Midwest LDS

It seems to me that the LDS Church has a way of “spoiling” people for any other brand of Christianity.  It arose as a response to perceived shortcomings in mainline Christianity, and offers answers to questions and conundrums that mainline Christianity didn’t (and, to a great extent, still doesn’t) seem to address.  So no, I don’t think I’d go back to mainline Christianity if Mormonism were debunked—Christianity is lovely, but without the patches offered by the LDS Church, its flaws are too deep.
As for whether I’d stay in the LDS Church:  No, I’d leave.  Quietly and sorrowfully, but I’d go.  I love the lifestyle we teach—regardless of the spiritual facet, on a practical level the LDS life philosophy just plain works in a way few others do.  But the catch is, to do it right, you have to believe that there’s a higher purpose for what you’re doing; beyond mere social expediency.  You sort of have to be “all in”, or else Mormonism doesn’t quite work.
For example:  if I lost my testimony I’d still want my kids to grow up with the LDS life, in an LDS congregation, living LDS morality.  It’s a great, great life.  But that would include doing temple baptisms with them; and I wouldn’t be able to do that unless I were paying tithing; and I wouldn’t pay 10% tithing to a church that I didn’t believe was what it purported to be.  So I’d quit going to the temple, and then my kids would ask why, and they’d likely quit going (because I’d be frank with them), and the whole thing would unravel.  I suspect that in Mormonism, the material and emotional price of nonbelieving compliance is just too high.  It’s a good thing I believe it’s all true!   
A final thought:  In Brazil, where I served my mission, we had a word—“mole”, literally meaning “soft”, to describe church members who only lived part of the gospel.  (Yes, it was horrendously judgmental.  Don’t judge my judginess!)  We had a saying:  “First generation mole, second generation inactive, third generation nonmember”, and in my experience the saying is absolutely accurate.  The Church makes it very hard to have belief without action—or vice versa—for any sustained period of time.

I'm fond of saying "in the end, the most valid reason to be a member of this church, is you believe God wants you to be one."
That said, I get why people occasionally talk about staying a member for the perks.  Fellowshipping, service, etc.  But no, that reasoning just doesn't do it for me.

As far as I could tell, I don't think estradling pointed that out at all.  Maybe he could clarify.  But to answer your question otherwise...
Some have taken the road of becoming a Snufferite or similar ideology.  And this is not without cause.  But it is still a twisted version of the truth.
We always have prayer.  We always have the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  And that is a source for ever further knowledge.  But the knowledge we obtain is for what the Lord knows is what we NEED at the time.  He wants us to get along with as little of His help as possible, to give us a chance to grow in faith.
Faith.  This is a highly misunderstood word.  We have faith as man understands it.  It is spiritual belief.  Often we're told it is that belief which motivates into action.  But in this context of what we're supposed to develop in this world, it is much much more than that.  As a man grows in life, he grows in stature.  As a spirit grows throughout eternity, he grows in faith.
When it is appropriate to learn more, the Lord will give us more.  But all too often, we are taking lightly that which we've been given already.  So, why would the Lord give us more than what we already take too lightly?

By their fruits ye shall know them.  The question supposes that the Fruits would remain Good even if the Tree was Corrupt.
As a thought experiment the idea of staying with the Good Fruit makes all the sense in the world...  But in any practical event the Fruit can't exist without Truth at its foundation.
Even when we go outside our Faith... the Good Fruit others bring forth is based on the truth that they have.
Now one could make the case that we do not have all the truth (yet)... This seems self evident.  That does not make what we have false or a lie, it just makes it incomplete.  Which is a huge difference
 

