JoCa

Dude...I just gotta tell ya.... weird, weird, weird reply.
Do you presume that any time anyone mentions anything offensive by way of academia and discussion that they might, therefore, be involved therein? 'Cause that's a really weird response.
According you to, if I ask you how you would feel if I had murdered someone as a rhetorical (please look up "rhetorical" as you seem to not understand it at all) device you assume I must be a murderer?
Weird.
Seriously...how can you not understand this? Ridiculous. Are you really that obtuse?
The fact that you think by anything within our conversation that I am trying to condone anything tells me one of two things. You are either the daftest mentally incompetent person I've ever met or you are intentionally trying to smear me as some sort of argument tactic. As I struggle to believe anyone is that daft, I'm thinking it's the second. It falls pretty flat.

Holy Hopping Habaneros, Batman!  Please provide the exact post where TFP said this, cuz I'm pretty sure he didn't.
(What is it with people thinking mentioning two things in the same post automatically means the poster is equating the two!?)
PS: The tobacco farmer was not being discussed.  Those who didn't understand the point thought it was about the poor tobacco farmer. (Not poor because he lacks money but because the poor fellow has been so abused by this thread.)
PPS: Why on earth would anyone use another person (besides Jesus Christ, or God) as an example of what must be acceptable to do?
PPPS: The topic was never whether growing tobacco violated the WoW.
Ergo, your introduction of Marriott was intended to disprove a point no one was trying to make.

Which is to say that you think most of the time people want to have others excommunicated for non-ex-communicable acts. This is false. It is the falsehood upon which you seem to have your entire view built.
I'm not sure you fully understand the meaning of the word "equate".
Where and when?

Of all the twilighty zoney conversations I've ever had, this has become the twilighty zoneyist of them all.

Absolutely; I completely understand.  It would be almost exactly the same if the situation were reversed (i.e. your husband was LDS and you were studying Catholicism).  In fact, I would expect nothing less of an individual who is 100% committed to their faith and believes it. 
Excepting one difference:  In the LDS faith we believe that men and women don't have to rely upon the learning of others to gain knowledge about the truth of things.  There is one source of Truth and Light, it is to Him that we ultimately look.  James 1:5:  If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 
We believe that you and your husband can directly go to the source of all Truth, to God directly.  You can pray and directly ask Him and that God will give you an answer.  Sometimes the answer is no, sometimes yes, sometimes the answer is not immediately forthcoming and might take years to get.  
Moroni 10: 3-5 : 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things
Quite frankly, you will never be able to convince your husband of the truth of the Book of Mormon or of the LDS Church by going back and forth in the Bible.  The Truth about the LDS Church is found only by reading The Book of Mormon.  And the Book of Mormon is based on a very simple principle and doctrine that requires a change in perspective to really know the truth of.
The simple truth and principle is:
Can God call specific men to be Prophets that have the power, the authority, the gift to receive direct Revelation from God and that can be God's mouthpiece on this earth to the world?
That is it.  Upon that principle rests everything about the LDS Church.  If one does not truly believe that principle, one will never be a member of the Church.
Honestly, it is very, very, very easy to believe in a book that was written by men that lived 2000-4000 years ago.  It is much harder to believe that a man who lived only 200 years ago could have been a prophet and even harder to believe that men today could be Prophets.
And honestly there is no scripture verse that can solve the above question, no wrestling the scriptures that can answer it.  Either you believe that God can talk to men and call them to do Holy works or you don't. If one believes that God can actually talk to men and that men can receive direct communication from God then the only way to find out whether a man is a true Prophet of God is to study what they wrote and what they did in their lifetime and then to ask God.  By their fruits shall ye know them.  Does the Book of Mormon (the fruit) lead people to a better understanding and faith of Jesus Christ and God the Father?
The Book of Mormon is the fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith.  It is the work that upon everything about the LDS Church rests, if it is not of God the LDS Church falls completely apart.  But if it is of God . .. wow . .. just wow that changes everything!
In sum, you can't resolve this issue by only going to the Bible, it can only be resolved by reading the Book of Mormon, pondering about it, looking at how it fits in with the other Testaments and by asking God.  That's it.

