Jane_Doe

This will probably vary by state, but . . . 
Most of the money used to educate my kids in the public school system is not, and never was, “my money”.  My state income and property taxes amount to slightly less than $6K per year. I have five kids in school, and I don’t think there’s a private school on the continent that would educate my kids for $1200/kid/year.
A private-sector service provider that has to pay its bills as it goes, will never be able to truly compete—either in product or in quality of its employee compensation package—with a competitor that is receiving a government subsidy on the scale that public schools receive.  (It’ll be more efficient, of necessity; but efficiency is not the only or even the most important way to quantify the “success” of an educational institution.)  Sure, you’ll find individual private schools that are competitive either because they are extraordinarily well-funded (attached to a church, for example) or because they are the (inevitably temporary) beneficiaries of a uniquely motivated, plucky staff with a sense of mission that leads them to make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of their pupils.  But, on a more generalized scale:  To make a critical mass of private schools truly competitive, in the long term they have to be able to tap into the same sort of revenue stream that public schools have access to.  Just giving the parents “their own” tax money back isn’t going to be nearly enough. 

Even if the schools can’t turn down kids, a steep price tag or other demands can be used to filter down students. 

YSee the invitable result of privatizing education being the reverse cry (to publicize education) years later. 
The best (or rather the perceived best) schools will emerge, consolidating the best/expensive resources there. Come high tuition rates and restrictive waiting lists, and you have school reserved for the wealthy- Notre Dome for kindergarteners. Trickled down the socioeconomic tiers, and the poorest schools have so only the previable scrap resources, teachers, and students.  And then comes the push for “universal education where everyone gets the same opportunity “. 

Even if the schools can’t turn down kids, a steep price tag or other demands can be used to filter down students. 

YSee the invitable result of privatizing education being the reverse cry (to publicize education) years later. 
The best (or rather the perceived best) schools will emerge, consolidating the best/expensive resources there. Come high tuition rates and restrictive waiting lists, and you have school reserved for the wealthy- Notre Dome for kindergarteners. Trickled down the socioeconomic tiers, and the poorest schools have so only the previable scrap resources, teachers, and students.  And then comes the push for “universal education where everyone gets the same opportunity “. 

My thoughts, as each situation is different...
Express love for them and listen carefully to what they say.  Listen to the spirit and heed what it has to say.  Let the Spirit guide you.
In many instances by the time someone has come to the Bishopric on an issue they have already made up their mind on what they are going to do.  There can be very little that can be done to change it.  Sometimes the spirit has solutions that the Bishop or Counselors would not think of but are what is needed at the time.  It may not be what we expect, or it may align with what we thought to do all along.
The biggest thing I think is to express love for the people and interest in them and their lives, then let the spirit guide your actions.

There’s points I need to remind myself repeatedly  that the idiots around me are nothing compared to thier glorified Christ-like sleves

Well, there’s The Church’s Corporate Entities, and then there’s The Church.  Your aunt works for the former (in a temple, to be sure; but she’s paid by the corporate entity).  Going to any employer and saying “hey, I just now after twenty years figured out that I really don’t have my financial future under control, so can you please dig into your budget and find me an extra few hundred thousand dollars above and beyond what I already contractually agreed to accept?”—that’s just not a thing.  And frankly, it’s not fair to sucker-punch an employer with that kind of eleventh-hour demand.  (Oh, there’s nothing wrong with her asking, I suppose; but I wouldn’t see the Church’s Corporate Entities as morally bound to grant such a request.)
Now, the above pertains to The Church’s Corporate Entities; but The Church is another matter.  I am confident that The Church would not let your aunt go hungry or naked or homeless or without critical medical care.  But those needs would be administered through the standard Church programs that are designed to help anyone in her situation, regardless of who their employer is or has been—and under current Church practice that means The Church’s ward-level welfare program and not a DMBA investment account or pension fund.

It is my understanding that there is more care in translating scriptures than other works in the church (including conference talks).  I have been led to believe that translation of scriptures is done by committee called and approved by the Apostles and that translation question are submitted to a committee of Apostles.  For example in German there are two traditions for the meaning and act of repentance.  One (from Catholic tradition) means to make amends the other (from Lutheran tradition) means to turn around.  The German translation of the Book of Mormon uses both translations at different places.  I think (my speculation) this is because both concepts can apply (as per @laronius thought).
As a side note; Tyndale was burned at the stake for heresy concerning his translation (the first into English) of the Bible; in part because there were words in the ancient texts that had no translation in English - so he invented words.  Two of his word inventions were "Passover" and "Atonement".  So the next time you use ether of these terms - realize that someone suffered and died trying to give you some English language understanding of those concepts.  It has always been interesting to me that individuals argue passionately over the exact meaning of scripture based on words (that are translated and evolved from the initial English).  I received in my youth, a manifestation that the Book of Mormon is true and given through the divine power of G-d and yet I have spent a lifetime trying to understand the text of the Book of Mormon and how I ought to apply it in my life - and in almost 70 years of study - I am impressed that with all my understanding and the many of additional books I have read - that neither myself or anyone else currently in mortality has comprehended hardly more that a scratch in the surface of this divine gift.   So when I discuss scripture, my effort is to try to expand meaning rather confine or pigeon hole concepts and understanding.
 
