bytebear

No, Vader was toying with Luke the entire time.  Luke was in no way able to defeat Darth Vader.  And Luke didn't defeat him.  The battle ended when Luke failed to turn to the dark side, and then the Emperor toyed with him, at which time Vader defeated the most powerful sith of all time.  And that made the story so great.  If you look at the original trilogy, it was all about turning Luke to the dark side.  from "they meant to let us go" about a dozen times in all three movies.  Luke never had a chance and was being led deep into the spider web then entire time. 
As to I, II and III, as a child we all knew the origin story of Darth Vader, and when they announced the new movies, I was so excited.  After the first movie I just lost interest.  It was that bad.   And the special effects were horrible too.  CGI Yoda is horrible.  And too many GGI robots.  Just looked fake.   So the final Anakin becomes Darth Vader was just such a let down.  I literally waited 20+ years for this? Ugh....
Rogue One is an awesome prequel to IV, almost perfect, although not as good as IV, V or VI, which I can just catch on TV and just watch.  I have to force myself to watch any of the others.  (same with Raiders of the Lost Ark compared to the other Indy films).  There just isn't a flow that makes you engaged. 

I did like Last Jedi much more than all the other new movies.  Luke's final battle and send off was brilliant. Leia's space rescue was just horribly executed, but a clever idea.  Just badly done.  I did like that the new "empire" is run by young idiots who don't really know what they are doing (kinda like SJWs of today).  Spoiled brats who have no clue what they are even trying to achieve.  I totally see parallels to today.

Articles of Faith 4,5, and 6 pretty much covers it.

These are 13 statements Joseph Smith wrote to be published to very briefly describe Mormon beliefs.  They are canonized as scripture to us.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng
 

A good example of this can be found in Acts chapter 19.
 
So, here we have Paul finding people who thought they were baptized, but Paul explained they didn't quite get it right.  They hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost, let alone received it.  And it seems they were baptized in the name of John, not Jesus Christ.  So he knew they weren't baptized by authority because who ever did it didn't do it right.  So he baptized them properly, and then he laid his hands upon them so they could receive the Holy Ghost.  We believe that to receive the Holy Ghost, you must have it bestowed by the laying on of hands.  I recommend you do a scripture study of laying on of hands, which I believe is a key doctrinal practice missing in most other Christian sects.

The crux is prophetic leadership in conjunction with priesthood keys.  We believe we have apostles who hold the keys of authority to Christ's church, and only these men hold those keys on the Earth at this time.   The church organization flows from them, with authority given to people under them, and under them, etc. But only those men hold all the keys, so a bishop, for example can't claim priesthood authority to create a new branch, or even decide doctrine. It all flows from the top, which flows from Jesus Christ directly.  So, authority doesn't come from doctrine, but doctrine from authority.  Even if someone set up a church with the exact same organization, same doctrines and practices, exactly, they would be invalid.  This is why we baptize even those who have been baptized by other churches even if the ordinance was performed in the exact same manner.

A good example of this can be found in Acts chapter 19.
 
So, here we have Paul finding people who thought they were baptized, but Paul explained they didn't quite get it right.  They hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost, let alone received it.  And it seems they were baptized in the name of John, not Jesus Christ.  So he knew they weren't baptized by authority because who ever did it didn't do it right.  So he baptized them properly, and then he laid his hands upon them so they could receive the Holy Ghost.  We believe that to receive the Holy Ghost, you must have it bestowed by the laying on of hands.  I recommend you do a scripture study of laying on of hands, which I believe is a key doctrinal practice missing in most other Christian sects.

No, Vader was toying with Luke the entire time.  Luke was in no way able to defeat Darth Vader.  And Luke didn't defeat him.  The battle ended when Luke failed to turn to the dark side, and then the Emperor toyed with him, at which time Vader defeated the most powerful sith of all time.  And that made the story so great.  If you look at the original trilogy, it was all about turning Luke to the dark side.  from "they meant to let us go" about a dozen times in all three movies.  Luke never had a chance and was being led deep into the spider web then entire time. 
As to I, II and III, as a child we all knew the origin story of Darth Vader, and when they announced the new movies, I was so excited.  After the first movie I just lost interest.  It was that bad.   And the special effects were horrible too.  CGI Yoda is horrible.  And too many GGI robots.  Just looked fake.   So the final Anakin becomes Darth Vader was just such a let down.  I literally waited 20+ years for this? Ugh....
Rogue One is an awesome prequel to IV, almost perfect, although not as good as IV, V or VI, which I can just catch on TV and just watch.  I have to force myself to watch any of the others.  (same with Raiders of the Lost Ark compared to the other Indy films).  There just isn't a flow that makes you engaged. 

I did like Last Jedi much more than all the other new movies.  Luke's final battle and send off was brilliant. Leia's space rescue was just horribly executed, but a clever idea.  Just badly done.  I did like that the new "empire" is run by young idiots who don't really know what they are doing (kinda like SJWs of today).  Spoiled brats who have no clue what they are even trying to achieve.  I totally see parallels to today.

Lamen and Lemuel pretty much knew their dad was a prophet given all that happened.  Still, they didn't much care.