Absolutely; I completely understand.  It would be almost exactly the same if the situation were reversed (i.e. your husband was LDS and you were studying Catholicism).  In fact, I would expect nothing less of an individual who is 100% committed to their faith and believes it. 
Excepting one difference:  In the LDS faith we believe that men and women don't have to rely upon the learning of others to gain knowledge about the truth of things.  There is one source of Truth and Light, it is to Him that we ultimately look.  James 1:5:  If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 
We believe that you and your husband can directly go to the source of all Truth, to God directly.  You can pray and directly ask Him and that God will give you an answer.  Sometimes the answer is no, sometimes yes, sometimes the answer is not immediately forthcoming and might take years to get.  
Moroni 10: 3-5 : 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things
Quite frankly, you will never be able to convince your husband of the truth of the Book of Mormon or of the LDS Church by going back and forth in the Bible.  The Truth about the LDS Church is found only by reading The Book of Mormon.  And the Book of Mormon is based on a very simple principle and doctrine that requires a change in perspective to really know the truth of.
The simple truth and principle is:
Can God call specific men to be Prophets that have the power, the authority, the gift to receive direct Revelation from God and that can be God's mouthpiece on this earth to the world?
That is it.  Upon that principle rests everything about the LDS Church.  If one does not truly believe that principle, one will never be a member of the Church.
Honestly, it is very, very, very easy to believe in a book that was written by men that lived 2000-4000 years ago.  It is much harder to believe that a man who lived only 200 years ago could have been a prophet and even harder to believe that men today could be Prophets.
And honestly there is no scripture verse that can solve the above question, no wrestling the scriptures that can answer it.  Either you believe that God can talk to men and call them to do Holy works or you don't. If one believes that God can actually talk to men and that men can receive direct communication from God then the only way to find out whether a man is a true Prophet of God is to study what they wrote and what they did in their lifetime and then to ask God.  By their fruits shall ye know them.  Does the Book of Mormon (the fruit) lead people to a better understanding and faith of Jesus Christ and God the Father?
The Book of Mormon is the fruit of the prophet Joseph Smith.  It is the work that upon everything about the LDS Church rests, if it is not of God the LDS Church falls completely apart.  But if it is of God . .. wow . .. just wow that changes everything!
In sum, you can't resolve this issue by only going to the Bible, it can only be resolved by reading the Book of Mormon, pondering about it, looking at how it fits in with the other Testaments and by asking God.  That's it.

I think what @lostinwater is describing is less about shunning and more about the natural order of things related to friendship. When you're friends with someone it's typically for a reason. If those reasons change, the natural result is going to be that you are less friendly with one another. I seriously doubt that very many LDS folk intentionally "shun" others except when and where reasonable and appropriate (as an extreme example, I shun serial killers and don't let known pedophiles babysit my children). I don't think it's valid that we have a blanket principle that we will always let our kids play with others , period. There are times, I'm sure, where parents have erred on the side of caution when they probably shouldn't have. I think it also just as likely that many times when parents no longer have/let their kids play with others there is darned good reason for it. I think judgment, care, and a close following of the Spirit is necessary in these things. As to the natural order of lost friendship when you no longer hold the things in common with someone upon which that friendship was based...I do not know the answer.

