dahlia

This page shows topics for conference talks: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/topics?lang=eng
It includes fatherhood, family, self-reliance, integrity, etc.  Maybe that will help you narrow it down.

I forgot why I came here in the first place tonight ...
My office mate frequently asks me questions about the Church. For some reason, today we talked about Conference (yes, I know it's coming, I just don't know why the topic came up at work). He's a young guy, around 30 or so. He's pretty open to stuff and has never said anything negative in response to anything I've said. And yeah, I should probably invite him to church, but we are in close quarters and I don't want to make it difficult for either of us to come in every day. 
Anyway, I thought I might give him a Conference talk, but have no clue what would be a good choice (or, I don't want to spend 2 hours looking for an appropriate talk). I think I'd like to give him something meant for young men or something about being a priesthood holder that doesn't start from the assumption that the listener knows a lot of LDS theology. Maybe something that focuses on the manly man aspects of the priesthood - family leadership, provident living, and just being a goodly man.
Any suggestions? Any favorite talks that you like to give to young men? Thanks.

No. No one is required to remove tattoos or cover up body modifications or get restorative surgery or anything like that. Maybe there are rare exceptions (I'm thinking possibly "sex change"), but as a general rule, no. You can even do body modifications and tattoos and stretch out your earlobe or lips or whatever while a member. As far as I know, you can get a temple recommend while doing so.
I suspect that most Saints would agree that gauging out your earlobes or lips is a ridiculous and foolish thing to do; a large subset of those would also agree that doing so is not pleasing to the Spirit. But we don't deny a temple recommend because you yell at someone while you're driving, which also (probably) offends the Spirit. We are weak, and the Lord (and his Church) minister to us in our weakness. We are not required to be perfect to attend the temple, nor anywhere near; we are required simply to clear some very obvious--and low--moral bars set up to see if we meet the minimum requirements one can expect in order to enter the house of God and learn about him. Very basic compliance with the beliefs and laws of God's kingdom is really all that's required. Nothing there about tattoos or gauged-out ears or lips or cheeks.
Many Latter-day Saints want to draw a bright line between "doctrine" and "policy" (or "culture" or some such thing). This is nonsense, of course, but a surprisingly large part of the LDS population (probably a majority) does so. One or two decades ago, our prophet offered sage, grandfatherly advice: Don't get tattoos. Don't get lots and lots of piercings. Don't participate in such body modifications. It's not wise and it's not good. Treat your body as the holy temple of God it was designed to be, a temple where the spirit of God -- that would be you -- dwells. That advice is as wise and timely now as it was then, perhaps even moreso. But not every good idea or wise piece of advice gets added to the baptismal requirements list or the temple recommend questions.

I hope the ward mission leader has pulled you aside to set you straight.

I personally think that if they do reduce the church meeting to 2 hours it will be of benefit. It will help the weaker saints and new members to keep an easier commitment and as for those who seek more knowledge and growth in the gospel they still have plenty of time to study at home with family and friends. I need a break after any study that has gone for two hours whether academic or spiritual. From studies I’ve read people only keep effective focus for 1 – 2 hours anyway.

I'm an academic, working at a university. It is not unusual to have people's email signature lines mention their preferred pronouns.  I don't know if I've had any transgender people in my classes (I have known them in 'real life,' tho), but I have had many gay people. None of this is new. I don't care what you do, or what you want me to call you. If your name is Mary and you want to be called 'he,' fine. 
But here's the thing - people have gotten in trouble for not calling others by their preferred pronoun. Lots of times it's just custom - you see what looks like a woman in front of you and you use female pronouns.  Newsflash, snowflakes - if you are going to lead a movement, maybe you need to toughen up and not let every slip of the tongue drive you to HR or the student diversity office. Maybe it was just a momentary lapse because when people look at you, you look like Mary, not like Mark. 
I think there are 2 things going on: 1) there are a very few 'real' transgender people. This must be awful for them (not because they are trans, but because life is just hard with that status). I'm not going to make their life harder by disrespecting them. I have no problem calling them whatever makes them comfortable;  and 2) most of these 'choose a pronoun' folks just think it is cool and are following a momentary fad, supported by liberalism in general and by the mental health community, which is willing to let young people just go down whatever path they get in their heads at the moment, without even suggesting that they think through whether this is who they really are (especially in terms of gender reassignment surgery and giving younger and younger people hormone therapy) and wait a few years before doing anything that may be impossible to reverse. 
I just resent having to buy into all of this in order to somehow 'prove' to the administration that I'm not a bigot.
btw - I get ticked off all kinds of ways when trans want to equate their problems with those of blacks in this country. Don't even go there with me. 