I'd really like to say that I get joy out of living a righteous life.  And I do, for the most part.  But there are so many other factors at play.  I've said many times that if I thought this Church was an invention of men and not of God there would be no way that I would follow its precepts.  I would not desire to perform my calling.  I would not make covenants.  I would not even bother with going to church.  I might read my scriptures from time to time.  But I may just go fishing each Sunday.
I would probably have made a lot more money and had a business going a lot sooner than I have.  I would have had SO many temporal benefits if I hadn't come back to the Church.  I'm still at a point where I would have loved to have had more material things.  I take solace in knowing that not only have I given up a lot of it, but I also have the most awesome family EVER!!!  And it's worth it.  But the thing is that it is only worth it because of the knowledge of the eternal plan. 
If all that were not true, I'm not sure how much of all Christianity would even matter.  I'm not sure if any religion would matter. 
Yes many religions have their explanations of eternity.  All of them are necessarily incomplete.  But on the balance, I believe we have the most complete explanation that ties up the most loose ends.  It is that explanation that actually motivates me into understanding how important this life really is.
Each person will have to determine for themselves whether "that is enough knowledge to proceed" or not.  But for me, other faiths simply don't provide enough explanation of what actually happens after we die.  It would be insufficient for me to even care.  But the Plan of Salvation doesn't just provide the carrot / stick dichotomy.  It provides a purpose for all eternity. 
That is motivation.  If it were false, I would have no motivation.

I may be more open to the question because, like most Protestants, I know that we already left one church because, though it taught much that was true and gave us our scriptures, I ultimately did not believe the tradition of it was as inspired as scripture itself. So, if I were to find that the Assemblies of God was seriously wrong on a doctrine, I could leave it for another church, without feeling I had seriously failed my Savior. Similarly, if I were in a community that had no Assemblies of God church, I could attend a different church and still grow in the Lord.
Perhaps the largest group-example of this is the Worldwide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong). When Armstrong died the main branch of the church abandoned his distinctive doctrines and became a traditional evangelical movement. Ironically, one or two of the small splinter groups kept his teachings.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks in a talked entitled, Judge Not and Judging said:
 

Some of these are fair criticisms.  Adjusting the federal numbers up to 3700 per month and reducing the taxes to 5% (about 11% to federal and 4% to state/local) changes the monthly unused income to $489 per month. That $30,000 downpayment becomes accessible in just over five years.  But with the caveat that transportation still isn't included in that value. And the caveat that the home price is still the typical value in the area I live in, which a fairly low cost of living area. The urban area 30 minutes north of me shows 2BR/1Bath houses starting around the $125k point.  By comparison, this (admittedly cherry picked) 2BR 1.5 Bath in the Salt Lake area going into foreclosure and marked as for sale is listed at $280k.  
Sidenote, regarding some other criticisms of using a 3BR house in my targets, I figured a young couple starting out and planning for their future might be interested in a 3BR house if they wanted to have four kids, which doesn't seem unreasonable for a mormon family. I apologize that this assumption wasn't expressly stated in my work.
As another form of comparison, this Census report shows the 1970 median household income was $8,730 per year. This inflation calculator places that value at 59,506.2 in today's dollars. I'm struggling to find an individual income median for a direct comparison, but if we operate on the belief that single income families were more common in the upper income levels then than they are now, my gut check guess is that a single income family probably has the equivalent of $600 less monthly income now than it did in 1970. 
Which all goes back to the original point, that regardless of which numbers you use, a single income has less purchasing power today than it did 50 years ago. By extension, making ends meet and accomplishing financial goals is harder on a single income today than it was 50 years ago.  It seems reasonable to think that families might be making different decisions with regard to who works and who doesn't that reflect some of that lost purchasing power.
 
 
Things not relevant to the main point:
- A 20% down payment may not be normal, but I'd argue that is another symptom of the problem.  Best practice by financial experts, as far as I understand, still encourage the 20% down payment because it saves money due to PMI. More importantly, it demonstrates the ability to save money for the unexpected expenses that comes with the maintenance on a house. Statistically speaking, the lower percentage the downpayment, the higher the risk of failing to keep up with payments. (another really complicated discussion, I know)
- Not saving for retirement while saving to purchase a house is, in my estimation, a catastrophic strategic error. If your employer offers a match, you should contribute at least enough to max out that benefit.  Early savings are king in retirement, and starting five to six years earlier makes an enormous difference after 30 years of saving.  So whether or not it is common, it's the practice that should be encouraged.