Hi @Blossom76 I would like to say right off the bat I'm glad you and your husband have a great relationship! Per your original question, while there are several biblical scriptures I could reference, some have been mentioned others haven't (1 Peter 3 :18-20 talks about the spirit world for example), the problem is you can't prove our religion is true, or any Christian church for that matter, strictly by an appeal to the Bible. Interpretations of scripture vary so widely, and you can find arguments against every position by some very learned men. How do you know which one is correct? I'll share a personal experience that I feel is relevant to this discussion. When I was a missionary, a gentleman invited me into his home, for the hidden purpose of bashing with me. He refused to call me Elder and explained why by sharing a scripture with me, 1 Timothy 3, that in his version of the Bible explained that an Elder needed to be the husband of one wife. I was not married, so his argument was that I did not rightfully hold the title of Elder. I flipped open my version, the King James, and showed him that in my Bible those verses say Bishop not Elder. As he refused to accept my interpretation, I explained that he was proving my point. Our understanding of those simple verses differed so widely, to say nothing of more complicated doctrines, as to destroy all hope of deciding if I was right or wrong by an appeal to the Bible. The only way to know if I was right or wrong was and is to read the Book of Mormon and to ask God if it's true. When you receive a witness of it's truthfullness, it resovles problems with interpretation by letting you know that there is someone with authority to speak in the name of God on Earth again. Because I have received a witness of the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon, I know that Joseph Smith spoke with God's direct authority when he received revelation about the number of heavens. Today we have men that speak with God's direct authority when discussing issues of doctrine. You can't find that knowledge through Biblical discussion alone, you have to find it directly from God. Unless and until you (generic you) read the Book of Mormon and receive that spiritual knowledge that only God can give, no scriptural argument alone will convince you. (FYI I think it's great you and your husband have regular scripture study☺).

If I am understanding the original poster correctly, her husband is a Catholic, confident in his faith and unusually well-versed in the Bible. She is an investigator, apparently trying to convince her husband of problems in Catholicism, and the correctness of the LDS faith. Further, this husband is supportive of the original poster's spiritual searching, even though he does not believe her current focus (LDS) is correct.
First, I am truly impressed. @Blossom76 you appear to have a strong relationship and a wise, understanding husband. I sincerely congratulate you. Perhaps, since you are still investigating, it would be good to take time to become convinced yourself. You might give hubby updates on your searching, and ask him questions now and then. However, it just seems like an unnecessary and losing battle for an LDS-investigator to attempt pursuasive Bible study with a convinced and educated Catholic--especially when both sides are married. Relax in this new faith you are exploring. Become convinced and sure for yourself. God will direct your steps and give you the insights you need.  Oh...and do rejoice in your marriage--it really does sound like it's built on solid trust.

Obviously you have way too much on your plate with all the callings and college.  WML, and Seminary teacher can each be very time intensive to do it right. There is a general principle at work (even in the Church) called the 80/20 rule.  80% of the work gets done by 20% of the people.  The easiest way to get rid of some of the overload is to grow the 20%.  This is something that is often missed when we look to expand and grow the Church.  Baptisms are great, but really we need more people who will work in the Church.   But people have to find the happy balance, if Church work consumes their life than that may not be healthy.  
Also remember the Church is not the Gospel and the Gospel is not the Church.  The Church is the vehicle which the Gospel travels in but to conflate the two will eventually cause pain and heartache down the road.  So in many ways when the Bishop says to read, ponder and pray more . . .it is actually really, really good advice.  What he is trying to tell you is to focus more on the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than on the Church of Jesus Christ.  A proper focus on the Gospel of Christ will lead to a proper understanding of how to manage all the various callings and duties of the Church.  It will help you understand that in life sometimes things just get dropped on the floor . . . and that's okay! Being guided by the Spirit will help us know when it is okay to drop some stuff on the floor and when it is not okay to drop stuff on the floor.
My guess is that your Bishop is also very overloaded. Take your feelings of being overwhelmed and multiple it by 100. As a general principle of leadership, leaders/bosses/Bishops/etc. don't want solve your problems. If you come to your boss with a problem and say, Boss/Bishop we need to do something about this (if he is a good leader) he will throw it right back at you and say well what exactly do you want me to do about it?  The best followers (and future leaders) say, "Boss, we have xyz problem, I've thought about it and we should do abc, if you don't approve of abc we should do def. I prefer abc, do I have authorization to proceed?" 
Don't expect the Bishop to solve your problems for you!!! Take the bull by the horns, know what your callings authorize you to do and then do it keeping the Bishop informed according to how your feel it should be done. Know when you need to ask permission and when you don't (in the church that generally involves money or church resources).
With the YSA thing, don't feel bad.  It's just the way the world works. Yeah, it sucks but until Christ comes it is that way.  Despite all the modern day blather about "racism", "color-blindness" etc. it's just a fact of life, individuals want to associate with other individuals who look like them and think like them, individuals that come from the same socio-economic status.  The sooner you understand that fact and learn to just accept it the better off you will be.  Yes, there are some people who really don't care what you look like or where you come from (and ideally more of those people should be found in the Church), but in general that just isn't the case.  I would suggest find your own socio-economic group that you can hang out with.  There are plenty of good people out there who aren't members of the Church who would easily become members of the Church.  Obviously don't hang out with bad crowds, but there are plenty of awesome non-members.
Finally, I do have a very simple solution that will solve all your problems. GO ON A MISSION!!!!! LIKE NOW!!!!! :-)