Doing some batch cooking today and watched the 1945 version of 'And Then There were None.' I'm not a huge Agatha Christie fan, and had seen the 1965 version called 'Ten Little Indians' in the theater, so I wasn't planning on watching it, but darned YT kept recommending it...
I normally watch a lot of documentaries on prime and Netflix, but I forgot I just came off of a Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes binge (which is probably why Agatha Christie was recommended). I enjoy Rathbone; he's my 2nd favorite Holmes after Jeremy Brett and I do like the idea of Sherlock Holmes fighting Nazis during WW2. 

Really, @Sunday21, you should just ignore posts by Mirkwood until Christmas.

This is a false dichotomy.  You don't have to send your kid to school - public or private - to give them an education.  Children are perfectly capable of self-discovery especially in the early formative years and especially in today's technology.  For specialized skills, you have the option of outsourcing these things to a professional.  Like for example, I wanted my kids to learn martial arts so I hired a martial arts teacher.  I wanted my kids to learn music.  I hired a music teacher.  They could learn these through self-discovery but I opted for professional instruction. 
It is a fallacy to believe that a teacher has to know more than the student.  This is easily evident in spiritual learning.  Non-spiritual learning is the same.  What is more important than a professional teacher is a facilitator - a facilitator doesn't have to be an expert on the subject matter.  What a facilitator does is that he manages the education process to make sure the child has access to sources of learning and is learning virtuous things - that's something a parent can easily do.
So, for the examples given above - the parent doesn't have to spend 6 hours each day instructing a child in literature or multiplication or how to form the letter S.  Children are perfectly capable of learning all these things through self-discovery with the parent facilitating the learning - like, giving the kid access to literary works and published analysis of these works or a literary club talking about these works, giving the kid access to math tools like counting beads or a game of monopoly, giving the kid access to a perfectly formed letter S and endless amounts of paper for him to self-discover how to make his S look as close to it as possible.  The parent can simply check to see that the kids' interests are peaked while she occupies herself with other things including a portable full-time job.

The Federal Government doesn't do anything efficiently or well. Why would anyone want it teaching their kids?

Our little rabbit died after 8 years with us and some health scares in her last year. I had to leave early to help my son with the funeral arrangements. I had an obligation at work and asked if someone could take over for me - several volunteered and those who couldn't apologized for not being able to!  A little later, a co-worker whose wife passed away a few years ago gave me a little rabbit pin of hers. I thought his daughters might want it, but he wanted to give it to me. We have a daily status update email that usually has motivational or funny pictures. The next day when I came back, the update had several bunny pictures to honor our little bun bun. I was overwhelmed by the outpouring of sympathy, probably because they did see pets as family. 
Regarding chickens - my sister moved to a small town in NC. The house across from her has chickens, which get out frequently and hang out in my sister's yard. As a former big-city girl, where the chickens are dead and stay in the grocery store, she finds this both fascinating and terrifying. 

My husband and I didn't encourage Santa-worship with our son. We always emphasized that his parents would supply his needs and wants, not some fairy.  That said, the grandparents and the rest of society did a pretty good job of convincing him that there was a Santa.
Regarding the 'parents ate the Halloween candy' type videos, I often wonder if parents who do this love their children. There's joking with kids and there's making kids suffer. Why would you do this? Some of these videos just makes my heart ache for these children - and I'm not all that sensitive, as some of you know. 😂 You're only a child once, you look to your parents for security and love... I don't know. Maybe it's the mom in me (tho I've seen mothers do some pretty awful things to their children in the name of being an internet sensation), but I wouldn't treat my son like that. My late husband was a guy's guy, a combat vet, yet I don't think he ever raised his voice to our son, much less spanked him - because we were happy to have our little fella and he was a joy to us.  Life is full of unhappiness that can't be avoided. Why would parents want to purposefully add one additional second of unhappiness to their child's life? 

I'm an academic, working at a university. It is not unusual to have people's email signature lines mention their preferred pronouns.  I don't know if I've had any transgender people in my classes (I have known them in 'real life,' tho), but I have had many gay people. None of this is new. I don't care what you do, or what you want me to call you. If your name is Mary and you want to be called 'he,' fine. 
But here's the thing - people have gotten in trouble for not calling others by their preferred pronoun. Lots of times it's just custom - you see what looks like a woman in front of you and you use female pronouns.  Newsflash, snowflakes - if you are going to lead a movement, maybe you need to toughen up and not let every slip of the tongue drive you to HR or the student diversity office. Maybe it was just a momentary lapse because when people look at you, you look like Mary, not like Mark. 
I think there are 2 things going on: 1) there are a very few 'real' transgender people. This must be awful for them (not because they are trans, but because life is just hard with that status). I'm not going to make their life harder by disrespecting them. I have no problem calling them whatever makes them comfortable;  and 2) most of these 'choose a pronoun' folks just think it is cool and are following a momentary fad, supported by liberalism in general and by the mental health community, which is willing to let young people just go down whatever path they get in their heads at the moment, without even suggesting that they think through whether this is who they really are (especially in terms of gender reassignment surgery and giving younger and younger people hormone therapy) and wait a few years before doing anything that may be impossible to reverse. 
I just resent having to buy into all of this in order to somehow 'prove' to the administration that I'm not a bigot.
btw - I get ticked off all kinds of ways when trans want to equate their problems with those of blacks in this country. Don't even go there with me. 

