person0

How is it even possible that you are doing anything wrong in this situation?  The simple fact that you are asking this question is evidence of your sincerity and love for your students.
This family has a few choices, allow their child to eat school lunch, send the child to school with a packed lunch, or send snacks to tide the child over until  afternoon lunch/dinner at home.  The only other option is allowing the child to go hungry until dinner.  If the family is asking you to provide snacks, then they are choosing the latter option.
You have no responsibility whatsoever to spend your own money to provide food or snacks for this child.  If her family is in financial trouble, they can seek out help through other means.  This sounds like a self entitlement problem to me, and I personally would not support them in this.  If they do not find their own way to provide for their child's needs, then eventually this becomes a neglect issue and CPS would come into play.  They can go to the school principle, the board of education, etc, etc, if they feel the school lunch options are not appropriate to their child's health.
I would forward the information to the principle. I would say the Christlike thing to do in this case is to allow them to love their child enough to make sacrifices in order to provide for her in the way they are supposed to as her parents.  They are not entitled to use you to fill the gap of their incompetence.

How is it even possible that you are doing anything wrong in this situation?  The simple fact that you are asking this question is evidence of your sincerity and love for your students.
This family has a few choices, allow their child to eat school lunch, send the child to school with a packed lunch, or send snacks to tide the child over until  afternoon lunch/dinner at home.  The only other option is allowing the child to go hungry until dinner.  If the family is asking you to provide snacks, then they are choosing the latter option.
You have no responsibility whatsoever to spend your own money to provide food or snacks for this child.  If her family is in financial trouble, they can seek out help through other means.  This sounds like a self entitlement problem to me, and I personally would not support them in this.  If they do not find their own way to provide for their child's needs, then eventually this becomes a neglect issue and CPS would come into play.  They can go to the school principle, the board of education, etc, etc, if they feel the school lunch options are not appropriate to their child's health.
I would forward the information to the principle. I would say the Christlike thing to do in this case is to allow them to love their child enough to make sacrifices in order to provide for her in the way they are supposed to as her parents.  They are not entitled to use you to fill the gap of their incompetence.

Dear Little Linda's mom,
Thanks for your note. I love having Little Linda as a student and I think she's a great kid.
I understand your feelings and respect that you want to feed your daughter healthy foods. However, I'm her teacher, not her mother, and it would be both inappropriate and against school policy for me to bring her snacks. But feel free to send Little Linda to school with her snacks; she will be allowed to eat them at lunchtime and at other appropriate times during the day.
If you want the school to provide food for Little Linda, the school lunch program is the way the school discharges that duty. My understanding is that the school lunches are nutritious and pleasant. If you have concerns about them, please feel free to discuss that with the administration. The principal can be reached at 987-654-3210, and by email at [email protected].
Thanks,
Little Linda's teacher

How is it even possible that you are doing anything wrong in this situation?  The simple fact that you are asking this question is evidence of your sincerity and love for your students.
This family has a few choices, allow their child to eat school lunch, send the child to school with a packed lunch, or send snacks to tide the child over until  afternoon lunch/dinner at home.  The only other option is allowing the child to go hungry until dinner.  If the family is asking you to provide snacks, then they are choosing the latter option.
You have no responsibility whatsoever to spend your own money to provide food or snacks for this child.  If her family is in financial trouble, they can seek out help through other means.  This sounds like a self entitlement problem to me, and I personally would not support them in this.  If they do not find their own way to provide for their child's needs, then eventually this becomes a neglect issue and CPS would come into play.  They can go to the school principle, the board of education, etc, etc, if they feel the school lunch options are not appropriate to their child's health.
I would forward the information to the principle. I would say the Christlike thing to do in this case is to allow them to love their child enough to make sacrifices in order to provide for her in the way they are supposed to as her parents.  They are not entitled to use you to fill the gap of their incompetence.

