person0

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:
1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)
2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).
There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:
1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)
2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).
There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:
1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)
2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).
There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:
1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)
2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).
There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:
1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)
2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).
There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:
1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)
2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).
There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

My ancestor once tried some fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, I hear it's delicious but have not yet tried it myself.  

"Don't get comfortable; you're halfway to having to put up with your family again."

1. It's important to celebrate celebratable things.
2. You don't have to spend money to celebrate.

If I was a wedding cake maker I probably wouldnt bake any cake for a gay wedding. Same thing for wedding photography- I wouldnt do photo shoots for gay couples either. We have rights too as private business owners and that should be a protection of our religious liberty. 

My ancestor once tried some fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, I hear it's delicious but have not yet tried it myself.  

IF, it ever became canon, or in the D&C, I would expect it more to be along the lines of an Official Declaration than another section of the D&C, but who knows.

I believe it is entirely acceptable to refuse treatment in order to allow yourself to die.  However, to take medication, or any action that specifically and knowingly brings about your own death, is entirely wrong.

Well, I'm sure you'll get to meet him one of these days.  It will probably be a slightly shorter line than those waiting to meet Jesus!   Welcome!

Effective immediately all forum members will be required to participate in a mandatory harassment and diversity training session every two months before being able to post!  
Kidding!  
So I am currently 5 minutes through a 20 minute mandatory harassment and diversity training video at work.  This is the second time this year our management team has had to participate in one of these training sessions.  The broker who provides my salary is always on edge about the possibility of litigation in pretty much any form.  The funny thing is that the actor playing the person being harassed in this video is like the most 'harassable' person ever:  Lazy, overweight, has a cane for walking, annoying, etc.  Obviously they used that character to make a point and harassment can be very serious, but work training is often just hilarious (and cheesy).  I think they should just play an episode of The Office and call it, 'Harassment Training:  What Not to Do!'  That would definitely be a training session I could handle about once a month! 

If I'm gonna have to get trained on how to do this "mandatory harassment", I'm just not sure it's worth it.  I mean who ever heard of "mandatory harassment"!?  It's one thing to give a good jab now and then when you're in a really bad mood, or the other party is being a jerk, but to make it mandatory?  And make it diverse, too?  I guess that's why we need the training - so we can learn various different ways to harass people.  Are the mods going to become harassment enforcers?  Keeping a count of how often each user harasses someone?  Change the meaning of those numbers under our avatars?  Sigh.  This just seems like a lot of work.

Effective immediately all forum members will be required to participate in a mandatory harassment and diversity training session every two months before being able to post!  
Kidding!  
So I am currently 5 minutes through a 20 minute mandatory harassment and diversity training video at work.  This is the second time this year our management team has had to participate in one of these training sessions.  The broker who provides my salary is always on edge about the possibility of litigation in pretty much any form.  The funny thing is that the actor playing the person being harassed in this video is like the most 'harassable' person ever:  Lazy, overweight, has a cane for walking, annoying, etc.  Obviously they used that character to make a point and harassment can be very serious, but work training is often just hilarious (and cheesy).  I think they should just play an episode of The Office and call it, 'Harassment Training:  What Not to Do!'  That would definitely be a training session I could handle about once a month! 

Effective immediately all forum members will be required to participate in a mandatory harassment and diversity training session every two months before being able to post!  
Kidding!  
So I am currently 5 minutes through a 20 minute mandatory harassment and diversity training video at work.  This is the second time this year our management team has had to participate in one of these training sessions.  The broker who provides my salary is always on edge about the possibility of litigation in pretty much any form.  The funny thing is that the actor playing the person being harassed in this video is like the most 'harassable' person ever:  Lazy, overweight, has a cane for walking, annoying, etc.  Obviously they used that character to make a point and harassment can be very serious, but work training is often just hilarious (and cheesy).  I think they should just play an episode of The Office and call it, 'Harassment Training:  What Not to Do!'  That would definitely be a training session I could handle about once a month! 

Moses 4:3
Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

About ten years ago I was starting work at a company where I was going to be a software developer.  As part of the on-boarding process, we had to watch one of these sexual harassment training videos.
The problem I had with it was that in the video, one of the scenarios showed a guy telling a co-worker that she looked nice today.  It then showed the scene from her point of view where he came across as ultra-creepy and disturbing.  So the guy gets in trouble for harassment.  The problem is that in this scenario (and they even came right out and said it) it's the "victim" who decides whether it's harassment.  The intentions of the "harasser" are irrelevant.  They explicitly said this right in the video. 
That's pretty frightening, because it makes everybody vulnerable to potentially losing their job all based on a system that has no set standards, no rules, no definitions.  So if the alleged victim decides what's harassment and what isn't, what's to prevent someone from abusing that to get rid of a co-worker they just don't like?