When I see threads like this I want to say  'My preferred pronoun is   "Your Highness" '     Everyone make a note of it please

It probably is true that when a young LDS couple doesn't marry in the temple, there is a sort of assumption among many that maybe they "couldn't", because, you know, they couldn't get temple recommends, because...well...you know...
I'll be the first to admit this is sub-optimal. But it's also rather obvious. When a couple welcome their 8 pound, 3 ounce bouncing baby boy into the world seven and a half months after they get married, it's not really that hard to wonder if the baby really is a premie. This is not passing judgment per se, but observing probabilities. Not saying it's good or right, but I don't see how such a thing could really be avoided.

I'm an academic, working at a university. It is not unusual to have people's email signature lines mention their preferred pronouns.  I don't know if I've had any transgender people in my classes (I have known them in 'real life,' tho), but I have had many gay people. None of this is new. I don't care what you do, or what you want me to call you. If your name is Mary and you want to be called 'he,' fine. 
But here's the thing - people have gotten in trouble for not calling others by their preferred pronoun. Lots of times it's just custom - you see what looks like a woman in front of you and you use female pronouns.  Newsflash, snowflakes - if you are going to lead a movement, maybe you need to toughen up and not let every slip of the tongue drive you to HR or the student diversity office. Maybe it was just a momentary lapse because when people look at you, you look like Mary, not like Mark. 
I think there are 2 things going on: 1) there are a very few 'real' transgender people. This must be awful for them (not because they are trans, but because life is just hard with that status). I'm not going to make their life harder by disrespecting them. I have no problem calling them whatever makes them comfortable;  and 2) most of these 'choose a pronoun' folks just think it is cool and are following a momentary fad, supported by liberalism in general and by the mental health community, which is willing to let young people just go down whatever path they get in their heads at the moment, without even suggesting that they think through whether this is who they really are (especially in terms of gender reassignment surgery and giving younger and younger people hormone therapy) and wait a few years before doing anything that may be impossible to reverse. 
I just resent having to buy into all of this in order to somehow 'prove' to the administration that I'm not a bigot.
btw - I get ticked off all kinds of ways when trans want to equate their problems with those of blacks in this country. Don't even go there with me. 

My husband and I didn't encourage Santa-worship with our son. We always emphasized that his parents would supply his needs and wants, not some fairy.  That said, the grandparents and the rest of society did a pretty good job of convincing him that there was a Santa.
Regarding the 'parents ate the Halloween candy' type videos, I often wonder if parents who do this love their children. There's joking with kids and there's making kids suffer. Why would you do this? Some of these videos just makes my heart ache for these children - and I'm not all that sensitive, as some of you know. 😂 You're only a child once, you look to your parents for security and love... I don't know. Maybe it's the mom in me (tho I've seen mothers do some pretty awful things to their children in the name of being an internet sensation), but I wouldn't treat my son like that. My late husband was a guy's guy, a combat vet, yet I don't think he ever raised his voice to our son, much less spanked him - because we were happy to have our little fella and he was a joy to us.  Life is full of unhappiness that can't be avoided. Why would parents want to purposefully add one additional second of unhappiness to their child's life? 

We can just change the logo to the below, and they'll get the idea:

The Mormon Tabernacle Enquirer

You have to get legally married first, then you get sealed in the temple.

I feel like every general conference there is some group of people somewhere that think something big is ganna happen.
One March while serving my mission, there were spread rumors that something big was coming in the April General Conference. Apparently Elder Christofferson has said something to our mission president on his recent visit or something.
What happened?? A lot of talks about keeping the Sabbath day holy

I read the article to my wife and she quipped in response, "Maybe they're going to re-instate polygamy."
🤣
Snowstorm indeed.

Strangely enough, I say yes. I never had them until I had some missionaries help me with a move. One of them asked for a pizza with pineapple, a request that was almost enough to make me barf. But, being the adventurous soul that I am, once I got it home, I took a piece and really liked it!

Strangely enough, I say yes. I never had them until I had some missionaries help me with a move. One of them asked for a pizza with pineapple, a request that was almost enough to make me barf. But, being the adventurous soul that I am, once I got it home, I took a piece and really liked it!