Vort

I don't get this "If it doesn't keep me from going to the temple then it must not be bad" sort of mentality :/
There is plenty of revelation through prophets telling us to take care of our bodies. Why does it require the threat of taking away one's temple recommend to get us to do things? Having signed piece of paper by no means guarantees us entrance into the celestial kingdom.

I submit it is already there.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
Cannabis is an annual, dioecious, flowering herb.
Of course, you'll have to follow the Article of Faith that requires us to be subjects to the law of the land.  So, most of the issue with cannabis is not with the Church but with the DEA.
But, having said that, smart choices on the matter as a people who are to govern ourselves point to the mind-altering effects of whole marijuana which caused it to be on the DEA's prohibited list in the first place.  Therefore, the Church gave advicement to the people of Utah to oppose SB 73.  But, the Church made no such advicement against SB 89.
 

The temple has four different service opportunities for individuals who are endowed:
1) Baptisms and Confirmations
2) Initiatories
3) Endowment
4) Sealings
Which service you want to spend your time with is really a personal choice. As for me, I am currently working on temple names and plan on going once a week and go through all four services in one month to complete saving ordinances for one of my ancestors. That is just me though, each individual is able to decide how they want to move forward.
Temple experiences are usually experiences to be kept within the temple. I honestly love the divine peace that is in the temple that isn't felt anywhere else.

You have been there, but that was before it was carved up. So your mistake is understandable.
(Am I doing this right @MormonGator?)

I hesitate to mention this, but there was a Book of Mormon movie (called "The Book of Mormon movie") released around 2000. It was a well-intentioned, very sincere effort to capture 1 Nephi. In this man's opinion, it was a disaster. I am not the only one to feel that way. So I'm all for a Book of Mormon movie, but I insist on my personal script approval.

D
o
h
.
And here I was trying to be polite and all, what with not pointing out that State College was the name of the city. I was so focused on not focusing on the seeming error that I missed the joke.
On that topic: Penn State's grounds are called by their own name -- "University Park" (zip code 16802). So mail sent to the university goes to "University Park, PA", but the surrounding cowtown is "State College" (zip code 16801, -3, and -4). I remember one phone conversation in the early '90s with a service rep from some company or other. He asked me the city I was in, and I told him "State College". He said something about how, yeah, it was fun to live in a college town, then asked again for the name of the city. I told him, "State College". He joked again about college towns and such, then asked for the actual name of the city itself. I think it took him four times before he finally realized the city was called "State College". I admit I was less than helpful in clarifying this fact, but I was rather enjoying the conversation.

In other words...
...and...
 

Except... the Church is worldwide and not just American.
The thing is, we don't need the Word of Wisdom to ban things to get us healthy.  Rather, it is the principle of the Word of Wisdom that gets us out of danger territory.  We don't have to be told that we shouldn't consume gallons of sugary drinks to stay healthy.  Tons of Filipinos drink sugary drinks - matter of fact, I grew up drinking Coke everyday, of course, in the Philippines Coke is expensive so my family of 6 buy a 1-liter Coke bottle to share for afternoon snacks.  But just because it is cheap in America doesn't mean you should guzzle all 1 liter by yourself in one sitting everyday.
WoW should not have to ban fatty pizza just because Americans eat too much of it.  WoW shouldn't have to ban Red Bull because Americans have a strange addiction to it.  WoW shouldn't have to be updated everytime some modern invention like vaping comes along.  Rather, Americans should be smarter about their life choices... which is what the WoW teaches.
 

Probably my favorite scripture, 1 Corinthians 2:9, reads:
This is worth any price.

Probably my favorite scripture, 1 Corinthians 2:9, reads:
This is worth any price.

I think you have a flawed model of how doctrine is received.

Official Declaration-1, located at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, offers some explanations.

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........
 
People could take advantage of the resources God's given us to collaborate and produce family-friendly fare on their own. 
It's my understanding that video cameras and editing software of the kind needed can be acquired off-the-shelf these days, and so it's just a matter of piecing together a script and finding acting talent. 
From there, it's a matter of getting it out to the world. 

They can't...  This whole thread is a murmuring because God isn't doing what they want

In defense of Zarahemla, he asked a question.  This whole thread turned into questioning his mental health.  Could we not just answer his questions?