My mission, and life after the mission, has taught me the following that there are three necessary components understanding God's truth:
1) Personal Desire (accountability)
2) The Spirit of Truth
3) Willingness to Act
Without these three items people will not come to know the truth. I am simplifying a more involved pattern, but this suffices for me.

It's called infatuation.  It may develop into a sustained love that a marriage is based on, or it may not.  But a lasting relationship is not built on infatuation; it can be the first step to something bigger.

You could try going for martyrdom and claim 72 virgins   Talk about plural marriage, that's the ticket to really 'big love' right there!  
If you have 72, surely you will really love at least one of them 
Turns out there's just one problem. . . you aren't Muslim.

Anything is confusing if people don't understand it. That doesn't make the thing itself confusing.
If I saved you from a burning building would you presume that meant that I'd saved you from drowning?
Saved requires a "from".
The only reason there's any confusion is because in the so-called "Christian" world there is only heaven and hell...hence only one "saved". The tradition of that has confused some people who haven't bothered to actually think about the matter, but then again, it doesn't exactly require much depth of thought. In point of fact, only those who are trying to explain things in "Christian" ways and fit it into the gospel cause any confusion in the matter. Everyone else simply knows that saved means exalted and there's no reason to confuse the matter beyond that for most discussions.

Who said anything about feelings?

This statement, and the one given above this quoted statement, is where you quickly loose the interest of members seeking to help you and to clarify. This statements allow forum members to gain more understanding of the intent of the heart, or the motivation to understand.
As you are an intelligent person, you will need to take more time regarding the 3,913 changes to the Book of Mormon (to be frank, you are drinking the koolaid of anti-Mormon literature without thinking through the content). There is only one volume of the Book of Mormon. Please review person0's comment again. He is clear in stating the Book of Mormon has not gone through a period of "apostasy" during corrections. To retort with the comment given shows intentional ignorance rather than a person trying to understand.
Person0 did not hint nor condone that "feelings preempt truth." This is a personally implied attempt that anti-Mormons take to twist what someone actually said. Let's review what he actually said in comparison to an unfortunate knee jerk response, "Once you know the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost, as I do..."  Truth is revealed by the Spirit of revelation and prophecy, by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is truth, as God is truth, the Holy Ghost doesn't preempt truth -- he confirms it. There was no Bible when Adam walked the earth, how then was truth revealed? By the power of the Holy Ghost. There was no Bible when Noah, Moses or even Jesus himself when they walked the earth. How was truth then revealed to Moses and Noah? The same principle of teaching and learning applies in our day. This really isn't a hard concept to follow, if a person is humble, and you don't even have to agree or accept, but to throw out silly responses in an attempt to twist what someone actually said, ya, just a little obtuse.

In regard to number 3, without expounding at super great length, let us consider the implications of Romans 14:11:
This sentiment is repeated in the Old Testament here, the Book of Mormon here, and the Doctrine and Covenants here.
The immediate implication of the word saved in the third article of faith is that of exaltation, as opposed to salvation in the normal concept of heaven as has been previously discussed.  However, even if we take in the more general sense, members of the Church believe in a liberal salvation of mankind.  Meaning, that because we believe there are three different kingdoms of glory.  Eventually, even the most wicked of men will be rewarded with the lowest level of glory, but not until after they bow and confess and experience hell during Christ's reign upon the earth.
The fourth article of faith answers the third in terms of what the principles and ordinances are.  Faith, repentance, baptism, etc.  Every single person will receive and accept these before judgement day occurs, whether they receive them in this life or the next (baptism for the dead), at the first opportunity or later on will be a factor in God's judgement and where they ultimately end up.  The only individuals who will not be 'saved' to any sort of glory are the sons of perdition who deny the Holy Ghost.
I knew that's where you were going, however, the translated manuscripts are actually highly incomplete as to what the Church originally had in its possession at the time of translation.  There is insufficient evidence based on that to determine whether the translation is exact or not.  There is an article regarding this here.
We also agree that we only believe the Book of Mormon to be true as far as it is translated correctly, but we believe it to be translated correctly as @anatess2 clearly explained.

