Anddenex

A question regarding fasting in difficult circumstances...
When I get really upset, I tend to shut down in some areas. I'm neither hungry nor thirsty, I have to force myself through daily task, etc.
Regarding the first example, I make myself eat and drink a bit, figuring some nourishment might do me good.
But this thread has me wondering if I should just go with it. Seek heavenly comfort, turn it into a fast.

I have not gone as hard core as some describe here.  But I've done intermittent fasting for a week at a time.
Eat one meal.  Wait 24 hours.  Eat another meal...  After a few days, I notice that my stomach is atrophying.  So, it takes less food to fill my stomach.
I find that I'm able to concentrate a lot better.  I work more efficiently.  My mood is better. I'm more alert.
After about a week of my stomach getting smaller and smaller, I tend to get too tired and it starts having a negative affect.  So, eat normally for a couple of weeks. Then I start the cycle over again.
For me it was basically a method of dieting, rather than for spiritual rejuvenation.  But that side of it has manifested itself as a side effect.

When I read your article I thought about what President Russell Nelson said in General Conference on Sunday:
"If you have doubts about God the Father and His Beloved Son or the validity of the Restoration or the veracity of Joseph Smith’s divine calling as a prophet, choose to believe and stay faithful. Take your questions to the Lord and to other faithful sources. Study with the desire to believe rather than with the hope that you can find a flaw in the fabric of a prophet’s life or a discrepancy in the scriptures. Stop increasing your doubts by rehearsing them with other doubters. Allow the Lord to lead you on your journey of spiritual discovery."
And adding my own advice:  If you are going to read material that is against the Gospel of Christ make sure you do not neglect material that is from Faithful sources and from the LORD.

Thanks for the insights. I, personally, am not a fan of secular explanations for “anti”. It is sometimes interesting, but that’s it. Rather, the responses that  I have had the biggest effect on me have been those that point out fallacies in my own thinking and traditional church cultural beliefs that aren’t necessarily supported by the church itself.
ie Comparing current church teachings to the Bible. A lot of times people will ask members to show them where in the Bible a certain principle is taught (word of wisdom, becoming like God, degrees of glory, temple ordinances, etc.). If they can’t find it, they will count that as a point against the church. Antis and active members themselves often times wonder “why isn’t this in the Bible?” And have a difficult time with it. Instead of trying to use some vague reference of Christ saying “ye are gods”, or Paul being caught up in the third heaven, realize that we don’t believe everything is built on the Bible. Our teachings don’t need to be found in the Bible because we actively teach and believe that all truth is found in many different sources. The Bible is just one source.
There are answers like this for almost every “anti” question out there. Almost every question people have can be answered by gaining a stronger understanding of the basics of the gospel. Often times it is met with a “oh duh... I was taught that in primary” (at least that is how it is for me when I have such realizations).
What I will likely do is teach the principles the best I can. Once they reach an age where they can start reading seriously (like 10), I’ll start suggesting books to read and Why I suggest them. I will encourage them to read “rough stone rolling” as one of the books to check out. From there, IF they show more interest, that will open opportunities for further conversation. Though I do understand not everyone cares the least bit about it all

This is the main reason why I have looked into anti-Church material. I want to be able to answer questions, or simply be aware. I, personally, wait for my children to ask questions, but as @Carborendum if I can get them to know the Spirit, then anti-Church material won't bother them. They will be like me. Some history will shock them, but they will do as President Nelson said, paraphrased, "Take their concern to the Lord and trust in him." Trust in what has already been witnessed. People who fall to anti-Church material (like my brother) are individuals who have lost the Spirit in their lives. If people want to leave, like John Dehlin, they will find their personal reason to justify their disobedience and their desire for the great and spacious building.
So, as you are studied, take your thought to the Lord, converse with your wife, and make a decision. And as you already know -- watch milk before meat.

You have been successfully click-bated... sort of.
I may be late to the party, but I discovered Jim Bennett the other day through a newish online Latter-day Saint podcast “Midnight Mormons”. He is an “apologist” and has some amazing insights and rarely take. Opinions when it comes to the gospel.
 