Just because I know that people are frequently judgmental and unnecessary making calls about things they know little about, doesn't mean I have to like it or say something about it.  I've seen this come up WAY to many time.  Just one example off the top of my head: I've a good friend who's a devout LDS Christian and great mom.  Her husband doesn't make much money, but they've alway felt it was important to have a parent home full time, so they made it work, literally counting every penny.  Once all 4 kids were in school full time, my friend elected to take a  teaching job at her kid's elementary school so that they could have a little extra money to save for mission funds/college/retirement, etc.  This was an extremely prayerful and thought out decision for the entire family.  After completing all of her teaching certifications & got hired, my friend excitedly told her ministering sister about the updates.  To which her ministering sister instantly condemned her with "Women being out of the home is an invitation for Satan to come in".  *WHAM*  Now, do you think that my friend EVER shared anything with that sister again or trusted her in any way? No, the bridge was permanently burnt because this sister didn't care about the person/family and just judged where she had no dominion.  
These stories are not "those faceless crazy liberals" or anything like that.  They are individuals and families, making calls on details only they know.  Let us not judge them where we have no dominion.  
 

My nephew (Kale) is living with us right now until he gets married in March.  He has been staying in our guest room which has needed a new mattress.  We finally got one yesterday.  My son was on his computer and I walk past him dragging the old mattress out of the room and the house.  He has a puzzled look on his face and asks what I am doing.  I respond, "Kale has pissed me off, so he can sleep on the box springs."  I keep dragging the mattress past him.  I wish I could describe the look on my son's face!
 

I have taken some issue, while trying not to judge, where the father is functionally absent from working multiple jobs so the wife can stay home. While it technically falls under the notions of the Proclamation, I wonder just how it benefits the family. How does the family emotionally connect? I compare such scenarios to where both parents work, but both also have plenty of time for each other and the children.

Certainly. But a failing if the father and family choose to be so close to the letter of the law. I simply cannot imagine a scenario where a virtually absentee father is the best choice for anything but a temporary situation. Is the father not making enough money at one job to reasonably support the family and needs to find a better situation for both money and time? Is the family aiming to live within means they don't yet have? 

There's some hyperbole going on here, but I'll focus on your core point.
The first thing I'll say is that I was actually a bit shocked in the 2017 Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard when Elder Oaks answered a question about a woman's priority for education vs. marriage.  He spoke of his own mother, and how she needed to provide for her family after his father died. He made the point that she was blessed to be able to do so comfortably because she had completed her education. He then went on to state that while he did not support putting off getting married to complete an education, he did think there was a certain wisdom to waiting until her degree was completed before having children.
Is it at all possible that the statements leaders make on this subject are colored by their own experiences? And might that be why so many of the statement stressing the importance of having mom in the home are so blasted old?
Regardless, in more cases than you might think, the choice of whether a woman works or not is practical. Let's look at the state of affairs at present:
Let's look at what it takes to buy a three bedroom home.  In my area, which is fairly low cost of living, the BR houses are running at about $150,000.  Let's make the goal to save enough for a 20% down payment. The following numbers breakdown what the financial situation is for a single income family with three mouths to feed.  At the median income, it would take 15 years to build up that down payment.  And that doesn't include costs of gasoline, car payments, or even fast offering. 
The hard reality is that, given current wages and market forces, if a couple wants to build financial stability and self reliance, there aren't a lot of options.  And they really boil down to
1. Get a job that pays well above the median (not always within your control)
2. Move to a lower cost of living area (where gainful employment is often harder to come by--I live in such an area and unemployment here is high)
3. A combination of 2 and 3
4. Become a two income family (provided the second income can offset the cost of child care)
Keep in mind that these values represent the median.  By definition, half of wage earners are unable to meet even these metrics. So it would seem to me that unless we are going to increase single earner wages dramatically, the ideal of women not pursuing careers seems to be a ship that has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and sunk.  Perhaps we should give these families a break.
Are there people out there that are putting off family for the sake of building wealth?  Absolutely.  I'm not going to deny that one bit.  But that is often a completely separate issue from whether the woman is working or not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The Bureau of Labor Statistics,sex%2C ethnicity and educational characteristics
[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/KY/INC110218
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-rent-by-state
[4] https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
[5] Estimated on the same proportion as monthly income between U.S. and my state.
[6] https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/personal-finance/articles/average-cost-of-utilities
[7] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/07/wscs-10-least-expensive-states/15075077/#:~:text=Kentucky&text=Numbeo estimates the average cost,restaurant at only around %248.
[8] http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf
[9] Assuming 6% as it would be the minimum to max out most common employer matches
[10] Assuming a home of $150,000, which is common for a 3BR home in my low cost of living area.

