful consideration as to whether we should marry.

I'd rather die single than spend my life growing in love with somebody who I will not be with in the eternities. So unless I get an undeniable impression to do otherwise, I will continue to date only church members who are, as far as I can tell, temple-worthy.

And they won't encounter such people dating outside the church?

And they won't encounter such people dating outside the church?

@Hemisphere
I won't speak for others, but I think that "you" and "I" have fundamental differences in what apologetics means. Because our definitions are different, our opinions about it being necessary continues to differ. 
Under your definition of apologetics, you don't think they are useful. Under my definition, I do. We are both members of the church. So why the gap? Perhaps it is simply because we are talking about different things? 
I agree with you: contention is not good, arguing with others does not bring the spirit, service is wonderful, actions speak louder than words, bashing with enemies can be a waste of time, screaming in the market is unappealing, fanatical ranting is unproductive. We agree on these points.
Where perhaps we differ in our definitions: 
I view 3 parties:  1. Members/Believers/Apologist ------------> 2. Fence sitters/confused/undecided--------------->3. Anti/False & Misleading information 
Going in circles arguing between group 1 & 3 is what I agree with you on, 99% of the time a waste. 
Apologetics for me is about helping Group 2, not Group 3. 
If Group 3 tosses out false information, who is there to correct the false information?
Don't take the "density of German" thing personally, but it proves a point. Do I care what country is more densely populated? Nope, not at all.
I do care that I and others have correct/accurate information. I do care that Group 2 has access to correct/accurate information regarding the Gospel, Savior and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What they decide to do with that information is up to them, but at least they are making well informed educated decisions based on correct information. 
Apologetics to me is not about arguing, screaming, fanatical behavior, it is about simply providing correct information, defending the faith and dispelling lies/misleading information produced by Group 3. I don't have to scream to provide this information. I don't have to be the market crying fanatical that you oppose. 
I think we differ on one point perhaps. It appears your course of action is the remain silent and say nothing. My course of action is to speak up hopefully in a polite, civil manner to for the benefit of Group 2. 

I'd have to say that I tend to relate well to the non-sport getters here. But I do actually enjoy sports - I've traditionally preferred to play then watch, but I do not mind watching now and again. My biggest thing is that I just don't care about any teams or players in professional sports as a general rule. I mean the last time I followed Hockey (as a Canadian this is telling) Gretzky played for the Edmonton Oilers. I'd find the whole thing more interesting if they actually relied on local talent to pit city against city rather than trading players from all over the world to any given team that has enough money get good players and to keep them around.
So while I wouldn't mind indulging in some sporting events, I just don't care who wins or loses which takes all of the fun out of it. This is why I typically now only care about the Olympics because I have a vested interest in seeing my statesmen do well. However even my Olympic enjoyment is waning - there are just too many other important things in life. I've been contemplating not paying any attention to Rio at all. But I'll likely watch a few soccer games and random events I've never heard of but will suddenly care about because my national team is in it. For me watching sports really comes down to having a vested interest in the outcome and since I really just don't 99% of the time it's not only not worth watching the games, but not even worth getting the score or hi-lights.

I have wondered if there is a limit or discursion employed in blessing things.  A good friend of mine insisted in blessing everything he ate.  If a treat of donuts, cake or other treats was being served he would say a blessing that the desert treats would be nourishing and healthful for his body.  From time to time I would kid him about it but it did not matter to him – he always blessed everything he ate and always to be nourishing and healthful.  I could say a prayer of thanks but blessing something obviously not healthy to be healthy seemed a little over the top to me
 
The Traveler

Nothing, 
You are certainly free to privately believe what you want. I personally haven't heard of active LDS members who reject part of the LDS scriptures. The scriptures are canonized, which means they are pretty core to what Mormons believe.
So to say that D&C 132 - the entire section - is false, is pretty much saying that the prophet and apostles are in error by keeping it in there. That's pretty close to apostasy, I think.
I think the most important thing for you is to keep the commandments and follow the teachings of Jesus.
Meanwhile, I recommend you continue to study and pray about D&C 132. I personally don't think the Lord requires you to believe something you don't believe, if you are not ready to.
But I think he does require that you keep your baptismal and temple covenants, and try to follow and sustain his chosen prophets. We must all press forward in faith, living the truths that we understand, and seeking to continue serving, growing - and learning by obeying God's will for us, as best we can find it out.
 
As others have pointed out D&C 132 is about marriage in general, and the (now outdated) polygamy stuff is just a part of it.
Why is the polygamy stuff still in there? Well, I don't think the church has ever said it was wrong to practice polygamy in the past. The Lord commanded it at that time. Now, the prophets have said through modern, continuing revelation that we are not to do it at present. The Lord directs us through prophets, and the most important prophet to listen to is the current one.