Obviously you have way too much on your plate with all the callings and college.  WML, and Seminary teacher can each be very time intensive to do it right. There is a general principle at work (even in the Church) called the 80/20 rule.  80% of the work gets done by 20% of the people.  The easiest way to get rid of some of the overload is to grow the 20%.  This is something that is often missed when we look to expand and grow the Church.  Baptisms are great, but really we need more people who will work in the Church.   But people have to find the happy balance, if Church work consumes their life than that may not be healthy.  
Also remember the Church is not the Gospel and the Gospel is not the Church.  The Church is the vehicle which the Gospel travels in but to conflate the two will eventually cause pain and heartache down the road.  So in many ways when the Bishop says to read, ponder and pray more . . .it is actually really, really good advice.  What he is trying to tell you is to focus more on the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than on the Church of Jesus Christ.  A proper focus on the Gospel of Christ will lead to a proper understanding of how to manage all the various callings and duties of the Church.  It will help you understand that in life sometimes things just get dropped on the floor . . . and that's okay! Being guided by the Spirit will help us know when it is okay to drop some stuff on the floor and when it is not okay to drop stuff on the floor.
My guess is that your Bishop is also very overloaded. Take your feelings of being overwhelmed and multiple it by 100. As a general principle of leadership, leaders/bosses/Bishops/etc. don't want solve your problems. If you come to your boss with a problem and say, Boss/Bishop we need to do something about this (if he is a good leader) he will throw it right back at you and say well what exactly do you want me to do about it?  The best followers (and future leaders) say, "Boss, we have xyz problem, I've thought about it and we should do abc, if you don't approve of abc we should do def. I prefer abc, do I have authorization to proceed?" 
Don't expect the Bishop to solve your problems for you!!! Take the bull by the horns, know what your callings authorize you to do and then do it keeping the Bishop informed according to how your feel it should be done. Know when you need to ask permission and when you don't (in the church that generally involves money or church resources).
With the YSA thing, don't feel bad.  It's just the way the world works. Yeah, it sucks but until Christ comes it is that way.  Despite all the modern day blather about "racism", "color-blindness" etc. it's just a fact of life, individuals want to associate with other individuals who look like them and think like them, individuals that come from the same socio-economic status.  The sooner you understand that fact and learn to just accept it the better off you will be.  Yes, there are some people who really don't care what you look like or where you come from (and ideally more of those people should be found in the Church), but in general that just isn't the case.  I would suggest find your own socio-economic group that you can hang out with.  There are plenty of good people out there who aren't members of the Church who would easily become members of the Church.  Obviously don't hang out with bad crowds, but there are plenty of awesome non-members.
Finally, I do have a very simple solution that will solve all your problems. GO ON A MISSION!!!!! LIKE NOW!!!!! :-)

Bingo!