I saw the Church's post and the reactions to it.
I find it confirmation that there are many in the chuch that practice idolatry.  They worship Trump as their prophet and deity and have the Republican Party as their TRUE religion.
There have been two incidents recently that seem to go hand in hand with this.
The First was when an apostle of the Lord came out and said he was speaking AS AN APOSTLE and asked (didn't command or demand, but did heavily suggest if we want to be more like the Lord) people to wear masks.
The comments that were made towards him and the statement were tantamount to calling him false, that the church was false, and that he was speaking as a man.  I may not agree with that, but I can actually see where people were coming from and wouldn't hold that against them.  We all have things we may see differently, and though I don't agree on that point, there are also many points they may not agree with me on as well.
HOWEVER...
The Church then has come out with a congratulations of Biden for being his victory.  They have done this congratulations to every president-elect in the past, many times far sooner than they did with Biden.  It is NOT an unusual thing, and something that is basically an apolitical item in that they are simply trying to be good neighbors towards the leaders of the world and the elections that are held.
The thing that alarms me, and especially when considering the comments made previously that align more towards Trumpism than anything else are the numbers of comments that called the Church fallen, false, and worse.  If the Church comes out with a third statement later on that goes against the Trumpist dialogue, and people follow Trump instead of at least withholding their statements against the Church I think that would be three strikes there where we see what their true religion is.
The thing is, the Church always has offered congratulations.  It's not something unusual or new.  This is actually a later letter of congratulations than they have made in the past in some instances.  It is no reason for people to freak out or start the type of accusations they have.  The fact that they are triggered this easily over something so normal in the way the church has done things in the past is a little (I'm not overly alarmed yet) alarming. 
I'm not saying it makes me happy (it doesn't make me sad either, it's just a press release and it normally doesn't make me feel any real feelings about it in the past or the present), but I don't see why people are flipping about something so general or typical in the Church's actions.
It's like suddenly getting upset because the church is having conference in April.  The church traditionally ALWAYS has Conference in April, so why flip out about it when it occurs again?  The comments towards the Church over something the Church has always traditionally has done says more about those commenting in this instance (to me) than the Church itself in this instance.  I think it would be more of a break in tradition if the  Church did NOT offer congratulations.
IF, for some reason, the electoral vote is not certified and instead it goes before  Congress and Trump gets another term as President, it is possible the church would also congratulate him on his selection at a later date as well.  As such, I find it more unsettling the comments that are against the Church in recent posts because it does not align with Trumpism far more than anything the Church itself has done in regards to the current situation/turmoil in the US.

Day 2 of "next week".   I see Mitch McConnell is welcoming President elect Biden and Vice-President elect Harris.
Recent Trump Tweet from this morning:

 
Still hopeful for a concession speech.
 

:::Cough::: :::Sputter:::: Well....er...uh...you're right. I am almost radical in my support of the electoral college. Perhaps what is niggling at me about Trump's challenges is that they do undermine confidence in our slightly complicated system of elections. I would hate to see Democrats use these allegations as an excuse to transition to a simplified popular vote. I'm glad Trump was President, but have to admit that HRC was the better person in this regard.
FWIW, Had Trump conceded after the electoral college results were in, I suspect most would have forgiven his push. :::sigh:::