Why do we need our ancestors?
We know that in order to inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, we must be sealed to a spouse.  We emphasize this so much, that I wonder if it doesn't overshadow other requirements.  Consider this: When a family join the church as converts, the husband and wife are sealed (OK so far), and then their children are sealed to them.  Why?  If all they needed was to be sealed to a spouse, why seal living children to living parents?  (IMO, the answer to this is the answer to why we need to be sealed to our ancestors.)  Does one have to be sealed to parents in order to inherit the celestial kingdom?  Why?  What about people whose parents prove unworthy?  To whom are they sealed?  Is it possible even that sealing is needed and that somehow, despite their unworthiness, we will still rely on that ordinance?  Or will they be replaced in the "net" by an upstream ancestor?
Another way to look at it: If the family is the central unit of eternity, what family?  Which family are the married children in?  Their own?  The husband's parents' family?  The wife's parents' family?  The grandparents?  Or is it all one family of Adam and we must all be sealed into Adam's family (through parents)?  Perhaps sealing to a spouse is needed for the highest glory but sealing through parents is what it takes to obtain any glory, and only the sons of perdition are sealed to no one.  (I can see some potential flaws in that possibility, but I'm just exploring what questions we ought to ask to reach the answer(s).)
I don't know the answers to all those questions, but it seems to me that Brigham Young answered this question of why we cannot be saved without them - without them, we are cut off, disconnected, the chain between us and Adam is broken.
(I also think once this question is answered, the second one is too.)

Ok, then

Let’s go

Let me first explain why I mentioned D&C 76:

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;


 
These verses explain what the gospel really is: glad tidings to all of us because of the perfect atonement of Jesus Christ. Our Savior was the Only One capable of doing what was needed for the salvation of all mankind. No other spirit or god could do what He did. We, as Amulek taught, couldn’t perform an atonement even for our own sins (Alma 34:8-15), therefore the infinite atonement could only be performed by proxy, by someone in a higher level, as Elder James E. Talmage explained in his book Jesus, the Christ (chapter 3).

 


42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;
43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, [except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him].


 
In these verses we learn that the power of the atonement is directly linked to the work and glory of God: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. It means that all mankind will be saved, except the sons of perdition. All mankind and all God’s creations will receive a degree of glory. By grace we will all resurrect and go back to God’s presence and ultimately will receive a kingdom of glory to live in forever. Sons of perdition will have no degree of glory, however.

Now, let me address your questions:

The other side of the equation.  How is it that WE need THEM?  "We without our dead cannot be made perfect".  That half of the equation is what I don't understand.
When the Great Plan of Redemption was proposed, our Savior was totally aware of the Father’s mind concerning His children. He said: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever” (Abraham 3:24-26).

Spirt world is part of the second estate. Considering that there are tons of spirts waiting for redemption, and considering that we will all be judged according to our deeds in our second estate, they more than need us. They still can receive the blessings of the atonement in the spirt world.

We need them because we have to extent to them the same love and charity Christ had for us, doing that which we can do ourselves: perform by proxy the ordinances of the gospel. As Jesus did what we couldn’t do ourselves, we must to do for them what they can’t do themselves now. Moroni taught: “ Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail— But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him” (Moroni 7:46-47). If we want exaltation, we need to do what Christ did, as He did what He saw His Father doing (John 5. Charity is not only for the living, but also for the dead.

How is redeeming the dead SO IMPORTANT that the other missions of the Church are all for naught if we don't perform this one?
The importance of the redemption of the dead is based on verses 42 and 43 of D&C 76. The work and the glory of the Lord is the immortality and eternal life of man and of all things created by Him. It includes all those put into His power (the living, the translated, the dead, the resurrected) and all the works of His hands. Preaching the Gospel and Perfecting the Saints are also works performed both here and in the spirit world, so all missions of the Church are equal in importance.

Hope I could help you.

