Anddenex

After Pres Oaks' talk I was half expecting Pres Nelson to announce some law of consecration type program or something. 😀

.

What are you referring to regarding the "announcement"?
If anything, he is more a puppet. The guy can't even think straight. Hard to be the beast when you truly can't act like one. He definitely is part of the great and spacious building, the mother of harlots, etc... Weaponizing government agencies, against political opponents, would definitely be a sign for this organization.

Correct.  My point here is that social media doing this was just a baby-step.  If push came to shove, we would all easily leave social media.  We could find alternatives.
But to take away our ability to engage in legal commerce?  That's the very definition of the Mark of the Beast.

We already see this with Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc...). Facebook, you can only hold any view "Facebook" esteems as right. If not, flagged, suspended, etc...
Google, no more talking about the ineffectiveness of mask wearing, and many other things. Even if you are presenting logical facts from research that shows otherwise. Nope, you can't talk, you can't share, we control the narrative of what is right.
Facebook in cahoots the FBI that Zuckerberg revealed regarding potential misinformation. Wasn't it the government, Biden's entourage who said they are working privately with Facebook and getting information -- or something to that nature.

Pronouns are he/hee.

I found an interesting linguistic quirk in verse 39.
The Greek word for "love" is "universal/godly love".  But there is also a word for "righteous self-love" (GR: storge).  It is interesting that the word "love" does not accompany the word "thyself".  It is merely implied.
Storge is the Greek word that says it is ok to take care of yourself.  It recognizes that if you neglect your self-care, then you will be in no condition to take care of others.  So, in this light, it seems that the idea of "Charity" is external, while "Storge" is internal.  But they are basically opposite sides of the same coin.
Take care of yourself, so that you are in a good position to take care of others.  This is Godly love.

We know that everyone who comes to earth will be resurrected.  Some may feel that that is an unconditional arrangement.
That is incorrect.
We fought in the pre-mortal existence for this opportunity.  And becaused we fought and prevailed with Jehovah, we conditionally recievied the opportunity to come to Earth, be born, tested, die, and resurrected.  
Where we go after the resurrection is conditional upon our performance of said test.

If we celebrate the birthday of a child conceived through an adulterous act, are we celebrating adultery?  Your rhetoric here suggests that your answer would be “yes”.  If your answer would be “no”, kindly explain yourself.
As for the Latter-day Saint position re the Fall:  
Yes, we celebrate the fact that they ultimately partook of the fruit and that humankind gained both knowledge of good and evil and a necessary mortal state.  We do not celebrate the circumstances under which that act was done (ie, the fact that it was an act of disobedience), because, as Elder Smith clearly states, it did constitute a transgression.  We also note, as Paul did, that while Eve was deceived, Adam was not (1 Tim 2:14).
There is a significant difference between celebrating the incidental positive benefits of a wrongful decision (and God’s ability to turn all things to the benefit of those who love Him), versus celebrating the wrongfulness of the decision itself.  This has been explained to you on multiple occasions, and yet you seem to keep trying to strawman us into the latter position.

1.  Different church authorities have gone in different directions on this.  But it really doesn’t matter to us, because the fall narrative primarily explains the fallen state of man—our own struggles with death and illness, our own spiritual natures and wrestle with sin, our own alienation from and desire for reconciliation with God.  
 
2.  At this point, I really couldn’t give three craps about what you say about other churches’ beliefs.  I have no reason to believe you are representing their beliefs with any more understanding, accuracy, or honesty than you’ve represented our own.  Other belief systems will ultimately stand approved of God (or not) on their own merits.
But as for our beliefs:  It is not Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience that Latter-day Saints celebrate.  As I said to you nearly two months ago:
The most handy modern-life analogue I can think of is a couple who breaks the law of chastity and, on learning that the woman has become pregnant, marry and keep the child; over the years finding joy and rejoicing in their child and in parenthood generally.  The Lord turned a bad decision into something that served His purpose and, in His mercy, offered forgiveness and redemption to the sinners.  But His mercy does not mean that the sin was not sin or that, were the sinners given the chance to go back in time to repeat or avoid their sin, they would not be expected to chose a more directly-righteous course. 
Adam and Eve repented of their sins.  You seem to be doubling down on yours; and I would advise you to stop.

A worthwhile distinction.
The world (and many in the Kingdom) seem to believe that mercy is the opposite, or at least the antithesis, of justice. Not so. The scriptures certainly contrast the two, but the underlying theme is that mercy cannot rob justice. There is no true mercy without justice, and I believe that justice includes true mercy as one of its constituent elements.

Participation ribbons are given unconditionally.
If mercy was given out unconditionally, you wouldn't need an omnipotent omniscient God to dispense it.  A monkey in a box with a single easy button could dispense it unconditionally.
 

If we are talking about granting mercy as purely a means for avoiding the demands of justice then mercy without conditions is the most merciful. We see this enacted on behalf of those who live without the law, such as little children.
But if we are talking about mercy as a tool for progression then conditions are necessary otherwise there is no progress and the mercy has not fulfilled it's purpose.

I'm inclined to accept your thoughts pertaining to our society. This is a result of specific movements in our society. In the Church, I am more inclined to say it isn't the Church. It is a result of those who profess to belong to the Church.
In part, I believe what we are seeing is the prophecy of Isaiah coming true -- at least a portion. I believe their are multiple reasons for this prophecy by Isaiah, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (emphasis mine)
In the Church though, as pertaining to the Church, I don't see any evidence from the Church as to men unable to be men.
 