I thought I would take a crack at these. By way of disclosure, I was one of those Evangelical Christians that voted for Trump to protect religious liberty and place conservative judges. His immigration policies were ineffective, imho. HIs trade approach surprised and changed me. I've been a free trade advocate, but POTUS correctly saw China for the danger it is, and convinced me that trade should be fair, not free. His crude approach was probably needed for the four years he was in.
OK, so here we are. I'm not an expert, an analyst, a pollster, or even one who's taken a Statistics course. My impression is that there were some shenanigans surrounding the election. However, President-Elect Biden won the popular vote by over 4%, and it seems pretty obvious he won the electoral college. POTUS promised to honor the electoral college vote. His campaign repeatedly promised definitive evidence. At this point, he does appear to be the sore loser. He's not exposing a new level of election fraud, he's hyping the typical level and making it appear to be more than it is. The reason that so many (I do not believe it is anywhere near half the country) believe Biden lost is because Trump says so, and they believe him.
It's time for conservatives to cut our loss, and accept our major wins (the House and Senate went much better than expected, and our judges are in). Further, we should be laser-focused on winning the GA senate races, so the Senate can be a bulwark against the radical wing of the Democratic party. Further, I sincerely hope Trump settles for being a voice in the GOP, and does not seek to mount a 2024 run. That ship done left the harbor.

Point of order, the Electoral College cast their votes yesterday.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-senate-republicans-biden-president-elect-electoral-college
Doesn't seem inappropriate to acknowledge Mr. Biden as the President-elect.  Even Senator McConnell has done so at this point.

1. I suspect there will always be a measure of fraud. This side of the heavenly kingdom(s), with 10s of millions of votes, districts and states with heavy party majorities, etc. there will be a measure. Does the fraud rise to a level of significance? Could it have turned several state races, given the numbers. Could the rate of fraud have been higher than the 4% by which Biden won? I suspect far fewer than half the country believes that, even if there had been no fraud at all, Trump would have won.
2. As I understand it, they have reported, and January is the official turn-in. Also, I'm fairly certain that Trump had the December date in mind when he promised to abide. There is a real feeling that he is moving the goal posts.
3. IF the majority truly believes that a president-elect was not truly elected by a fair election then, depending on how skewed people believe the results were, we could see anything from civil war to a "We'll get them back with the next election" approach. In this case, I suspect even a significant portion of Trump-supporters believe the election was super close, and so will eventually look to proving their point in future elections.

I don't know that he's "fundamentally wrong." However, he's being a sore loser, unpresidential, stirring up unnecessary anger and conspiracy theories, and very much putting himself before all else. He's not being illegal, nor going against any official rules. He is being classless. Put simply, he's not ending well. I'm not angry at Trump. He did far better for Christians than we expected. I just find this last chapter disappointing.

Meh, it happens.  In fairness, there are some in the conservative circles that are claiming it isn't _really_ done, because the House _could_ choose not to certify that electoral college.  The House won't vote on that until 6 Jan, I believe. 
Rejecting the electoral vote, if I understand correctly, would require a sponsor in the House and in the Senate, as well as majority votes in both chambers. So doesn't seem likely, but the most DedicatedToTheCause (TM) are saying that's the only vote that matters.  Of course, most of them were saying the Electoral College vote was the only one that mattered when they thought they would see swing states with Republican legislatures send their own electors.  Seems like the "what really matters" goal posts keep moving....

NeedleinA, I don't believe anyone should become a president if it isn't fair and square and this is the reason why we have the courts to deal with these matters. And so far, it has been a complete failure for the Trump Team. But now they want to accuse the judges, too? So unless Trump wins, everything is a fraud? (the election, the courts, the judges, the governors, etc). Enough is enough! This is becoming so concerning to me.

NeedleinA,  I respect you and your views but sorry, I think it is very naive to think that Trump has a chance. I'm actually surprised some supporters believe he does. Yesterday was a big day, Biden WILL become the next president, there is no doubt in my mind about it. Honestly, do you truly believe Trump will have a second term in office?
 

Indeed...  It shows they did not want Justices that ruled based on Law...They wanted Trump to pack the court just like Dems threaten to

It is OVER. Trump will NOT have a second term in office, it is not going to happen. He lost the election, the SC was clear and the Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden's presidential victory. And yet something tells me the circus is far from over, because a grown-up man cannot accept defeat. Really sad.