Since then I have been looking up other podcasts and talks from him and discovered a series of long form podcasts 2+ hours where he and John Dehlin (popular anti-Mormon advocate). I started watching them and they have been extremely entertaining in that Bennett exposes many preconceptions we have when we talk about the gospel. He also does a an incredible job of faithfully expanding the conversation that prophets are not perfect.
Anyway, I wanted to share this with some family members and friends, but I also did t want to expose them to John Dehlin had they not discovered him yet.
That leads me to my question. What is the best way to introduce and teach these topics? Should it be done? Is it worthwhile to continue teaching our children that all our previous leaders were void of big mistakes and prejudices? Is it worth while to teach them our leaders were somehow mythically pure, nigh unto the purity of Christ? 

That's tomorrow's announcement, along with declaring Glock the official pistol of the church.

It simply means he is human... Telling/knowing that there is no logical or rational way one could have prevented something from happening from ones actions... Does not stop most people from feeling guilty when their actions unexpectedly cause harm to others even loved ones.  This is a normal human reaction and set of feelings.  It is not an admission of malice or ill intent on the part of the person performing the action.

Here is the thought Elder Renlund provided that is irritating "thought leaders" and those that have succumbed to these thoughts leaders:
The metaphor is a brilliant metaphor relating sickness (virus) to spiritual sickness, and how we should avoid anything in our lives that might threaten the eternal reward of our family. Seems to be a very appropriate analogy in light of scripture. And yet, this section is full of people irritated because  -- the guilty take a truth to be hard. My favorite comment is this, "I doubt that this was an inspired comment and hope you’ll reconsider what a damaging impact this sort of stigmatizing and divisive sentiment has to our congregations."
First, it's funny that someone thinks they are able to say what is inspired and isn't when it was "personal" revelation to Elder Renlund, which he is sharing. The Lord doesn't work horizontally with revelation or inspiration, so the pride involved in this sentiment is even more sad.
Truth only impacts a congregation harmfully if the congregation is prideful and doesn't want to accept truth.
It really becomes tiring reading comments from people who want to twist words an apostle or prophet will say to further their justification for their decisions.

The best explanation, in my opinion, is Elder Packer's metaphor "The Mediator."
1) Law
2) Breaking Law
3) Atonement
4) Covenanted Path (Remember all will receive the covenant this life or the next)
5) Accept or Reject Covenant
6) Reward
I agree with @Carborendum that the Atonement covers "All" except for the "Sons of Perdition." This is why we have three degrees of glory. There is no payment twice, we simply accept the initial payment, and if not, then the original law is now upon us again.
We have earthly laws that highlight this, it's called probation. A person breaks the law and the demands of that law are upon the individual. At this moment, a person is free (so to speak) when on probation with reporting laws and meetings. As long as that person commits, agrees, and doesn't stray from his probationary terms the individual remains free. If the individual breaks the agreement, then the original law acts upon them. The original law receives her own, according to the laws given, and thus can ask no more. The debt is paid, and the mediator is received. The mediator can only mediate as long as we adhere to the given agreement, the moment the individual rejects the agreement, then the original law will be enacted and punishment received. There is no double payment.
This is why I like the term "Yoked." We are yoked with Christ, as long as we continue on his path. The moment we break that "yoke" is the moment we are no longer within the mediated path, and the original law will enact its due accounting.

My contribution from 'For the Strength of Youth':
 

I agree. The same should go for the young men administering the sacrament. However, sometimes we need to reach out and be more concerned for the safety and well-being of the one over the ninety and nine. We have a less-active young man who only wears a blue shirt when he comes to church. If he comes, and says he is worthy, we allow him to bless the sacrament with the others who are in white shirts. Now that doesn't mean that we should always be catering to the one, or lower our standards long-term/permanently. But, this sister in particular perhaps needs to be in the temple as it is likely the best thing to prevent her from going down a path that will not lead to happiness. If she fades away later in life, she can't say that she wasn't given every opportunity. Sometimes bending the standard down a bit to help others reach it is the best route to take. Then once they do, the spirit has an opportunity to lift them up higher up.
These cases truly are exceptions though, and many latter-day saints that I see day to day need to stop trying to make themselves into an exception.

I don't either, but regardless of anyone's orientation I thought the grooming and dress codes for the temples were a bit more conservative so as not to draw attention to the ordinance workers and away from the business at hand.