#8 is easier so I'll start with that.  The Book of Mormon, unlike the Bible, has not gone through a period of apostasy.  So all the translations of the Book of Mormon (the Book of Mormon has been translated into 110 languages last I checked) is done under the authority of the LDS Church, so there's no Book of Mormon translation done by somebody outside of this authority.
Okay, #3:
There's nothing confusing about that.  It's like saying - Christ's Atonement will only work if you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior... which you believe, right?  So, in the LDS Church that acceptance is signified by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel (see #4).
The thing is, Christ does not force salvation on anybody.  You have to CHOOSE to be saved.  So, Christ atoned for all our sins, yes.  But, you have to do something - choose to accept Christ's atonement - for the atonement to have an effect on your life.

1. The Bible isn't perfect in its translation from the original source. So yes, Bible rendering is able to be incorrect, as is human interpretation without the aid of God's spirit and called/chosen leaders who have been given authority to clarify or to correct. So, it is quite easy to see how the Bible rendering could be incorrect.
2. No judgement is being made, so this point, "How can anyone aside from Jesus even make this judgment," becomes moot. The explanation is specifying that this may have been recorded, written, or translated incorrectly and what Christ actually said is not written. The given quote is a possible interpretation. You can read multiple corrected translations of the Bible given by Joseph Smith within Joseph Smith's Translations.
3. Nothing twisted, an attempt to understand what Christ actually said, and what he was actually meaning. And you know the "original word" written how?

Successful arranged marriages (even non-Christian) are a witness the the truth shared by modern Apostles and Prophets that any two individuals, who are faithful and seek to live up to their covenants and grow together towards Christ, can have a successful, joyful, and eternal marriage, with happiness in this life and in the next.  Spencer W. Kimball laid out the formula which would be applicable to arranged marriages and marriages of non-Christians as well, however, those of us who have the true gospel, have that as an added blessing to rely upon.  Here is a key part of his message (emphasis added):
Based on these guidelines, I believe that at least some form of an arranged marriage could occur by the prayerful guidance of the spirit.  My marriage was not arranged, however, if my wife were to pass away, I would not have a problem entering into an arranged marriage of some sort with a second spouse (so long as I felt we were both willing and able to meet the above criteria).
A problem in our society these days is that it is not as culturally acceptable (certainly not the norm), and there are sooooo many SJWs who would have an overly vocal problem with it.  There is a general nationwide deterioration of family values, and mostly individual pride issues that would make it difficult to enter into an arranged marriage, even within the Church.

I think it is more dependency than familiarity.  Not wanting to be apart from somebody is more in line with fear or insecurity.  The more secure one gets in a relationship the lesser the degree of needing to be physically close to somebody at all times.
In a marital relationship, this feeling of not wanting to be apart from your spouse ebbs and flows.  In my marriage, there are times when I just need that physical affirmation of closeness that I would ask my husband to take a day off from work because even if his job is only 10 minutes away, I can't wait the 8 hours that he is apart from me.  Most of the time, though, I feel so secure that there was a time before I had kids that I took a job 3 hours away from home so that I would drive to work on Monday morning and not come home until Friday afternoon.
 

