MrShorty

Maybe what you mean is something different than what I'm taking this to mean, but as it's written.... then there can be no proper gathering then, because we cannot rid ourselves of "all" ungodliness. It comes across as if you're saying that God cannot do His work unless we're perfect. That's clearly not true.
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/c-shane-reese-byu-14th-president
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Shane_Reese
 

I think that just as earthly institutions have curricula designed by teachers (not by the students who are woefully ignorant and unqualified to design their own curriculum), ours, while surely designed (to the extent necessary) for the individual, are designed by God.  I just can't get on board with the idea that I helped plan every little detail of my mortal life - it seems irrational to me, and unnecessary.  I don't believe for a second that it was, is, or will be necessary in order for my agency to function.  In fact, it sounds downright contrary to my agency functioning.  I also believe that the details of my life could have been different in a nearly infinite number of ways and still have taught me the same lessons I needed to learn in order, eventually, to be able to make that final, educated-by-experience choice between good and evil.
If I turn out to be wrong, and immortal me saw and approved every second of my mortal existence, well, OK, whatever.  But I may well slap her silly and say, "What the devil were you thinking!?"

<not mikbone>
I am sometimes irritated a bit by it, but not because I disbelieve the doctrine. I have pondered why I should be bothered by people proclaiming Christ as our elder brother, and I think I've decided that it feels like the term as often used constitutes a diminution of Christ's true role in our existence. The Savior is reduced to being our Big Buddy, the cool and reliable guy who's always there sticking up for us. I mean, it's true, but does that really convey the grandeur and perfection of God himself who condescended in the most literal sense to live among us? Does it emphasize our eternal indebtedness to him for his atoning grace and mercy? Used in a particular context, "elder brother" is a perfectly true and valid description of the Christ. But when people tend to think about their Redeemer primarily in terms of Big Buddy, I think there's a problem there.

What do you find irritating about it?
The idea that Christ is our brother? The idea that He is elder? The affection? A perceived excess of familiarity / lack of respect or devotion? Or....? Mostly just curious.

FWIW, modern fertility treatment creates children "after the manner of the flesh" without the need for sexual intercourse.
It's always been strange to me that people feel the need to work out the details of these things though.
Can we not simply accept the literal truth of Jesus being God and Mary's physical son without profaning them? Seems a reasonable idea to me. Accordingly, I won't comment further on the matter.

UPDATE:  I can't make sense of the third-hand information I'm receiving.
Marcel has been released from the hospital.  Apparently the doctors said that he has recovered to the point he can be released.  I'm told this happened a few days ago.
I asked if he got the heart he'd been waiting for.   No, he did not. Did they do some sort of operation to help him along until he got a heart?  Don't know. What happened to make his heart heal to the point where he was able to be released?  Don't know. While I'd like to believe this is a miracle because of all the prayers said on his behalf, I'm concerned that the hospital administrators simply made a commercial/business decision rather than a humanitarian one.  i.e. They could not keep a patient with extreme needs like his, with such a low chance of survival in the hospital any longer.
No further information at this time.

@Carborendum’s answer here is magnificent, but I will just tack on the following: 
—Depending on the rhetorical/pedagogical needs of the moment, LDS speakers/texts may take either an “anything that isn’t perdition is a form of salvation” or “anything that isn’t exaltation is a form of damnation” approach.  Both are, in some sense, correct; but the first approach is common when the speaker wants to build appreciation for Christ’s mercy whereas the second is common when the speaker is focusing on the necessity of action/ orthopraxy.
—I may be an idiosyncrasy in the Church here, but I don’t think people get into the Telestial Kingdom without ever repenting.  We are told that, at the last day, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ; and one presumes that that submission and confession will be genuine (else, what’s the point of it?).  I am inclined to believe that the thousand years of “hell” for the telestial is not so much punishment for the sake of punishment, but a chance for the soul to experience existence without God’s light so that  the soul finally stops fighting Him and understands the need to be reconciled to Him (including, His holiness and His law).
Besides, the notion that people in the Telestial Kingdom are running around and continuing to do the things that got them there (lying, stealing, fornicating, exploiting, etc), throughout all eternity (or at least, trying to do so but stymied by a God who at the last has deprived them of their ability to act); seems . . . incongruous to me.  

