person0

I find that as I get older, I become more and more blunt (just like they show in comedies--old people lose filters).
"So, you have a gay co-worker and you want to show disapproval? Are you asking to be fired? Are you asking to be sued? Your job as a member of the church is to show love. You took upon yourself the name of Jesus Christ and as such you are a witness of Him at all times, places and situations. So, how do you treat your co-worker? As a son (daughter) of God. You treat them as a co-worker--respectful, compassionate, and loving. You don't need to show disapproval unless they are not doing their job--then you deal with that aspect, not their personal one. So, let's look at scriptures about charity and discuss what those mean...."

There is a time and place to relate opposition to homosexuality, etc, and to share the related truths of the gospel.  From what you wrote, it appears the woman you visit teach is not currently in a situation where that would be appropriate.  I believe the above quote would apply in full or in part because the Lord expects us to exercise wisdom in our communication with others.  If this woman were to act as she is seeking, she could bring undue 'persecution' upon herself.  It could be minimal, or possibly result in termination, depending on how she were to go about it, and what interactions, etc, resulted from it.
Found another quote:
Specifically finding a way and a reason to express disapproval of a lifestyle choice in the workplace is essentially a form of persecution.  As others have hinted, if you turn the tables it would not be reasonable.  If another person wanted to express disapproval of this woman for being a Mormon, what would be the appropriate way to go about it?  I think it would be rare to find an appropriate opportunity and method to share that position.

At work 90% or more of the time sexual orientation should simple not be a factor.  Therefore 90% of the time the answer is treat them like a colleague.
So what about the other 10% when their favorite sin becomes relevant?  Well how do you treat everyone else when their favorite sin becomes relevant?  How do you show love for the person that goes and gets drunk during the weekend while letting them know that drinking is a sin?  How do you show love for the potty mouth while letting them know that swearing is a sin.  How do you show love for the girl that is shacking up with her boyfriend while letting them know that fornication is a sin.
When your friend answers those questions then the answer your friend's question should be blindly clear and highly personalized.
If they do not like that answer then it is time for them to look inward to resolve their own issues because there is a beam somewhere in their own eye

Yikes. This would be workplace harassment. The sexual orientation of a coworker is none of her business.

God may ask us to do many things, but God never asked us to behave like rude uncharitable unrighteously-judgmental jackasses just to prove a point.  The whole "I'm acting like a jerk to you because God said to love everybody" thing means you need to find a better way to show love to people.  There's that section in D&C where the priesthood holders in authority are called to "reprove betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost", but that section is specifically talking about priesthood holders in authority.  And the rest of the verse immediately reads "and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy".
Our job in spreading the gospel:  Offer them a cookie.  (If you don't like cookies, replace the word with strawberries or whatever.)  If they like it, offer them another.  If they ask for the recipe, give it to them.  Offer to help them make cookies in their kitchen.  If they don't want no cookie, respect it.  If they hate cookies and extol the virtues of cake and only cake, you get to enjoy your cookie, and if they have a problem with it, they're the one with a problem.  
 

I am interested in the answer to this question from a non-LDS perspective.  My personal view, which comes from the LDS perspective is that there are self-existent eternal laws that exist outside of God such as justice, and mercy.  Many attributes we ascribe to God would also fall into the category of self-existent and eternal, such as benevolence, perfection, righteousness, and so forth.
The fact that these laws are self-existent and eternal allow for a principle which is likely considered heretical to many Christian denominations; the idea that God could cease to be God.  Not that it ever would occur, but that it technically could happen.
My belief is that God must comply with eternal law; He continuously lives in perfect obedience.  The plan of salvation, and Christ's atonement is His perfectly crafted plan that complies with those laws and enables the salvation of mankind.
If you don't believe that there are laws that God Himself must abide, then why would there be any need whatsoever for a Savior?  Without absolute eternal laws, it seems to me that God could just save anyone based on whatever metrics he chooses.  And then, if He truly is a benevolent being, what would stop Him from providing a way where every single creation could fully repent over time and join Him in Heaven?  If eternal law does not exist independent of God, then it seems to me that God (based on most existing religious interpretations of Him) would be classifiable as a 'respecter of persons'.
I once attempted to explain this idea to my Muslim father, hoping to show him why I could never come to believe in Islam, because their interpretation of God would in fact result in Him being a 'respecter of persons' based on these very principles. However, from my current understanding, this may similarly apply to many Christian denominations.
I hope that I have made my position adequately clear.  Ultimately, the main question is, why was the atonement of Jesus Christ necessary?  However, anything related to sin or death is not really the point of this question, neither is the difference in our understanding of the Godhead.  My inquiry for the non-LDS is more of, why was it necessary for God to use the atonement of Christ to save us?