A few observations:
"Good" means "Godly". (I mean functionally, not etymologically.) Ascribing Godly characteristics to Satan is always problematic. In some cases, it is trivially true: God and Satan both exist. God and Satan both communicate to others. God and Satan both represent themselves to mankind as the way, the truth, and the life. But such cases are of no interest (to me). Since Satan and God stand as opposites, characterizing any Satanic thing as Godly seems counterproductive, if not entirely meaningless.
  What is a "light-bearer" or "son of the morning"? We assume it's some high and holy thing. But that is merely an assumption. Would not the title of "Saint" be a high and holy thing? Yet how many that once bore the title of "Saint" now find themselves entirely outside the kingdom of God? But that does not mean they held some sort of "high office". Perhaps it is equally distressing to realize that they have lost (or spurned) the "mere" title of Saint. No high Church office is necessary to make this tragic. Indeed, the office of President of the Church is small potatoes compared to the actual membership in the kingdom. President, teacher, or hymnbook coordinator, we're all fellow Saints.
  I suppose in a sense that it is important only what we are, and not what we were. This idea is normally used in conjunction with the teachings about sinning: Whatever we have done is not relevant, only that we have turned our back on that evil. Yet it appears that the same thing works in the other direction: All our belief and all our good works in the past do not make us justified before God if we now rebel. My own opinion is that Satan does not "love" us in any possible meaningful sense. He may lust after us in the way that Lewis' Screwtape lusted after souls (including Wormwood's). But there is no love there. He is a being of malicious evil. He seeks our misery and destruction, in this life and eternally. For his own personal ambition, he stands openly in opposition to the Father and everything the Father wants for us.
I do not even understand such a being, and frankly, I'm kind of glad for that fact. When I was a boy, I used to imagine how, if I had Satan's ear, I would tell him a thing or two, and how manfully I would resist his voice and tell him what's what, and so forth. But I have not thought that way in many decades. Were I cursed to converse with Satan, I hope that my attitude would be that of the Savior when standing before his false accusers and those who set themselves up as his judges. Satan is the Accuser. I remind myself of this fact when I feel like accusing someone, even political figures. I don't want to be an Accuser. I want no conversation with Satan. I do not want to understand why he does what he does. I don't want to "get inside his head". I want nothing whatsoever to do with him. I want his filth and awfulness to stay as far away from me and my family as I can manage to get it. If ever I have a word with that horribly lost being, I hope and pray it is nothing beyond "Begone!"

I approve this course of action.

Same to you.

I confess to having been more than a bit irritated. I am no fan of Donald Trump, as anyone who has spent time on this forum in the last nine months can attest. But disloyalty to the gospel or to the Church (which is ultimately the same disloyalty) is intolerable. I am sure that Sister Chamberlin does not consider herself disloyal and doesn't see anything wrong or duplicitous with her own actions, but I do and I do. And I get more irritated when people refuse to see the distinction between acting on one's beliefs and using one's Church position as an adjunct to their political activities, either in a positive or a negative sense.
But my irritation with what you wrote is ultimately my problem, not yours. I apologize for being less than friendly.

Because a moral stand never involved coming out in opposition to the Church. That is the very definition of disloyalty.
The decision for the Choir to perform or not WAS NOT HERS. Of course she "had no say". Why should she? Her only decision was whether she would participate or not. She chose not to. Fine. I can respect that. Heck, I might even have admired it, had I learned that she privately gave up a position she loved because she couldn't sanction the performance for a man she abhorred. I would not have agreed, since I don't see it as honoring Donald Trump, but I still might have admired such a difficult private decision.
But hers was not a private decision. She broadcast it for all to hear. She prostituted herself. She has her reward, the plaudits of those who hate Donald Trump more than they love the Church. That reward is hers, and no one takes it from her (except perhaps those who bestowed it). She is welcome to it. She most certainly does not have my admiration, or even my respect.

When you are representing the Church in an official capacity, you are not required to turn your brain off and submit to whatever decisions are made. But it looks obvious enough to me that you don't use that position (or the quitting of that position) to shout your sociopolitical agenda. That is disloyal to the body of Saints and to the Church, and in my opinion to him whose the Church is. It's a shameful thing, and I am ashamed of her for prostituting her position in the choir just to score some social points.

Mormonism is "henotheistic" in the same way that larger traditional Christianity is "henotheistic". You worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That's three. But you say they are all one God, so therefore monotheism. Observant Jews and Muslims laugh at your explanation.
I don't really care whether people want to call us "henotheists". The truth is one, and it's true no matter what we believe or what words we invent to explain it. Truth is true. Period. God and his Son and the Holy Ghost are one -- not in the way traditional and sectarian Christianity has said, but still, they are one. We do not worship a pantheon of deities such as the ancient Greeks or Romans or Egyptians did. We worship the Father in the power and name of the Son and through the ministrations of the Holy Ghost. Whether that counts as one God or three is of almost no consequence to me. The scriptures say we worship one God, so I go with that. But if other people want to count three, that's okay by me. Count it however you like. The important thing is that I worship the true and living God in the manner he has prescribed. I don't care very much about the rest.

Yet I have an intimate LDS acquaintance who was so devastated to find out there was no Santa Claus that she lost her faith for a time, and when she recovered it to some degree, it took a strange form. That the Santa deception is harmless for some, or even for most, doesn't mean it's universally harmless.
I wonder what deep, Godly truths people imagine they're teaching their children with Santa that they could not teach more effectively by telling the truth?

God has counseled with, pleaded with, and commanded us to seek exaltation and eternal life. That is my focus.

Interestingly, I see the opposite: Latter-day Saints lining up to approve as loudly as possible of drinking caffeinated sodas, vociferously complaining that (1) caffeine isn't against the Word of Wisdom and (2) it's perfectly okay, there's nothing wrong with it, and people should not even suggest that regular caffeine usage is, at least in spirit, contrary to the ideals of the Word of Wisdom.
Heaven forbid you bring up the fact that many Church leaders have specifically counseled against using any habit-forming substance, including (specifically) caffeine and caffeinated soda pop.

Stop identifying the Church as Mormon.
"The Importance of a Name" (see also: "Following Up")