So is what you both are saying is that if someone rejects the atonement then justice will reject Christ's payment for their sins?
That is an interesting way of phrasing the question, and in the manner you have phrased it I would say to a degree the answer is correct. Only the Sons of Perdition receive the full measure of justice, which mercy can't rob, but I'm not sure "reject" Christ's atonement would be an accurate wording for justice. Christ's Atonement satisfies the demands of justice and mercy. The one receiving the Atonement either rejects or accepts the Atonement. Justice acts upon the individual (when law is broken), while mercy is received by acting for ourselves.
As all are saved, this would mean that to some degree the Atonement satisfies the demands of justice to a degree, even for the unrepentant sinner. Telestial glory and Terrestrial glory are glories by which to some degree a "sinner" did not repent.
If not then why in hell (literally speaking 😀) is justice still exacting it's demands on the unrepentant sinner if it has already accepted Christ's payment on their behalf?
This again is why I like Elder Packer's metaphor of "The Mediator". We enter into an agreement with Christ (Covenant), by which the demands of justice can be satisfied. The satisfied demands of justice are only good if we maintain our covenant with our Mediator. If we break that covenant, we are left unto ourselves and the original law is now once again placed upon us.
Again to a degree the demands of justice are satisfied, Immortality is a free gift to all (except sons of perdition), and even the Telestial kingdom (Immortality, but does not overcome spiritual death) is a gift that satisfies to some degree justice's demands.
The demands of justice are only satisfied if we maintain covenant with our Mediator. I also would point to the Lord's words, paraphrased, "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive."
I also like the parable of the workers in the field and how all are paid a penny no matter the time they started. The agreement is given, the conditions are set, and if a worker would have left before the day was done would they have received a penny? No. Is the payment ready to be given? Yes, and only if they work the agreed upon time.
The payment (which satisfies justice) is according to covenant, the conditions of that covenant are faith and repentance.

So is what you both are saying is that if someone rejects the atonement then justice will reject Christ's payment for their sins?
That is an interesting way of phrasing the question, and in the manner you have phrased it I would say to a degree the answer is correct. Only the Sons of Perdition receive the full measure of justice, which mercy can't rob, but I'm not sure "reject" Christ's atonement would be an accurate wording for justice. Christ's Atonement satisfies the demands of justice and mercy. The one receiving the Atonement either rejects or accepts the Atonement. Justice acts upon the individual (when law is broken), while mercy is received by acting for ourselves.
As all are saved, this would mean that to some degree the Atonement satisfies the demands of justice to a degree, even for the unrepentant sinner. Telestial glory and Terrestrial glory are glories by which to some degree a "sinner" did not repent.
If not then why in hell (literally speaking 😀) is justice still exacting it's demands on the unrepentant sinner if it has already accepted Christ's payment on their behalf?
This again is why I like Elder Packer's metaphor of "The Mediator". We enter into an agreement with Christ (Covenant), by which the demands of justice can be satisfied. The satisfied demands of justice are only good if we maintain our covenant with our Mediator. If we break that covenant, we are left unto ourselves and the original law is now once again placed upon us.
Again to a degree the demands of justice are satisfied, Immortality is a free gift to all (except sons of perdition), and even the Telestial kingdom (Immortality, but does not overcome spiritual death) is a gift that satisfies to some degree justice's demands.
The demands of justice are only satisfied if we maintain covenant with our Mediator. I also would point to the Lord's words, paraphrased, "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive."
I also like the parable of the workers in the field and how all are paid a penny no matter the time they started. The agreement is given, the conditions are set, and if a worker would have left before the day was done would they have received a penny? No. Is the payment ready to be given? Yes, and only if they work the agreed upon time.
The payment (which satisfies justice) is according to covenant, the conditions of that covenant are faith and repentance.

The best explanation, in my opinion, is Elder Packer's metaphor "The Mediator."
1) Law
2) Breaking Law
3) Atonement
4) Covenanted Path (Remember all will receive the covenant this life or the next)
5) Accept or Reject Covenant
6) Reward
I agree with @Carborendum that the Atonement covers "All" except for the "Sons of Perdition." This is why we have three degrees of glory. There is no payment twice, we simply accept the initial payment, and if not, then the original law is now upon us again.
We have earthly laws that highlight this, it's called probation. A person breaks the law and the demands of that law are upon the individual. At this moment, a person is free (so to speak) when on probation with reporting laws and meetings. As long as that person commits, agrees, and doesn't stray from his probationary terms the individual remains free. If the individual breaks the agreement, then the original law acts upon them. The original law receives her own, according to the laws given, and thus can ask no more. The debt is paid, and the mediator is received. The mediator can only mediate as long as we adhere to the given agreement, the moment the individual rejects the agreement, then the original law will be enacted and punishment received. There is no double payment.
This is why I like the term "Yoked." We are yoked with Christ, as long as we continue on his path. The moment we break that "yoke" is the moment we are no longer within the mediated path, and the original law will enact its due accounting.