I am certain @Eowyn is right: when the spirit of a deceased person receives their ordinances, they are empowered to act in support of God's plan (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man).  Given the centrality of the family unit in the eternities, it only makes sense that their part be tied to one degree or another to their own descendants.
Yes, this is how I always understood this wording - or even the curse.
As for the purpose of the Earth, it is God's purpose: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  If we are not sealed together as one huge family of God, the purpose of the earth is not accomplished and therefore the earth and everything around it (time, people, the creation, etc.) is wasted (all for nothing).
I also agree that part of the welding is merging all dispensations (keys, knowledge, truth, ordinances, *people*, etc.) into one.  IMO, that does not have to mean we live the law of Moses and every other law all at the same time, rather, the doctrines on which all these are based are all restored in their fullness, eventually - the law of the celestial kingdom, basically - everything must become one, not separate.
As @mordorbund posted, we need an unbroken chain going back to Adam, except I see it as a net, where at each "knot" in the net (where a vertical and horizontal line meet), is a person, and the lines of the net link (seal) them to the next person.  If you are not linked (sealed) to anyone, you have no place in the net, you are single and separate, disconnected from life, power, keys, authority, not tied (sealed) to God or anyone else.  Obviously, this net wouldn't be a perfect grid, as we link via families, rather than to exactly 4 other people, but you get the idea.  (Yes, this analogy doesn't work well for the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms, but you get the basic idea.)
(Edit: Or add another dimension in there, and we can link to more than 4... somehow I always visualize this in 2 dimensions, but really, more is better in this "net".)
I believe that in the eternities, everyone who will receive exaltation will have to be sealed to parents (biological or "adopted"), and to a spouse.  Given that not everyone can / will have offspring, I'm not certain on that part - will those who did not have children in mortality be sealed as "parents" to orphans who do not have and never had anyone else to be sealed to?  I'm not sure, but I'm certain the sealing to "parents" and spouse will be needed.
Finally, after my mom (a big genealogist) died, my dad gave me a new (additional) understanding of D&C 2:2, which the Spirit tells me with complete certainty is true:
What promises?  Made by whom? To what fathers?  Promises we, as children destined to be born (or adopted) in the covenant made to our own fathers (ancestors) who would not be born in the covenant (think of that long period of apostasy), that we would seek them out and do their ordinance work for them, that they too would have the same chance as we.  In light of this thread, I think it entirely possible that pre-mortally we made not just promises, but covenants to bring salvation to them.

And I meant to include
Alma 34:17-26

I find this a bit disturbing.
I don't know what should be done in this particular situation, but there should never be a stark dividing line between your religion and your work.
The way we are taught to pray includes studying it out. Ask for guidance; study the P&L, statement of cash flow, and Word of Wisdom; make a decision; and bring said decision to the Lord for confirmation.

I find this a bit disturbing.
I don't know what should be done in this particular situation, but there should never be a stark dividing line between your religion and your work.
The way we are taught to pray includes studying it out. Ask for guidance; study the P&L, statement of cash flow, and Word of Wisdom; make a decision; and bring said decision to the Lord for confirmation.

It was just a dream...........

Sometimes, separating out those who are willing to act even in the absence of an obvious scientific rationale, is the rationale. 

Agreed, similar to Polygamy. There is a higher principle, law, at play which determines the acceptance or removal of said practice/policy, but it does not make the policy "wrong" as some appear to often suggest when making the argument "It is not doctrine, it is policy/practice."

I mean the one before he was president of the church.  He was an apostle and prophet when he gave that talk.

As I understand it, the "policy versus doctrine" distinction is intended only to give us some guidance as to what Church practices hypothetically may change in the future--or have changed in the past.  It does not serve to justify noncompliance with a current divinely sanctioned Church practice.  I can canker my soul by violating a policy just as effectively as by violating a doctrine.

Are you sure?  Every member a missionary.   If we don't get them in this life, we'll keep trying in the next...  Just cuz they decline to accept the call doesn't mean we're not training them to be clergy.

I sometimes think we should change "like" to "agree"--but I guess we like when people post something we find correct.  :-)

1) So you can hear other people.
2) So you are pleasant to be around and not disruptive.
3) It would become too exhausting if you continually produced sound.

Genetics... culture of their family... introvert verses extrovert.
Similar to these boards. Some are content to read posts for years and never feel the need or want to jump in and 'speak'.  Others feel content to jump in and say something on almost every post.  Posts are conversations; some take part and some are happier to listen, thinking things in their own head they don't feel the need to express out loud. 
Really this question goes hand in hand with 'communication' in any setting; groups, church, standing in line at the grocery store, marriage. Some people are vocal and can't understand how others can just be happy to remain quiet and not jump in and talk. Others are quiet and can't imagine being the kind of personality that wants to talk all the time. 
 

Just because things aren't as bad for us doesn't mean they're not bad, and it certainly doesn't mean we're not headed in the direction of "worse than at present".  The "it could be worse" argument has never been all that compelling to me.  It's always a given, and doesn't really justify anything.  It's like when the best you can say about something is "there's nothing wrong with it" (unless you can say there's something right with it, you're better off living without it).
And I'm pretty sure LeSellers has lived in both war (I'm not 100% on this, he'll have to say) and Europe.  (I've only lived in Europe and traveled extensively.)

Dang! I was so hoping this would be about a movement to switch the entire planet to UTC, thereby ridding the world of time zones and daylight shifty time.  That would be a great way to get closer to the end of time.