Lamen and Lemuel pretty much knew their dad was a prophet given all that happened.  Still, they didn't much care.

Lamen and Lemuel pretty much knew their dad was a prophet given all that happened.  Still, they didn't much care.

Met my bishop today (in my pants!) and he was awesome, the pants police (he's the ward's mission leader) even apologised to me (after the bishop spoke to him but still an apology none the less).  So just for the record pants are fine in church - well in the ward I go to at least.

Like @bytebear has suggested there are two parts.  I would call the first part the ordinance of naming of a child.  The second part is a father’s blessings.  Because of my heritage being born under the covenant of the church I have believe that father’s blessing should not be rare.  When I was raising my children, it was an annual event and sort of a tradition that each of my children would receive a father’s blessing.
I gathered my brothers as the occasions of my father and mother approached their deaths for a priesthood blessing from their sons.    What I find interesting is that one of my sons, that does not feel that weekly attendance at church meeting and having a church calling is necessary – is adamant about annually blessing his wife and children and is the most likely to request a blessing at my hand when he is experiencing a crisis.
 
The Traveler

I find it funny that one can be upset at the suggestion of wearing certain attire at church, as if this is such a burden, when the church requires you to stop smoking, drinking alcohol and coffee, pay 10% to the church, and give up a ton of other worldly desires and standards.   Sunday attire seems to be the least of the church's restrictions.

I am wondering where in Australia it is cold this time of year
I am sorry you had a negative experience because of this man. As you continue attending you will find it isn't uncommon that people trying to do what they think is the right thing end up causing offense. It has happened to me many times, and I know that I have been on the other side as well.
In my opinion wearing pants to church (without being immodest or rebellious, as is the case you described) isn't going to interfere with your relationship with God. The Church standards can be conservative when compared with Australian culture but the intention is reverence and respect, not control as emphasized in this article.
https://www.lds.org/new-era/2008/11/to-the-point/why-do-women-still-have-to-wear-dresses-or-skirts-in-all-our-meetings?lang=eng

You choose to find it insulting.  That's far different than being insulted.  Choose the Right.

One time, some religious folks came knocking on my door.  I bet you can guess who.   But they had a pamphlet to share on the creation story, and how they were striving to create Earth as it was in Eden.  We discussed the creation, the fall of Adam, and they were very nice, and the woman was very intrigued by what I was saying (at least she seemed very enthusiastic about my thoughts).  I talked about how if Eden was perfect, and created by a perfect God, why did he not only allow imperfection, but actually planned ahead for it (by providing a savior).   Then I told her that the fall of Adam was a necessary step for the advancement of mankind ("Adam Fell that men might be" - 2 Nephi 2).  She seemed truly amazed at this insight, and asked, "How did you come up with all this?"  And I simply replied, "Oh, I believe there are modern day prophets who have revealed more truth that clarifies certain doctrines of the Bible."  I believe I then offered her a Book of Mormon (I always keep a few in my entryway), to which she declined.  But I have offered it to others who have accepted (out of politeness, I am sure). 

I find it funny that one can be upset at the suggestion of wearing certain attire at church, as if this is such a burden, when the church requires you to stop smoking, drinking alcohol and coffee, pay 10% to the church, and give up a ton of other worldly desires and standards.   Sunday attire seems to be the least of the church's restrictions.

I find it funny that one can be upset at the suggestion of wearing certain attire at church, as if this is such a burden, when the church requires you to stop smoking, drinking alcohol and coffee, pay 10% to the church, and give up a ton of other worldly desires and standards.   Sunday attire seems to be the least of the church's restrictions.

The king did not force them to join the church.  They wanted to join on their own after they were taught.

Oooh ooooh, I know: Mormon missionaries!   No? OK, your home teachers!  No?   Erm, the bishop and one of his counselors?

By the way, I believe the LDS understanding of the creation, preexistence and the fall of Adam are some of the plain and precious truths restored in modern times.  I can think of no doctrine more clear or Biblically sound.

By the way, I believe the LDS understanding of the creation, preexistence and the fall of Adam are some of the plain and precious truths restored in modern times.  I can think of no doctrine more clear or Biblically sound.

One time, some religious folks came knocking on my door.  I bet you can guess who.   But they had a pamphlet to share on the creation story, and how they were striving to create Earth as it was in Eden.  We discussed the creation, the fall of Adam, and they were very nice, and the woman was very intrigued by what I was saying (at least she seemed very enthusiastic about my thoughts).  I talked about how if Eden was perfect, and created by a perfect God, why did he not only allow imperfection, but actually planned ahead for it (by providing a savior).   Then I told her that the fall of Adam was a necessary step for the advancement of mankind ("Adam Fell that men might be" - 2 Nephi 2).  She seemed truly amazed at this insight, and asked, "How did you come up with all this?"  And I simply replied, "Oh, I believe there are modern day prophets who have revealed more truth that clarifies certain doctrines of the Bible."  I believe I then offered her a Book of Mormon (I always keep a few in my entryway), to which she declined.  But I have offered it to others who have accepted (out of politeness, I am sure). 

My neighborhood is on this map. 

@bytebear. This map has measles!

<big sigh> A commentary on a commentary on a commentary on scripture.