The best explanation, in my opinion, is Elder Packer's metaphor "The Mediator."
1) Law
2) Breaking Law
3) Atonement
4) Covenanted Path (Remember all will receive the covenant this life or the next)
5) Accept or Reject Covenant
6) Reward
I agree with @Carborendum that the Atonement covers "All" except for the "Sons of Perdition." This is why we have three degrees of glory. There is no payment twice, we simply accept the initial payment, and if not, then the original law is now upon us again.
We have earthly laws that highlight this, it's called probation. A person breaks the law and the demands of that law are upon the individual. At this moment, a person is free (so to speak) when on probation with reporting laws and meetings. As long as that person commits, agrees, and doesn't stray from his probationary terms the individual remains free. If the individual breaks the agreement, then the original law acts upon them. The original law receives her own, according to the laws given, and thus can ask no more. The debt is paid, and the mediator is received. The mediator can only mediate as long as we adhere to the given agreement, the moment the individual rejects the agreement, then the original law will be enacted and punishment received. There is no double payment.
This is why I like the term "Yoked." We are yoked with Christ, as long as we continue on his path. The moment we break that "yoke" is the moment we are no longer within the mediated path, and the original law will enact its due accounting.

The Atonement satisfied the demands of justice for ALL.  For EVERY sin.
The result is that Christ now owns all of our souls to do with as He wishes.
Those who refuse his payment will go to hell because they've essentially said, "I don't care if you paid for my sins.  I'm going to take the punishment anyway."  If you really feel that way.
Others go to the three degrees of glory because of what their desires are for. They can only progress so far beyond what they were at the moment of death.  And those who will only abide a Telestial Law, can only abide a Telestial Glory, and so forth.
Because of this Eternal limitation, we are all judged to inherit whatever glory we are capable of abiding.  And we will all be happy where we wind up.
Remember that without the Atonement, there was only a heaven/hell dichotomy.  It is only after the Atonement that we have gradations.  And there is an eternal principle at work here.
We tend to think of this as "the debt was paid, so everyone goes to heaven."  Wrong.
The debt was paid, so we now have the potential to grow as much as our fundamental nature would allow us.  Without the Atonement, our nature wouldn't matter because we are ALL fallen.  But with the Atonement, there is still the individual nature that we each had from the beginning.  And that will limit our eternal destiny.

Christ atoned only for the sins of those who exercise faith in him and sincerely repent. For those who do not come down in the depths of humility and repent, it is as though no atoning sacrifice has been made.
5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God. (Mosiah 16)
 

Please note:
https://babylonbee.com/news/so-close-biden-gives-speech-denouncing-violins

This kind of summarizes what attitude we should all be taking when we go through a trial. PLEASE watch to the end to truly understand.
 
 

I don't mean to judge our good Christian friends because I think many are sincere and earnest in their beliefs and will eventually accept the fullness of the gospel. But if I had to contrast the emotions felt between those  who have the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and many Evangelical Christians it would be the difference between two destitute homeless people where one is handed a million dollars and the other is offered a good paying job. The joy of each is real but it's not the same joy. The new millionaire never experiences the essential element of hope. One day he's hopeless and the next day he's "all set." That inexperience with hope and the effort required to sustain it results in something more akin to giddiness than the deep reverence that comes as a person day in and day out pleads to the Lord for saving. I think there may also be some self deception at play as well. As much as I'm sure the Spirit will testify to them that Jesus is their Savior we know it can't be supportive of the idea that salvation is a foregone conclusion and so that belief probably requires constant reinforcement from themselves and each other because there is none from the Spirit. Though I do think there is something we can learn from them about being more open with our beliefs and willing to share with others.