WAIT WHAT???  All those callings are AT THE SAME TIME and not one at a time???  NO WAY, JOSE!  Seminary Teacher alone is a HUGE calling!

Papadopoulos’ conviction seems pretty weak sauce (he was given a plea deal for lying (illegal) about taking to Russians (not illegal)); and from what I understand the acts recited in Manafort’s indictment date from before his involvement with Trump.
I  could easily be wrong; but it seems like with special prosecutors the filing of charges is usually an indication that the prosecutor’s investigation is drawing to its close.  These developments add to the general “swampy” feeling of Trump and his associates, of course; but given where we were led to expect this investigation would go, it’s tempting to look at today’s action and say “that’s it?”  
It does feel like distraction, given that last week we learned that Clinton money definitely did go to the purchase of information supplied (via middlemen) from Russian intelligence.

It's easy to climb upon the flaming pyre of martyrdom when you were going to lose anyway.

@Vort was responding to this particular part of Traveler's response, "Some think that “Christians” should not provide services for a LGBT community event – I am of the other mind – I believe anyone that comes to a believer of Christ – we should accommodate them as we would anyone and everyone else – standing as a witness of Christ."
His examples were relevant to the statement he quoted; although, I would say the the tobacco farmer and casino owner examples aren't relevant (or better said not the greatest example in relation to Traveler's statement), and there wouldn't be anything wrong in praying for someone whether or not we agree with their business. This would be similar, as to my minds eyes, saying, "I wouldn't pray for a lesbian couples child who was sick even if they asked." We would offend God if we did not pray for his little ones.
There is irony though in the following, "no we should not... drive women to abortion clinics, but..." I would, "Attend a homosexuals wedding all day long I would." So you draw the line on "life" and that is a good thing, but you are still supporting sin. It obviously is your choice which sin you support (and by attending their wedding and congratulating the union we do indeed "condone" the sin), but does not make Vorts comment juvenile or irrelevant. These examples were very much relevant to Traveler's mentioned statement. Attending a SSM doesn't make you more compassionate and non-judgemental then someone who chooses not to attend.
The answer to most of the questions would be as such, "if Jesus were here he would not participate in any of those actions and those who would do such things would hear his word and repent quickly of their sinful ways." Anytime our lives are contrary to the will of God it is wisdom that we hear his voice and repent quickly. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In light of compassion and judging, as with anyone who mentions judging, draw your mind to these word, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." Notice God's reprimand is for us to first pull the beam from our own eye in order to see clearly to cast out a mote from thy brother's eye, which requires "judgment" to recognize the "mote" is still there.
Personally, I would love to see Christ live today, and how he would respond, but we can see how the world views the Lord's prophets and servants and if this is the way they view them, they would treat the Master no less, but worse.
 
 

This sounds reasonable, but does not stand up very long to scrutiny. Which of the following acts do you believe the Savior would perform?
Congratulate a homosexual couple on their "engagement". Attend said homosexual couple's "wedding". Give said homosexual couple advice on effectively using sexual intimacy to strengthen their bond. Provide a heroin addict with a safe space to shoot up, complete with medical staffing to oversee the injections. Help out as one of the medical staff. Devise a new kind of heroin that still gives the "high" and the escape, but lessens the physical cost of usage. Manfully stand in defense of a woman's right to choose death for her fetus. Drive a pregnant woman to an abortatorium. Perform the actual abortion, so as to make sure no harm comes to the "patient". Bless the tobacco farmer that he has an extra-abundant crop, so as to avoid bankuptcy. Sharpen the mental acuity of the casino owner so he can increase his legal profits. Help the street dealer sell his cocaine at a higher price so he can pay off the thugs threatening his life. It's fun and easy to proclaim that we should be "compassionate" and that we should "help others" even when we have some fundamental disagreements with what they're doing. I think we have a far deeper, more important obligation to live by the standards God has given us and to encourage and help others to do so, as well.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not taking you to task, Traveler. I'm just giving my reaction to the ideas I understood as being put forth.