If only 7% of our population were stupid, we wouldn't actually be too bad off.  The real problem is that 48% of the people surveyed said they didn't know where chocolate milk comes from.  That half of the country votes! 

We could always hope that 7% of people are really snarky when taking surveys.

We're just getting older.  I swear they are letting 8 year olds drive cars these days.

Alma 32:28

Sure. And both of these are covered under the initial baptismal covenant.
I see the sequence of covenants we make as being additive, revealing to us the deeper, more important aspects of covenants that we have already made by having us make them more specifically.

Well that's true. His grammar is pretty sad. I can just see all the FLDS people sitting around, "Wait, what? Who is murdering who? What's going on? Why can't God write the sentences for him?"

Whenever Jeffs issues a new revelation, my ward gets a copy (addressed to a former bishop).  Current bishop knows my weird hobbies, and gave it to me, because he rocks. 
In case anyone is interested, it mentions the following:
- Celestial sun-star orbs, like Onidi
- a quorum of Eloheim of Elohim
- "By morrow midnight, over one billion and seven hundred million murder spirit people on now world" are gonna croak
- Instructions to go look at Estonia and Latvia, because half of the population are supposedly missing
- We're exhorted to read the Pearl of Great Price.
- President Trump is urged, by name, to "now do full deliverance of my now innocent Keyholder"
- The CIA pays a judge a yearly bribe of $1,500,000 to keep Jeffs behind bars.
- Verse 25 reads: "CIA was, and now is not. Amen."
I asked the bishopric if anyone wanted to switch teams and start sending our surplus tithes up to these guys instead, nobody seemed too interested.  Which surprises me, because Jeffs' revelations are so much more entertaining to read.

For the longest time I have struggled with testimonies. Never in my life have I gone up on a fast Sunday and shared my thoughts on faith with the church.
Im that person who so badly wants to go up, but I dont know what to say, and I was always scared that someone would think that my feelings were wrong.
At testimony meeting someone would go up and bear their testimony and then go sit back down. I would start to stand up, and then sit. I would tell myself, Okay, ill go after this person. But I never did.
Then came Girls Camp. Testimony campfire. I think all female mormons know what that means. I heard so many beautiful testimonies, and one by one a girl would stand up and share her feelings toward the church. By the 2nd girl to share her testimony, everyone was either balling or had tears running down her cheeks.
I remember that year I felt so badly that I needed to stand up and bear my testimony. The bishop asked if there was anybody left that wanted to share. I felt the urge to stand up. Stand up! But I didnt, and that concluded the testimony meeting.
The next year for Girls Camp came around again, and I knew I needed to share my testimony. I felt even stronger this year that that was what I needed to do, it was what Heavenly Father wanted me to do.
Once again the Bishop stood up and asked for any last testimonies. I didnt stand up. One of our leaders stood up and bore her testimony.
Then again: Anyone else before we close?
But this time I stood up.
And for the first time in my life, I bore my testimony.
After the campfire was over, I pondered on how I got that strenght, that courage. I felt so strongly that there was a reason that that time, out of all the testimony meetings and talks in church and campfires at camp, that was the time I got the strenght to bear my testimony.
I looked through my camp manual and found the mission statement for beehives on page 3:
"A Beehive becomes a Young Woman of Truth as she follows the promptings of the Holy Ghost, seeks truth, and strives to live and share it."
I knew then and there that this is why I felt the need to share my testimony. The Holy Ghost was promting me most definitely. But the part that I thought most of was strives to live and share it. As a beehive I had not been striving to share it, though I had been living it.
As I said my prayers that night, I realized that sharing the truth is not just about helping others to find it for themselves, it also helps you. Sharing my testimony shined a whole new light for me, and never had I felt the spirit so strongly than at that very moment. I knew that the spirit was with me, and that Heavenly Father was proud of me for listening to that still small voice.
My Heavenly Father wanted me to fulfill my duty as a beehive to share the truth with others. That was my last year as a beehive, so I am so grateful I was given the strength to do what I needed to do.
As I prepare to become a Mia Maid, I will share my testimony and feelings with others as much as possible, because I know I can feel that spirit again.