I don't really know if they do or not.  It is certain they may "display" it more.  But that isn't necessarily an indication that their passion levels surpass ours. 
We're told that we are to do our performances in secret that the Lord may reward us openly.  We are supposed to worship in our hearts, and let our lives be the light to the world.
Yes, words matter.  And we certainly can express in word our reverence, love, and devotion to the Lord.  But we don't do so "unto boasting".
It's about observing moderation in all things.
Additionally, maybe we do express it much more than you may be considering.  People and cultures have different ways of expressing our feelings.  This carries over into the display of devotion and worship.  It may just be that we display it differently than we'd display excitement over a really cool movie.
It goes back to the earlier thread about the burning in the bosom.  We have these fleeting, enervating, and ultimately meaningless feelings about things of temporal worth.  But the consistent, edifying, and truly meaningful feelings about things eternal are so much more important.
But two things I need to point out. 
First, I do believe there are those from other faiths that also feel these more eternal, more real, feelings about the Saviour.  But many of the more superficial displays you mention are simply that.  Displays.
Second, If you, yourself, have not yet felt this powerful, yet calming passion for the Lord, you need to obtain it.  And you need to continue to dip into that well of prophecy.
Alma 5.  Can you feel so now?
When I met my wife, I had a burning passion for her that was admittedly, partially fueled by lust.  She really was the most dazzlingly beautiful woman I've ever met.  But over the years, the fires of youth have died down somewhat, and it has largely been replaced by an enduring tenderness that is so filled with passion that there is no way to physically or verbally express it.  and it truly lasts forever.

I remember on my mission to the south, we came across countless Christians that just loved Jesus. They would shout it from the roof tops and proclaim their love to everyone around them. It was so intense that you could approach someone mowing their lawn, tell them you are representatives of Jesus Christ, and they would immediately stop what they are doing and start spouting off half quotes Bible verses and proclaiming the goodness of God.
This wasn’t just holy rolled Pentecostals (though they took it to an impressive level), but traditional level headed Protestants and people who seemed to be members of fairly conservative churches. 
I remember attending a mega church once. The Christian rock started and people of all walks of life and all incomes (the church was between 2 drastically different wealth class neighborhoods) placing their hands on their hearts and swaying back and forth. Raising arms in the air and praising God. All to “Our God” by Chris Tomlin.
My thoughts towards these experiences were often times at least a little judgmental. I found myself being annoyed that do often people would proclaim their love... but they never seemed to do anything about it... which I guess is a problem to them because many churches teach that all you have to do is believe and you are saved.
Why do we not experience this same level of emotion in our own church? Should this be something we ought to seek? Are we lacking in that raw love we see many Protestants carry with them everywhere? Or perhaps is this show of immense motion the symptom of loving Christ but not knowing where or how to focus that energy? Much like a toddler who struggles to explain that he wants to watch toy story 2, not 4. Is the teaching that all you need for salvation is to accept Christ limiting the amount of love they can trurly show?
Why is it we have such conservative speech and song lyrics when it comes to Christ. Our speech about our savior is very pointed, careful, and as literal as we can be. However Jamie Grace is making songs about Christ that sound like Justin Bieber’s recent hit single (seriously, is “Hold me” a a cheesy teenage love song or a song praising Christ?)
I think about this often, however I always get bogged down in trying to make sense of what my question is and what may be right or wrong. why is it we don’t see this in our own faith. My thoughts and opinions on this are no where near as complete as I want them to be. Hoping someone can share some insight on this topic.
TL;DR:
Why do traditional Christians have more passion about loving Christ and shouting his name. Should we be seeking to adopt that passion? Or maybe adopt it but adjust it to be more deliberate and meaningful?

Even today, so many people think sacrament = wine that they can't grasp anything else. I've even seen critics of the church openly mock the use of anything but wine and adopt an attitude of "so what if someone's a recovering alcoholic?" over the matter. These people have, on numerous occasions, explicitly told me that they'd rather go without communion than use anything other than the "proper" elements.* 
Joseph had already been told that the items used in sacrament aren't quite as important as the spirit and intent behind it. Now he's being told that wine should not be used unless he can ensure who and what made it. This is him slowly being brought away from using it altogether. 
 
*I've heard numerous accounts of members who are in the military having to use whatever's available for sacrament on Sunday, both because of how few of us there are in the US military and because of how long it took for the military to even recognize the need for us to have our own religious services. This includes instances where people didn't even have actual bread available to them and so had to use things like potato peels or the crackers out of their rations to have sacrament with.