The original meaning of repent in Middle English came from the French word meaning "To feel regret to the point of seeking forgiveness."  This meaning was so close that regret and repent were considered synonymous until Modern English.  That is why in the KJV still uses the older meaning when it says "It repented the Lord that he had made man."
The French, in turn, came from the Latin word which implies: redact, return, redeem, recover.
Exactly.
There is an interesting "poke" at the Pharisees in Luke 5:32.  Speaking to the Pharisees, the Savior says that the "righteous" (i.e. the Pharisees) are not part of Christ's ministry because they believe themselves to be righteous due to their good deeds and observance of the Law.  But he's come to save the sinners.
He is telling them that because they already consider themselves righteous, they are not penitent.  Therefore, Christ's Atonement will not help them.  But because these "sinners" are repentant, the Atonement will have power over them, and they can be saved.
These sinners felt regret for their sins.  Their sin troubled them to the point of repentance.
If our sins don't trouble us at all, we are not penitent.  We feel no need to call upon the power of the Atonement.  We're being too Prideful.
If our sins trouble us so badly that we don't feel worthy of the Atonement, that's the devil trying to dissuade us from repenting. 
The happy medium is that we will feel just enough regret that we're motivated to seek the power of the Atonement.  Then we need to stay on the path.  If we keep falling off the wagon, then we need to get right back on.  And we continue to endure to the end.

I'm a little late to this thread but....
I cannot see Christ doing what this DezNat group does. So does that make it wrong? Or in other words, is appropriate always defined by "what would Jesus do?" (And I'm not talking about things like he wouldn't wear such an such color because it's not his favorite color, but meaningful stuff)

Listen, whippersnapper, I . . .
[looks at watch]
Ooh!  Nap time!
We can finish this later.

KSL news story
SEC settlement order
SEC press release
Church press release
Thoughts:
1) Given the size of the funds at play, $5 million is a slap on the wrist,
2)  Lesson to self:  never assume the Church’s lawyers know what they’re doing.
 
 

I went to a friend's funeral last week. A man asked my friend's French widow if he could say a word, and she gave the okay. So he stood up and said, "Plethora." The widow said, "Thank you. That means a lot."
Another man also asked to say a word. He stood and said, "Bargain." My friend's widow said, "Thank you. That means a great deal."
A third man also asked to say a word. He stood and said, "Monde." She replied, "Thank you so much. That means the world to me."

I bought The Worst Thesaurus Ever yesterday. It's terrible. It's also terrible. So I bought another one, but all the pages were blank. I have no words to describe my anger. So I bought a dictionary to help me out, but someone ripped out pages at the front and back. It went from bad to worse.

:: snickers ;: what about his brother Colorado Springs Snuffer? 
 
(sorry, I know that’s incredibly juvenile. Couldn’t help it) 

If one is going to use semantics in this way, it strikes me that it's easy enough to de-paradox the issue by looking at it thusly: Christ paid for our sins. But that doesn't mean there's no price for us to pay for repentance. The price given is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. We don't pay the full price of sin, but we must all pay the price Christ set for us.

There is no such thing as repenting but remaining in one’s sins.  The point of these scriptures is that salvation without repentance is impossible; because salvation by definition pulls us away from our prior, sinful state.

This was announced in all the wards of our stake this last Sunday.  I forgot to notice when we will be holding our fast and testimony meetings.  It is my understanding that the church has asked that only one Sunday each month be utilized for fast and testimony meetings.   With conference the first Sunday this would mean that our Stake would have the fast and testimony meeting on the 16th but I do not recall that being announced.
I sincerely hope that all the Saints of Christ will utilize the opportunity to unite and celebrate the great sacrifice that Christ suffered on our behalf (for all mankind) – that we may rise in the resurrection forgiven of all our sins, sorrows, doubts and aliments and rejoice as one in Christ.
 
The Traveler

I suspect there are a couple of contributing factors for why people had such a distaste for the newer videos.
1. They were different and unfamiliar. When you change a thing that people gotten accustomed to, there's generally going to be some kind of backlash. Human nature is kind of reactionary. I remember when the video before the most recent two was released. It had a younger Satan who acted the part in a more contemporary manner, while the previous Satan had a more classical theater style. I remember some of these complaints then, too.
2. Different videos, with different actors, directors, and crews will sometimes have different emphases. Perhaps it's an inflection on a word that, in some languages, can have subtle (or not so subtle changes to meaning). I some of this happened in the newer videos, and people found that some of their favorite "truths" that they had taken from earlier versions were now less prominent. They may have felt like important teaching were being lost (not something I agree with, but I can empathize with the concept).
 