No, Mormonheart, you are not correct.  "sharing feelings and experiences with the gospel" is NOT the purpose of a testimony meeting.   You have an incorrect understanding of the purpose of testimony meetings.  Perhaps your misunderstanding lays at the root of all your opinions about this topic.
The purpose of a testimony meeting, is to bear a testimony.  A testimony is not "feelings and experiences with the gospel"
https://www.lds.org/topics/testimony?lang=eng
Can you understand the difference now, Mormonheart?  If you're not talking about the reality and divinity of God, if you're not talking about gospel principles, then you are not sharing a testimony.  If you want to talk about things other than these things in a testimony meeting, you do not want to bear your testimony, and you should not go to the microphone. 
Can you understand this, Mormonheart?

I'm working on second-degree veganism; most of the things I eat were vegan before they were slaughtered and cooked.

Your interpretation is entirely reasonable, however, Ezra Taft Benson interpreted 'these' from verse 15 to refer to the wild animals, not farm animals (livestock), and the Church published it in the Ensign.
This same statement was reprinted in the Ensign in 1994 and in 2000.  There is currently no other prophetic/apostolic interpretation published by the Church of this verse, so I will personally accept this one.  To me this is also the most logical conclusion as to not create a contradiction with previous verses in section 89 as well as the verses in section 49 shown in my post above.

Mmmmm...nope, can't agree. I believe I understand what you're driving at, and to a large extent I agree -- we learn from the voice of God, the Holy Ghost, about the truths of Christ's gospel, and not just from a man. But that gospel was restored by none other than the Prophet Joseph Smith, and his testimony is our first building block in gaining a testimony (i.e. revelation from heaven) of our own about the restoration of the gospel.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97836&page=1   As the researcher states, people are so quick to talk about farm animals that they forget the insects, small herbivores, and others displaced to clear farm land.    Don't know about anyone here, but I've known a few too many vegans with raging superiority complexes. I wonder what they'll think about this.

Have you considered that while the king can force all the changes described in this chapter, what he cannot do is force the people to sincerely repent and turn to God?  Have you considered that God's wrath continued because a significant percentage of the people were just waiting for Josiah to die so they could go back to their wickedness?

This would be Benjamin Franklin of Franklins Dry Cleaners and Spectacle Makers, Bedford Ave, Brooklyn, NY 1211?

I have had a similar experience with this subject among protestants.  Usually, the most common answer I receive is, "We were created to glorify God."  I rarely get more than that, and to me that is a non-answer.  If that is the full extent of it, it makes it sound like we are just little play toys that God made for his own pleasure, and in my mind, it messes with a lot of the other attributes we ascribe to God, and ruins other aspects of Christianity that I and many hold dear.
Rather than go into more depth on that, I will instead provide you with my personal answer from the LDS perspective as to why I believe God created us in hopes that either it might ring true for you, or at least that it might help as you ponder the topic.  I make no reservation about the fact that I will be pulling from scriptural sources outside of the Holy Bible, this is an important part of the LDS paradigm.
First the short version:
God's purpose is to elevate man to a state of immortality and eternal life.
From this verse alone, we learn that God's purpose is unselfish.  He has a specific goal in mind, He wishes to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life.  The question remains, why does He want to do that, why would he create us for that purpose?  That leads us to the longer version:
Most Christians use the term 'uncreated' in reference to God's existence.  He was not created, yet always has been.  Are you ready to have your mind blown with 'heresy'?  We also believe that man, each and every single one of us (including you), are uncreated beings (although we usually don't use that terminology).
Okay so man was in the beginning, what's this about intelligence?  You posses intelligence, you are an intelligent being, capable of thought, motion, action, etc, and because of your advanced state you are capable of emotion and reason.  We believe that the original 'uncreated' form of man was as an intelligence, we do not know what that looks like, but we do know that it was a non-corporeal form, and that it has always existed, with no beginning and no end.  Here are some definitions of intelligence we commonly use:
God revealed a little bit more understanding to Abraham about this:
So intelligence was not made, but it was organized?  Yes.  Existing as an intelligence is not necessarily the same as existing as a spirit being, but it is the origin of all spiritual creatures, man, animals, insects.  When a Mormon uses the word 'created', what we generally mean is organized.  We believe that God organized our spirits, he organized our bodies, and He organized the earth, all from existing eternal materials.  Why?  We already existed, God wanted us, as intelligent entities to become possessors of the light and knowledge He has.  He wanted us to become as He is.  He wanted to share His joy and glory with us.
We are unable to receive a fullness of Joy without being connected to the elements.  What does that mean?  Having a physical body.  Spirit by itself is not as great or glorious as spirit combined with a perfect immortal body.  God created us in order to give us the opportunity to gain that body, and to learn how to use it properly, so that we could abide in His presence and not be cast out.  The Jesus Christ's atonement makes up for our inability to perfectly use our bodies, and helps us to overcome and gain the perfect ability so we may one day righteously dwell in the presence of God, not sin, not rebel against Him, and not be cast out.  In doing so we may partake of a fullness of joy in God's presence.
I want to summarize in two ways, first a cheesy info-graphic of the eternal existence of you.

