Dravin

Missionaries certainly aren't trained to do so, so any ability to do so is going to be something the missionary brought with them into their service. In short, don't expect them to be any more able to engage in that arena than your average member of similar background and inclination.
 
They're also limited in their ability to look things up, the mission library is limited so even if Elder Smith was of such a bent he doesn't have access to the book shelf full of books on the subject at home. If you want to discuss the contents and implications of a particular sermon given by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses the missionary won't be able to go back and study it out to be prepared for future discussion unless they know a member who will lend it to them (and many a mission president would be unhappy to know that is going on). The same would apply to online materials, unless things have changed. 

I suspect because such an outlook is comforting. If only people who don't have a strong testimony fall away/leave the Church then it reinforces that they, presumably in possession of a strong testimony, won't find themselves in similar circumstances. There is thread debating the doctrine and principles behind the idea that, "It can happen to anyone." that'd probably give you some insight into the thought processes going around. Putting aside the doctrine and principles that may be behind either viewpoint (for they have their own thread) the idea that someone with a strong testimony can have such a quick turn-around is frightening, and attaching conditions that don't apply to you is comforting in the face of that. 

John, you're entitled to your opinion, especially one formed from personal experiences, as yours has been. But I assume you realize that both the Church and this very discussion list have black people as members, who are just as much brothers and sisters as anyone else. I also assume you would not wish to be judged by the actions of the worst (or even just random) people in your racial group.
 
If you have hard feelings toward black people in general because of unpleasant black people you have encountered, then you can have no principled objection to the many black people who hate whites because some white guy once called them a nasty name. Both as a reasonable human being and as a son of God who is striving to be like Christ, you may want to rethink these attitudes.

So it sounds like you want more restraint in when lethal force is used, not some sort of stupid "shoot to wound policy." Which is fine, it's just your initial phrasing could have been read either way.

You see this pop up repeatedly, that it's "not fair" for someone to grow or change as a person once you've married them. Fair or not it isn't realistic to expect people to remain unchanging from the point of marriage. Also, you rarely see it trotted out when someone is growing or changing in a direction the spouse approves of. People will bitterly complain that their spouse is going from X -> Y but jump with glee when they go from X -> Z. This makes it read less about there being some sort of underlying unfairness to changing that must be resisted at all costs and more not liking the change they are seeing. Which is fair enough as far as it goes but it should be realized that's the issue, not "marriage means never changing!"

It depends on exactly what she believes, she may feel the Church is wrong but not harmful either because the doctrinal distinctions aren't important in the long run, or because she feels that it's a harmless untruth. In the end though, why she's okay with it is something you'll need to ask her, not a bunch of random people from the internet. Do you know what she believes now in general beyond 'not-LDS? Does she even know at this juncture?'
 
  
This is an important point, there will be many who will give advice and comfort and often buried in it somewhere is the assumption that she'll return. If you make any decisions you'll need to make them with the understanding that she might not return else you risk rising resentment and frustration if she doesn't. This may be a storm she and you have to weather, it may be a major paradigm shift she's not returning from.

Per Preach My Gospel a missionary's purpose is:
 
 
 
 
Preach My Gospel is the manual that missionaries currently use. If you are interested in the more involved answer, there is an entire chapter dedicated to the subject intended to help missionaries understand their purpose. You can find it here: https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/what-is-my-purpose-as-a-missionary?lang=eng

Do you mean avoid using lethal force when force is called for? If a cop isn't justified in using lethal force he shouldn't be pulling the trigger. Ideally all shootings are in a lethal manner and no shootings are in a non-lethal manner. Indeed 'shooting to wound'* can be prima facie evidence that you didn't feel lethal force was justified, in which case you used the wrong tool for the job.
 
*If you meant something else by 'avoid shooting in a lethal manner' I'd welcome clarification.

It depends on exactly what she believes, she may feel the Church is wrong but not harmful either because the doctrinal distinctions aren't important in the long run, or because she feels that it's a harmless untruth. In the end though, why she's okay with it is something you'll need to ask her, not a bunch of random people from the internet. Do you know what she believes now in general beyond 'not-LDS? Does she even know at this juncture?'
 
  
This is an important point, there will be many who will give advice and comfort and often buried in it somewhere is the assumption that she'll return. If you make any decisions you'll need to make them with the understanding that she might not return else you risk rising resentment and frustration if she doesn't. This may be a storm she and you have to weather, it may be a major paradigm shift she's not returning from.

Well, unless he was running in the Upper Peninsula.

Possibly, did you go running in Michigan?

The rational against informing your spouse because, "It'll hurt them to know." has always seemed a bit convenient to me. Particularly when paired with, 'It'll be difficult to get their trust back.'

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

You could possibly look into the caffeinated holly teas such as guayusa or yerba mate.

Heart is some tasty meat, it was one of my favorite things about moose hunting (the hunters got to enjoy themselves some heart and tongue). I don't think I've seen heart for sale outside of some fairly large international marts (and I don't trust the meat department at the one nearest me), though I suppose a real butcher could get their hands on some for you.

​Fundamentally it comes down to how you identify yourself, if you define yourself by the things conversion requires and counsels of you to discontinue then I can see how one could feel, "I'd lose myself." If one identifies oneself by other qualities it's less of an issue. Mormonism would ask you to discontinue some things, but it also asks you to identify yourself not by your sins (within a Mormon context) but by your virtues and potential. If Mormonism, and Christianity in general, are what they claim to be then one should in a sense lose themselves and find a better self (Matthew 16:24-26 and all that). Indeed, one can make the argument that such is the sole goal.

Or be willing to load to a device (or if work will allow it throw it onto a thumb drive), I don't know about your library but mine has audio-books.

Yes, but not on an organizational level.
 
In other words, probably just as possible as it is for them to strengthen alternative marriage without us getting ours in a wad...

On my mission this became such an issue that my Mission President felt like he needed to come out and correct the missionaries because they were going so far in their downplaying and backpedaling that they wandering into what he felt was false teachings. I remember engaging with more than one fellow missionary over the subject because I felt they were getting as close as possible to the line of saying, "Polygamy was wrong." without actually crossing the line.

I call this maneuver the "Exit Hoedown". I slap my left pocket with my left hand (keys...check) then I slap my right pocket with my right hand (pocket knife...check) and then I slap my right butt cheek with my right hand (wallet...check) and then I go out the door.
Just need some music.
-Finrock

On the other hand one could argue, based on 2 Ne 9:25, that he could withhold the Law to achieve such a goal. In such a case, he wouldn't have been forcing everyone to be good but rather forcing everyone to be ignorant. Of course both suggestions are operating from the premise that his plan would actually work in some convoluted fashion. That premise could very well be flawed, that is his plan could have been a very persuasive, "A wizard did it."

I found it online here (look for section 9.2.6). The citation given at the above link is: (The Promise of Discipleship [2001], 119, 122)
 
Edit: Looks like I was a couple minutes slow on the draw.

Yep. Honest Abe, George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, the Noble Savage, and so on and so on. I think the thing that makes the destruction of the mythical conception of Church history difficult for some people is that for things like the Book of Mormon or Bible all that has survived is the myth*. So it's a bit of a disconnect when one portion of religious history is treated to the lens of reality. All we can know is Nephi the Prophet whereas the records exist to learn about Joseph Smith the Human, and the contrast can be startling if you aren't prepared for it.
 
*I use this in the more academic sense of a traditional story meant to teach/explain, not in the sense of myth = falsehood.