Personally, I enjoyed seeing the different versions, largely because they do have some subtle differences in presentation that have caused me to think more and consider new ideas. I would like to see the trend continue in even the current comic book format (sorry, that's what it felt like to me. I don't mind it. It's just a different artistic style). I would love it if there were multiple audio versions with different voice actors that explore different expressions of the characters. Even if we are to assume that the core events in the record are literal, there's very little to indicate that Adam and/or Eve's reactions to some events are known. And interpreting some of those things in different ways might help us unlock new truths or relate truths to our lives in different ways. Furthermore, some people might relate to a crying Eve, and others to a more stoic Eve, for example. 
Another thing I hope and pray for is that there will be more comic book slides produced that show more diversity in the characters. I know this will likely trigger anti-woke sentiment, but hear me out. We are encouraged to imagine ourselves in the place of Adam and Eve through parts of the endowment as we make covenants. And as we return to do proxy work, we study those covenants, the teachings of the Endowment, and how some of those allegorical/symbolic items relate to us. Seeing races and ethnicities represented in those roles could have a powerful impact in helping some people place themselves in those roles and expand their knowledge. I think something like this would have been a lot more cost prohibitive in full movie form, but the current format (where the backgrounds are separated from the characters), I think these substitutions are a lot more accessible, and I think the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

I generally tend to disregard it when people call the church's "changes" the so-called "law of Samuel" or use the 116 lost pages of the BOM translation as analogous to the the changes. But with the latest changes in the temple, for some of it, I could not help but think that.
But....I still don't really believe that. Accordingly I do not understand some of the changes at all. Moreover, I don't understand why things have changed so many times in the past few, having not changed for decades and decades prior to that. It's all quite baffling to me.
The fact that it's baffling and I don't understand isn't important. I have enough humility to put that all aside and trust that others know better than me and that the Lord runs His church. But logically I can't make sense of it all yet. But I gave up on making sense of everything years ago.

The second (or first) experience happened in early 2020.  I'm not sure when it started, but it culminated in mid February.  On any normal day, when my brain isn't forced to do other things, it's making up a story.  But at this time, instead of my usual story-making, I kept hearing hymns in my head. It went on for days, and then more than a week. Hymn after hymn during my idle times.  Some of them were even hymns I didn't particularly like, though the lyrics were always limited by my own memory of them.  As it went on, I recognized the pattern and that it wasn't me or an ear-worm, that it was something from outside of me - the Spirit, someone sent by God to stuff hymns in my head, something.  And so I finally stopped and spent some time thinking about it, trying to figure out what I was supposed to do about it.
I was sitting in a chair in my livingroom, where there's a desk with far too many blank notebooks waiting for a purpose (yes, I may have a notebook-buying problem ).  As I looked at this desk and saw two particularly large hard-bound journals, the thought came, "I could use one of those as a hymn journal."  This was followed by trying to figure out what a hymn journal would look like.  I got some blank paper and started drawing ideas.  Eventually, I settled on a layout that I thought was good. The hymns stopped playing in my head that day.
Within a day or two, I had printed a spreadsheet of the hymn titles from our hymnal to use for an index / tracker and had made my first entry.  I haven't been as diligent as I should, and sometimes hymns will start playing again in my head to remind me to go back to it.  This sometimes augments my scripture study or sabbath observance.  Honestly, it's emotionally draining - I learn so much.  So, what does a hymn journal look like?
Hymn # (if applicable)   Hymn Title
Initial thoughts, like why I chose it or what I like about it.
Summary of the linked scriptures in one column, with just enough to remind me what the scriptures say.  And my own thoughts on those scriptures in a second column (it's a dot-grid notebook).  These often include ways I need to improve.
Lyrics in one column (the chorus only once).  And thoughts on the verse, what it teaches me, and how I need to change (in the second column).
Then a summary of what I've learned from my study.
At the bottom of the entry (which may take more than one page), I note whether I can play it (on the flute, which I don't practice enough), and any issues I might face trying to play it.
I can't sing.  Fortunately, you don't need to sing to learn from the hymns.  And while an A4+ hardbound notebook, in dot-grid, with a fountain pen, makes the filling of this journal more pleasant, you don't have to have either to start your own hymn journal, should the Spirit so move you.
I suppose the conclusion to both these posts is the title - hymns are powerful vehicles not just to feel emotion or the Spirit, but to learn the gospel and what you can do to improve, or just to come to Him.