My thoughts follow the lines of can there be mercy without conditions; however, I would change conditions to laws. Can there be mercy without laws? Mercy is extended when justice is demanded (at least in part). Justice is the condition for mercy to be offered, and mercy is the condition for justice to take an account.
This follows the line of 2 Nephi 2: 12-13. If all were perfect like Christ mercy would not need to be extended. A "condition" or "law" must be known for mercy or justice to be extended. Otherwise, how does one know if they offered mercy?
Is it merciful to pay someone's hospital bill, if they were in no position of need? If I'm a millionaire, and I have a doctor bill of $1000 and someone offers to pay my doctor bill? Is that merciful or charitable? To some degree, there are times where it would be charitable but not merciful.

Depends on the conditions, I suppose.
But purely unconditional mercy would empower the recipient to offend—to rebel, to exploit, to wound, to hurt—again and again and again.

So at the Second Coming they become fried green tomatoes?
Haha. JK.
Yes, while often there may be a central message to a parable/allegory I think there are yet many truths that can be learned depending on it application.

I'm more inclined to accept it is the symbol in the parable and the allegory. They both represent an actual event, a truth, that is likened to good and evil. I don't think this detail is meant to be a contrast, but a reality of what happens to all of us individually and collectively.
The allegory and parable both represents the world and the Church.  It can be anyone who moves to Utah surrounded by those who have the gospel. It can be someone who moves to California among members of the Church. It also could reference missionary work among different villages, cities, states, and countries. It can be a member of the Church who moves to Afghanistan for work, as they are grafted in the weakest part of the vineyard.
Even among the "elect" there are tares. At the moment, I have a family member who appears to be a tare, but who still might be wheat, as he could change/repent and come unto Christ once again.
I see the wheat and tares similar to a non-ripe olive fruit. Can you tell a good olive from a bad olive before they are ripe? I'm not a vineyard keeper but I would think it is much like a green tomato. Some turn red, while some remain green (which do not produce any fruit). But if we were to simply start picking (from human judgement) the green ones we think are bad, we may loose some good fruit.
The parable and allegory are showing the mercy of the Lord in a different way, and his justice.

I'm more inclined to accept it is the symbol in the parable and the allegory. They both represent an actual event, a truth, that is likened to good and evil. I don't think this detail is meant to be a contrast, but a reality of what happens to all of us individually and collectively.
The allegory and parable both represents the world and the Church.  It can be anyone who moves to Utah surrounded by those who have the gospel. It can be someone who moves to California among members of the Church. It also could reference missionary work among different villages, cities, states, and countries. It can be a member of the Church who moves to Afghanistan for work, as they are grafted in the weakest part of the vineyard.
Even among the "elect" there are tares. At the moment, I have a family member who appears to be a tare, but who still might be wheat, as he could change/repent and come unto Christ once again.
I see the wheat and tares similar to a non-ripe olive fruit. Can you tell a good olive from a bad olive before they are ripe? I'm not a vineyard keeper but I would think it is much like a green tomato. Some turn red, while some remain green (which do not produce any fruit). But if we were to simply start picking (from human judgement) the green ones we think are bad, we may loose some good fruit.
The parable and allegory are showing the mercy of the Lord in a different way, and his justice.

Which is more merciful: to grant mercy without conditions, or to grant mercy subject to conditions?

Classically, men's primary purpose...
On a societal level was to support, defend, and provide for women and children. On a personal level, they were to emotionally support the women in their lives and provide role models for the children in their lives. Today, society says that that men...
Are no longer required to support, defend, or provide for women and children.  And they are told that they don't have any input into the family life that they are required to pay for. Are responsible when they allow women and children to be abused (by both men and women). Basically that men have no positive input into the growth and future of society.  They are only required when women want to have a baby (on their timetable alone).  Then they wonder why so many men respond in kind. The Gospel of Jesus Christ says:
https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID=490378AAB579CA33-7E3809CDF14853F5|MCORGID=66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS=1662994583 I really can't say it better myself.
Yes, there is a difference between what society is telling men vs what the Church is telling men.  There is also a huge difference between what they tell women today.
Our job right now is just to be able to survive the next three or four generations and properly rear our children in the gospel.  After that, the other voices will die out from lack of children.  We just have to protect our children from falling into that ideology.

I am the outlier here, though not unexpected.
I ascribe, and still say, woman inherently ARE more righteous and attuned to the spirit. 
Does that mean every woman is more spiritual or attune to the spirit or more righteous than men?
No, it doesn't even mean that even a majority of woman are going to be spiritual or righteous.
Does it mean that men and woman cannot be equally yoked, or that the woman is always more righteous than the man?
Absolutely not.  You can have men that are just as righteous and spiritual.  We hope that they are equal in spirituality and righteousness.
Unfortunately, throughout the past, and in history, we see men more prone to violence, murder, destruction, and all sorts of malicious and nefarious sins against men and heaven.
I think there is a reason that we see more woman stay within the confines of spirituality than we do men, and it is NOT because churches are driving men away, but because men are abandoning the churches and following their own desires instead.
So, I will say I still feel that woman have an inherent part of their character that is able to make it easier for them to draw close to the spirit.
HOWEVER, it does not mean that men are not able to be just as spiritual or righteous.  We have men that are far more righteous than most woman, and there are men that are spiritual giants that lead us.
It may lead to a massive imbalance in heaven though, where those who were righteous will have far more woman that attain the highest degrees of heaven than men.

Initially Satan encouraged men to treat women as inferior. Then he riled up women to demand to be treated like men. And because women can never be as good at being a man as men are (and vice versa) pressure is then put on men to be less manly in the name of equality. So the end result is non-feminine women and non-masculine men. Satan then puts his hands behind his head and his feet upon his desk and laughs.

good points, that is probably more accurate.