This isn't exactly what I'm talking about though. I'm really more concerned about the dialogue itself. I'm more concerned with the implications of what's being stressed than I am of the sinner sitting in church. I want the sinner in church. It is the ideals pervading the flock that are being perpetuated, as we see in the example of the article being discussed, inadvertently upheld by the "open door"-ness of it all without, in many cases, the accompanying "beware the wolf" message. Oh...the "beware the wolf" message is still there...somewhere. Just not accompanying the "open door" message. Because, of course, the "beware the wolf" message would be offensive to those being offered the "open door" message. I consider that offense a lesser concern, however, than I do the interpreted ideals of those who are, unaware, being devoured by said wolf, and then heaping that compost into the mix as some sort of higher ideal. I have never considered the wolves to be the sinners themselves. The wolves are the accompanying lies that need to be guarded against. What worries me is the failure to guard against these wolves in the name of not offending while allowing the prioritization of dangerous attitudes above the protection of vulnerable minds within the flock.

You seem to be saying that some comparisons are, by their very nature, off limits. You appear to believe that it is intrinsically morally wrong to say that homosexuality is a sin, just like pedophilia is a sin. I disagree.
(Also, "begs the question" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.)
A sinner is a sinner, and a pedophile who controls himself is no more sinful than a homosexual who controls himself. That is the only relevant point. Should we, or should we not, invite the pedophile to Church? Yes or no? I can only assume that you agree the answer is a loud, resounding "YES!"
Why, then, did the author mention homosexuality but not pedophilia? Why wasn't he courageous enough to bring up a less popular and less fashionable moral perversion? Are we to believe that he was really going for "acceptance of the sinful" as his theme? Or was he using the article to show how unprejudiced he was, and how he graciously condescended to lecture all the other sinners in the Church on their sinful natures?
We do not -- or at least should not -- use preaching the gospel as a chance to show off our own (perceived) moral superiority. The author spends the entire article talking about "we" and "us", how "we" need to change "our" attitude. I guess he has a mouse in his pocket, because his complaints bear little resemblance to me or to the Saints I know. I have never heard anyone complain about a member or visitor who had tattoos or who smelled like cigarettes. My experience says that his complaints are hollow. Perhaps the author should confine himself to publicly berating his own foolishness and insincerity rather than presuming to lecture everyone else on what he (wrongly) perceives to be their shortcomings. The hypocrisy is insufferable.
And I appreciate that. Thank you. You can perhaps understand my frustration when you consider that you have a history of misunderstanding what I write. This seems to happen along a common line: You read into my words certain negative meanings that simply are not there. It's frustrating.
Actually, I should be (and in my better moments, I am) glad that you voice these things, since it gives me a chance to disclaim them. Nevertheless, I am confident that you would quickly find it tiresome if I replied to many of your posts by writing, for example, "So it sounds like you're claiming that all men should be lined up and shot, and boys permanently enslaved to women for all time. Do I take your meaning correctly?" I imagine after a few times of answering, "No, of course not! How could you ever get such a meaning from what I wrote?", you'd get tired of defending yourself from (what seem to you to be) obviously spurious charges of hate-ism.
You've said that you found it objectionable, because you think it taps into some underlying vein of false prejudice against homosexuals. You have not explained why the analogy is invalid or otherwise "poor", just that you dislike it.
Partially. I primarily dislike the article because I perceive it as hypocritical. The author takes the Saints to task for not being friendly and accepting enough of those who are "different", while his entire article is a screed against those very Saints. His paragraphs on homosexuals are particularly telling:
So we should not judge homosexuals for their homosexuality, but it's okay for the author to classify another Latter-day Saint as being a "self-righteous snoot" and to pass judgment that some sins (like not having the right attitude, where "right" means "like the author's") are "inexcusable".
Seriously, what a hypocrite.
Consider his last paragraphs:
Does the author exemplify the attitude he claims we should follow? Or is he simply looking to put up points on the Politically Correct scoreboard?
Let the author write the same article, but talk about pedophiles (whose sinful nature is widely despised) rather than homosexuals (whose sinful nature is widely celebrated). Then I might have more of a tendency to believe him to be sincere.