While I was away, I had two hymn-related experiences I wanted to share, in case they may help anyone else.  I'll relate them in reverse, and the second (first) one in another comment to this post.
In Sacrament meeting this past Christmas, a family sang a hymn (not LDS) I had never heard (apparently it's from 2020) called "O Come, All You Unfaithful":
It hit me like a freight train - one packed full of the Spirit.  It still does, every time I think about the lyrics (hence, I linked the video with lyrics).  As soon as I got home, I went looking for it and couldn't quit until I'd found a source for the mp3 (official page).  I was particularly struck by this verse:
The older I get, the more convinced I am that I have nothing. He is the offering.  My only hope - everyone's only hope.
I was asked to speak in Sacrament meeting on Easter of this past year, basing my thoughts off Elder Holland's April 2009 talk "None Were with Him".  It's a great talk.  I organized my own talk into four sections, paralleling the content of Elder Holland's.  As I reviewed and revised, the Spirit kept directing me to part 3 until parts 1, 2, and 4 were gone.  It seemed too short, but the Spirit knew I would be the last speaker and have no time for more, and apparently it was the important bit.  I don't always receive direction that strong, but this time, I did.  Part 3 was a lesson I had learned in late 2020 and early 2021 - what do you do when you feel alone, when you can't sense the Spirit or Comforter; when the Sunday School AnswersTM don't yield the Sunday School PromisesTM?  Short answer: we follow Christ's example:
This hymn helps to convince me to come, though I have nothing; come, even if I don't get an answer to prayer; come, even if my conversion is weak; come, even when I don't want to; just come.

A programmer was going to the store. His wife said, "While you're at the store, grab a gallon of milk." He never came home.

In addition to the challenge of discerning truth from error is another challenge summarized by Elder Maxwell when he said: "all knowledge is not of equal significance. There is no democracy of facts! They are not of equal importance."
I recently started attending a new ward and after a few Sunday School classes it seems that a number of people in the class are taking to the internet each week to further their understanding of the lesson material and appear eager to share what they find. While some of what is shared is truly insightful much of what is shared, while perhaps interesting, seems to lack the spiritually nutritional value that I'm looking for. Fortunately the teacher has done a good job of quickly shifting the focus back to the salvation essential doctrines. This is kind of why I always enjoyed the gospel principles class back when because the lesson was always on those truths that mattered most, even though they were taught in their simplicity.

I've been a Gospel Doctrine Instructor for about 9 months now.  I tag-team with another brother in the ward.  This means that I have a full month to study and prepare for my lesson.  Due to the extra study time that I have, I've come to realize that there is a LOT about the details of the Bible and Ancient Jews that simply don't exist on the Church website.  I'm aware that there are some non-Church related LDS "scholars" who have their websites and blogs.  But they either don't have the breadth and depth of work that I need for the questions I have, or they have shown themselves to be "less than scholarly" about what they put on their websites.
So, I'm left with looking up things on sectarian websites.  For the most part, I get the impression that they are at least well researched.  On more than one occasion, I notice that different positions exist among the sectarian world on any given topic.  So, I try reading a variety of opinions and try my best to verify through other means, and to pray about what I've read.
I began wondering about how I would know when I'm getting strung along on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything.  After all, if the very passage of scripture that I'm wondering about doesn't really have much commentary on the Church website, how will I know if any of it is true doctrine?  I've done my best to try to walk that line.
Then I began listening to Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture series.  I found it to be truly engaging.  It really began to open my mind to a LOT of scholarship on literature, societal symbolism, an understanding of the human condition that I'd never thought about or read about.  I was really fulfilled with understanding... for a while.
At some point, I began to recognize the effects of his disclaimer which he made at the beginning of the lecture series.   He was approaching it from a purely rational analysis perspective and was staying away from the metaphysical aspects of the study.  He was looking at the "stories" from the perspective of how it informs psychology or what insights we may find in the narrative from the perspective of using known psychological phenomena as a basis of analysis.
While I agree that it is a perfectly reasonable way to go about a secular/scholarly analysis of the Bible, I found myself teetering for a bit.  He was so completely engaging and persuasive in the evidence and arguments he makes, that part of me was wondering about Bill Maher's words.  "The Bible was a book written by poets and philosophers who thought it would be a good idea to write down some good principles of life.  It wasn't written by God."
I found that this is a dangerous road to only look at it from one perspective.  We have two eyes for a reason.  They give us slightly different views of the same object.  Neither eye gives us a "correct" view.  But when the two are put together, it is much closer to the reality.
Looking at it through the eye of rationale alone is dangerous when we recognize just how flawed man's logic tends to be.   Looking at it through faith alone can also be dangerous if we are not counseled/practiced in how to properly listen to the Spirit.
I'm hoping that I'm doing right by my class and my calling to only teach what is true doctrine.  But a lot of the time, with the resources from the official Church channels, I can't teach some things that have been glaring questions for me (and I'm finding a lot of other people as well).