My favorite training types are those with the electronic video online that you can totally not pay attention to and then just hit the "next" button.  

My ancestor once tried some fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, I hear it's delicious but have not yet tried it myself.  

I just now discovered why God hasn't brought justice down upon my enemies. . . I'm not pure in heart enough 
So, I suppose I can just skip this chapter until I get to a more perfect level of purity.  
Oh, well I'm not that bad!    I don't think so anyway.
This verse alone indicates the importance of the Law of Chastity to the Lord.  The Lamanites, as wicked as they were, kept the law of chastity.  And solely because of their obedience to this law, the Lord determined that they would not be destroyed.  That is a big deal.  It also makes me reflect on Sodom and Gomorrah, which were both completely annihilated due to their wickedness, especially related to sexual sin.
This leads me to an opinion that there is something spiritually miraculous about the procreative act and power that even has yet not been revealed to mankind.  I am excited about the proposition to better understand it in the eternities.
I don't believe I could handle the pain of living in sin for very long.  If I were to commit adultery, or any other grievous sin, I think that the pains of hell that can be felt by those who commit such sins would be too much for me to handle even for a few days.  I would have to immediately confess to my spouse and priesthood leaders and begin the process of repentance.  I am also very grateful that I don't currently have to bear the burden that Jacob bore or that a bishop must bear in helping others work through the repentance process for their sins.  God bless those sincerely working to overcome, and those sharing in the burden to help them accomplish that goal.

Typo fixed. And may I add....kiss my grits.

I think your computer was recently deceived as to what you meant to type.  Either that or you were deceived by your grammar teacher.  
Switching to serious mode, I think that the last verse you posed (D&C 43:6) really hits home for me because of the verses that precede and follow it:
This informs us that true messengers will follow the prescribed patterns revealed to us in the latter day revelations we have, and will be properly appointed.  I believe that most deception will occur when people follow 'revelation' that comes from a seemingly true pattern, but is not from the pattern and process laid out to us for the latter-days.  There are already many Snufferites and others in the Church who have been deceived by following people who make a good case, but who are not authorized according to the revealed method.  I think many will be deceived more because they will be convinced that certain doctrines are false or non-doctrines are true and will make decisions based on a few verses or statements.  As Neil L. Anderson put it:
Personally I have pondered this topic as it related to the fruit of the Spirit.  I believe Satan works very hard to mimic the fruit of the Spirit as closely as possible to deceive as many as he can.  Below are some of the things I have considered in terms of how he mimics them (in addition to the evil fruits already listed in Galatians).
Fruit of the Spirit |  Satan's Alternative (or some of them at least)
Love                      |  Physical and emotional intimacy / Lust
Joy                        |  Fun / Laughter / Entertainment, etc.
Peace                   |  Tranquility (I first noticed this when I spent a day working carpet cleaning in a meditation temple for a far eastern religion)
Longsuffering        |  'Wo is me' - those who 'patiently' wait for an evil end (i.e. homosexual couple suing business - awaiting reparations and societal acceptance)
Gentleness           |   'Tolerance' / Acceptance or approbation (esp. of wickedness)
Goodness             |  Financially Charitable, 'nice', Mainstream
Faith                     |  Conviction / Confidence  (Saul was steadfast in his beliefs before he converted to the truth; most 'salesmen' are confident in their products)
Meekness             |  Resignation/Submission/Apathy (i.e. giving up and 'accepting your fate')
Temperance          |  'appropriate' moderation of bad things (i.e. alcohol, drug use, porn, extra-marital sexual conduct, etc.)
Many of us would immediately recognize the wickedness of many actions of our fellow men.  However, I am constantly being reminded and watching the elect be deceived on a daily basis as I see what some who are 'active' members of the church are posting on Facebook, saying in sacrament meeting, advocating for, etc.
All that said, I believe the most effective protections against deception are a continually nourished testimony of true and established principles and doctrines of the gospel; an inner testimony and commitment to follow the prophet and apostles; and following the prescribed patterns revealed to us in existing latter day revelations.  All easier said than done.