Isn't the obvious resulting question to the "open door" policy plain, however? Shouldn't the "ravenous wolf" potentially eating our children while we're about rescuing the lost sheep be of, perhaps, greater concern than the attempt to rescue the sexually deviant who may someday lose their mojo?

There are intelligent, compassionate, effective ways of supporting members and guests with unwanted attractions. Many churches have discreet protocols even for having former sex offenders worship with them. A designated person may shadow the individual (with their knowledge), and they may be informed of certain areas that are off-limits, and of course that they are never to be in a room alone with a minor. These guests/members are generally very cooperative and appreciative of the support. Scripture commands that the strong in the church come along side the weak.  So, even as we reject the calls to legitimize, normalize and embrace sin, we also provide sacred space for the fallen, that they may experience true restoration with God and his people.

I would argue the church hasn't changed that much though. Look at this quote from President Uchtdorf in the April Conference this year.
"Does this mean that God condones or overlooks behaviors that run contrary to His commands? No, definitely not!
                But He wants to change more than just our behaviors. He wants to change our very natures. He wants to change our hearts.
                He wants us to reach out and take firm hold of the iron rod, confront our fears, and bravely step forward and upward along the strait and narrow path. He wants this for us because He loves us and because this is the way to happiness"
He is saying the same thing Elder Holland said in 1980. You need to come to Christ and when you do he can and will change you as you strive to follow his commandments. The church hasn't changed its teachings. There is a softening in tone to reach out to those mired in sin and let them know they are welcome as they strive to change. But they are still told to change. Here is President Uchtdorf again from the April 2016 GC 
"We call these steps of faith obedience.
      That is not a popular word these days. But obedience is a cherished concept in the gospel of Jesus Christ because we know that “through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”
So I would argue that the church, while it changes as the GA'S receive more revelation, has not changed in it's core message of obedience, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ. I used a few quotes from President Uchtdorf, but I could post hundreds of them from the last ten years from all the GA's that teach just as strongly as anything in the 1980's. This is still, and will always be Christ's Church.

That's unnerving.  One of the things that attracted me to the Church was its acceptance of damaged people and desire to help them get right in accordance with their unbending adherence to God's law.