Now to summarize what I believe is God's purpose:
God has always existed Each one of us have also always existed as an intelligent entity of some sort God saw that our intelligence was capable of developing to become like His. God wanted to share His glory, knowledge, truth, power, etc. God took the intelligence that existed and created (organized) spirit bodies in His own image and likeness God created a plan so that those spirit bodies could obtain physical bodies to inherit a fullness of joy. Each of us chose to follow the plan because it was obvious to us that regardless of what joyful or painful or positive experience we might have on the earth, it was worth it to obtain the fullness of joy we saw that God had.  (Just think about it, in the vast expanse of you having existed for billions, and billions of years, whats 100 years on earth? Practically no time at all, even if it was all painful, you get an eternity afterward with perfect joy) Well, I am sure I could keep going on and on and on (I tend to do that), but I hope this gives some food for thought.  Sorry I don't have time to go back ad edit this right now, I am at work and need to be working.   Hopefully you get the gist of it.  If I have made some errors someone will correct me, or I will catch it later and fix it.  One last question to leave you with regarding this topic.  Try to imagine a moment when you didn't exist.  I do not believe it can be done, because such a time did not exist.  You can imagine a moment in time before you were born, etc, but you can not imagine your mind and thoughts not existing.  I believe there is truth in that fact alone:

I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it!   I just was having trouble coming up with a good way of saying it (coincidentally, probably because I was very hungry at the time).  I was definitely being rhetorical about the perfect diet.  In regard to healthy eating not being the real question, I was referring to my interpretation of Snigmorder's original point about only eating meat when there was basically no other choice, which is how the whole conversation between He, I and NeuroTypical got started.  I was not referring to healthy eating not being the real point of the WoW.  I did not interpret your meaning of looking beyond the mark, probably my bad, but my use of the word err was also meant to mean 'err unintentionally while trying to sincerely keep the WoW', rather than actually overdoing it.  I think that sums it up.  Anyway, I'm gonna go eat my chocolate ice cream perfectly now.   (except I probably won't because I'm currently limiting my sweets for fitness purposes) 

I think it will make it easier to answer your questions/concerns if we understand your belief about God's purpose.  In your belief, why did God create mankind?
I want to elaborate by relating certain mainstream Christian views from my LDS paradigm to help you understand why that is an important question.
If there is no pre-mortal life, then Adam and Eve's existence began only at the moment God breathed into them the breath of life.  God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and gave them a commandment to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  In the moment God created them, was their body sinful?  Or was it only sinful after after they ate the fruit?  If it was already sinful, then God just forced the creatures he loves into that position and then blamed them for being sinners.  If the body was only sinful after they ate the fruit, why did God create the fruit in the first place?
Going beyond that, most Christians for some reason tend to believe that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit we would all be born in the garden of Eden, in a perfect and sinless world.  If you also come from that view, just because Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit, what makes you think you would also not eat the fruit?  Is it not reasonable to conclude that eventually, of the billions of people born to earth, one of us would have eaten it?
If God is a loving God who would not force his creatures into such a position and then blame them, do you believe that people who don't accept Christ because they are not aware of Him are going to hell, or will somehow get another chance?  If they don't get another chance, how did God not force that upon them without the appropriate opportunity?
When considering the concept of original sin:  If God is a loving God, how come just because Adam and Eve at the fruit, I had to be born with the stain of sin even before making a single choice?  Why didn't God make each of us separately and put us in the garden 1 at a time to choose for ourselves to eat or not eat the fruit?
I am not trying to argue, but instead to give you some food for thought which could help open your mind to another way of thinking.  As you can see, the answers to these questions (and others not asked) depend heavily on your perception of why God created us in the first place.  Depending on your perspective, you might already believe in a God who would force his creatures into situations and still blame them; even worse would be not having an answer to reconcile the 'why'.

I have a confession to make.    This restaurant provides an exquisite and delicious all you can eat meat buffet (they also have a salad bar).  It is one of my favorite places to eat.  Does the fact that I shove my face full of various different delicious meats only once or twice a year count as sparingly?  
Even more important, (ignoring location) if I'm buying and you're all invited, are you not coming?  I couldn't say for sure, but I think NeuroTypical seems like he's up for it!