The gift to discern spirits is not so much related to communicating with them as to being able to distinguish by revelation from the Holy Ghost if someone is teaching, performing miracles, etc, by the true Spirit of God, or if it is by an evil spirit of the devil.  This gift can be given to anyone for an extended time or one time use, however, an individual who possess this gift continually would use it to warn others of dangers concerning groups or individuals in the world who would cause them either temporal or spiritual harm.  A real life example/application was given by Niel L. Anderson as follows:
You also asked:
The spiritual gift applicable to this question would be, “The beholding of angels and ministering spirits” (Spiritual Gifts - Moroni 10:14)  This gift would presumably not be something upon which the individual could call upon to use, but rather that the Lord could use on a regular basis to bless the individual and/or others.  On my mission, an individual who was baptized, had become a very faithful member of the church but often had difficulty changing certain behaviors.  He told us of many occasions when he had visions and was visited by Moroni and others, usually to encourage him to change a behavior.  In one specific case he didn't feel the need to clean up his language, and recounted how he was visited by a ministering spirit who told him to read Matt. 15:18 which says "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."  He immediately repented and made the applicable changes to his habits.
These two gifts come hand in hand,  If you personally had the gift of discerning of spirits, and spoke with this individual who claimed experience through the gift of beholding of spirits, your gift to discern would be able to indicate to you if he was visited by a true spirit from God, or was deceived by a lying spirit of the devil.

I personally do not place much value on college education (although I have one due to the modern societal requirement).  Quality experience is much more important.  I agree with Walsh as well.  I believe our society should reject modern universities as a whole and mostly return to a 'trade' approach (this could easily help resolve the 'snowflake' problem too!).
Imagine working minimum wage for a company for 4-6 years while being trained and taught in the industry all that you will need to know to be successful in your career.  You come out age 24-26 with zero debt and plenty of skills.  It should not take long for a hard working and capable individual to be able to provide greater value to the company than what they are expending.  If you did not work up to your potential you would be asked to go elsewhere, but you learned it in one paid year rather than after four years and thousands in debt.  Even if it were an unpaid internship that is better than four years of paying for what basically amounts to nothing. 
I went to a business school for a portion of my degree and 3 of my professors had never worked a real job managing, marketing, or doing other business related tasks in their life, which they were supposed to be teaching me how to do.  What programmer comes out of college having learned more from their courses than from their hours of tinkering and working on projects at home?

One of my favorite tools to teach and understand the principles of chastity in their accurate and true context is the talk by Jeffrey R. Holland:  Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments
Memorable moments from the talk:
 

One of my favorite tools to teach and understand the principles of chastity in their accurate and true context is the talk by Jeffrey R. Holland:  Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments
Memorable moments from the talk:
 

One of my favorite tools to teach and understand the principles of chastity in their accurate and true context is the talk by Jeffrey R. Holland:  Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments
Memorable moments from the talk:
 

When chastity lessons say, "Marriage is the one and only venue in which sex may righteously be exercised in chastity -- no exceptions," then those are true lessons teaching principles vital to us all. We and our children should and must learn those lessons, and then live by them.
When chastity lessons say, "Young women, you are a stick of gum, and when you have sex, the boy you have sex with chews you up, and no other boy is going to want prechewed gum! Yuck!", or "Young women, you are a wooden board, and when you have sex, the boy drives a nail through you [cringeworthy imagery, that], so even when you repent of your fornication and the nail gets pulled out, you'll still always have a hole in your soul where the boy drove his nail right through you!", or other untrue and inappropriate imagery, then those are false lessons that we ought not teach our children (of either sex).

Do you believe Jesus contradicted himself somehow then. He's the one who said...ah...nevermind... Useless discussion.

LDS folk trying to argue with non-LDS "Christians" about grace/works is very useful.

Ahhh @runewell!  That's being lazy, man!
But that's ok, I know this thread is flying so you're probably having to read a bunch of these posts.  So okay, I'll explain it to you.
That quote by BY that you posted is part of an entire topic about Christ's Atonement and our Salvation.  To be Saints, we COVENANT to do exactly what the quote says - to subdue the natural man within us.  It does not mean that you first have to succeed at wiping out evil before you can become a Saint.  Rather, you become a Saint when you covenant to wipe out evil.  This is the same covenant that shows that you ACCEPT Christ as your Savior (you can't really accept Christ as your savior if you don't promise to fight evil, you see?) and that it is through His Atonement that every Saint will gain Salvation.