Totally agree.  First off in the modern Church today we do not denounce sin.  Honestly, I can't remember the last time I was in a ward sacrament meeting where specific types of sin were denounced.  The modern Church culture is to just "love everyone".  The only real sin that I can actually think of that is actually denounced in general in church sacrament is pornography.
The rest isn't denounced b/c "we all know it's bad", like we don't need to denounce specific types of behavior because everyone in church already "knows" it's bad, so why make people feel worse for condemning it. We all know divorce is bad so in an effort to make those who are going through divorce not feel bad we don't talk about it. We all know homosexuality is bad, so we don't talk about it so as to not make those individuals feel bad.  We all know we shouldn't get tatoos so we don't talk about it.  We all know we shouldn't do drugs so we don't talk about it.  
Why . . .because we want to be "inclusive", we want everyone to feel "loved".   Well that's great, just because you and I know it's bad . .how do we keep understanding that it's bad and more importantly how to pass down those same beliefs to the next generation.  By talking about how it's bad!!!
No we don't need more homosexuals, individuals with tattos, people who have or do drugs, pedophiles, etc.  We don't need or want any of those types of people.  We need more people who are humble followers of Christ, who live their lives the best they can every day to get rid of whatever sins they have and by the grace of God approach His mercy seat.  We need individuals who have truly repeated of their sins, who don't take pride in their past sins and who understand what it means to make a covenant with God to become a disciple. 
This article strikes me as a self-serving "look at how good I am b/c I don't judge other people" clap-trap . .rameumpton.  Oh God, look at how good I am b/c I don't "judge" others. I severely dislike this "A friend with a visible tattoo asked our bishop at the time if she should have her quite-visible tattoo removed.  He asked why.  She explained that some of the Relief Society sisters seemed bothered by it.  His wise counsel was “Let them be bothered.  That doesn’t say anything about who you are now.” 
This is false doctrine.  If you are showing a tattoo for the world to see, then YES it does represent who you are now.  For example, if you have a visible tattoo of a naked lady, and you show it for the world to see, how can you say that "well that doesn't represent who I am".  You have visibly marked yourself in a representative way.  To show up to church with a naked lady tattoo would be ridiculous.  But, I guess b/c the tattoo was a flower or some cutzy thing we can say . . ."that doesn't represent me now".  That's right the Bishop's counsel is if I flaunt my sin, and you are bothered by it in Church it is your problem.  If you don't want it to represent you, then either cover it up or get it removed. It's why tattoos are a big deal . . .b/c it's a permanent mark of representation.
In effect, the Bishop told her tattoos aren't bad, only certain types of tattoos are bad.
And obviously most of this articles or people who believe this way either don't have kids or don't understand how to raise them properly.  The process of raising children is all about civilization.  Parents have the primary responsibility but they get socialized/civilized by Church, school, groups they attend etc. They are sponges and they only way they learn right from wrong is by having it taught to them and the easiest way to teach a child is by example.  So when you have openly homosexual members who attend Church, individuals who openly flaunt tattoos, nose-rings, etc. and don't express or teach their repentance process then kids will naturally pick up on it and then when they sin will say . .. it's no big deal b/c soandso did this and they have this or do this and it's no big deal.
No . ..we need humble followers of Christ who are not ashamed of Christ, who recognize their sins, who are not afraid to call sin what it is sin and who strive with all their might to repent of their sins, do whatever they can to make restitution for their sins and follow Christ. 
Right now the teaching we are teaching to our children is that sin doesn't matter all that really matters is that you "love everyone".  It can easily become the Church of Christ without Christ in it.

I read the article, and overall it doesn't sound bad on the surface. I feel like what the author is trying too say is we could be more welcoming of people who are struggling. That's true, Our Savior invites all men everywhere to come to him and be changed. But for me, these general condemnations of us not being welcoming enough just aren't a real problem. In my ward, when anybody comes to church we are excited. It's a giant first step towards change and we love to have them there! I feel like the author is pushing an agenda of not condemning sin as sin though in order for people not to feel uncomfortable and I have to disagree with that philosophy. The Lord teaches us that since he loves us he chastens us. We need to feel uncomfortable with our lifestyle in order to be motivated to change. So yes we should be welcoming to everyone who comes in our door. But I love what Elder Holland teaches in a decotional at BYU from 1980.
"If there is one lament I cannot abide, it is the poor, pitiful, withered cry, “Well, that’s just the way I am.” If you want to talk about discouraging attitudes, that is one that discourages me. Please spare me your speeches about “That’s just the way I am.” I’ve heard that from too many people who wanted to sin and call it psychology. And I use the word sin to cover a vast range of habits which bring discouragement and doubt and despair.
You can change anything you want to change and you can do it very fast. It is another Satanic falsehood to believe that it takes years and years and eons of eternity to repent. It takes exactly as long to repent as it takes you to say “I’ll change”—and mean it. Of course there will be problems to work out and restitutions to make. You may well spend—indeed, you had better spend—the rest of your life proving your repentance by its permanence. But change, growth, renewal, and repentance can come for you as instantaneously as it did for Alma and the Sons of Mosiah"
This life is all about changing for the better through the grace of Jeaus Christ. Yes come with your sins, but plan to change as Christ saves you from those sins.