The Traveler

My wife was issued her first Temple/Living Ordinance Recommend today.   I'll tell her to keep it with her license.

I would hazard to guess that a big part of it is that the normal support systems parents (especially stay-at-home moms) have traditionally relied on—grandparents and aunts/uncles, neighbors, church and other social groups—are, to some extent, eroding.
Additionally—COVID parenting is just plain harder.  Fewer functioning preschools/social activities for kids to go to that give parents a respite for part of the day.  Fewer functioning  youth programs, restaurants, amusement parks, and other available activities with which parents can incentivize good behavior.
I know that at work, I usually handle 3-4 new DCFS child welfare petitions per month.  But between yesterday and today alone, I’ll have drafted six.  Things are tough out there, and parents are snapping.   

Not sure if anyone is even interested but some odd things are happening with new discoveries in science.  For example; for the Big Bang theory to have any creditability there had to be a brief period of "inflation" where the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light.  Among the problems are that there are many super massive Black Holes.  These objects are so massive and some have been around for so long there is no answer to how they could come into existence.  In an effort to explain some of the things being discovered there are lots of theories being circulated.  It is like we have entered an era where there is so much contradiction and confusion that anyone with a scientist title can make up anything and it appears as creditable as anything else. 
But a new theory is being developed that does make some sense and could change everything - even more than quantum physics, relativity and the standard module all combined.  This new theory involves neutrinos and that neutrinos are the key to alternate forms or kinds of matter that we lump into the category we call "Dark Matter".  To understand here is a little background.  Before nuclear energy was harnessed scientist were studying particle decay.  As a heavy atom decayed there were particles and energy given off but there was a problem.  All the matter and energy that existed before the decay did not add up to all the matter and energy that existed after the decay.  There was no explanation for this loss and it violated the very foundation of physics.
There was no explanation until someone stated the obvious and suggest a new kind of particle that we do not know about was given off.  A particle that once released did not react with anything so we could not detect it.  Some strange kind of neutral particle - thus the Latin for neutral or neutrino.   There was a lot of debate if neutrinos were real because no one could find any.  That wasn't until a scientist had a simple idea.  The idea was that using the decay of more heavy atoms we could fire neutrinos into a much lighter field of atoms and reverse the decay and detect the new rebuilt lighter atom that we knew how to find.  The concept was brilliant but when the experiment was ran - only 1/3 of the expected neutrinos were realized.  Fast forward and it turns out there are 3 flavors of neutrinos and only one will react as expected but over time as the neutrino travels (it travels at the speed of light) it alternates between the 3 flavors and it has mass but not much  - here is the calculation for it mass:         m < 0.120 eV (< 2.14 × 10−37 kg).  This is such small mass there is currently no know way to detect it.  This is why neutrinos can pass completely through just about anything without being detected.  
Neutrinos behave differently than any other kind of matter/energy that exist.  That is until someone suggested that there may be other kinds of neutrino like particles that are not zinging through the universe at the speed of light but have neutral charge and react only at the sub atomic levels (strong and weak atomic forces) and gravity.  And that this matter or kind of matter is what the dark matter stuff is.  Now things are starting to literally come together - things like very old supermassive Black Holes and even simple stars like our sun.  All we need now is the discovery of this alternate flavor(s) of neutrino kind of matter.
There is a race by physicists involved to be the first and become famous.  But I wonder and ponder that with such a discovery will also reveal G-d and how he is connected to keeping all things together for existence in our universe.  Scripture tells us that all things testify of (prove) G-d.  Maybe, just maybe, neutrinos are a new key that will not only change what we know about science but religion as well.
 
The Traveler

There’s points I need to remind myself repeatedly  that the idiots around me are nothing compared to thier glorified Christ-like sleves

There’s points I need to remind myself repeatedly  that the idiots around me are nothing compared to thier glorified Christ-like sleves

There’s points I need to remind myself repeatedly  that the idiots around me are nothing compared to thier glorified Christ-like sleves

I won’t be because I dont feel it is sabbath appropriate, but that is me. I choose to play video games with my brother on Sunday and I know others dont think that is appropriate. 
 
but that is the beauty of the gospel. Ponder on why you are doing it and decide what kind of sign your are showing God. 
 
This isn’t one of those “you decide… but if you decide wrong you are sinning”

I like your response - I was taught by my parents to never complain about anything I was not willing to demonstrate improvement.   In other words - do not complain about anyone unless you are willing and capable of replacing them.
I do not know exactly why but when I was scout master I got more complaints about what was going on more that all other callings I have had all combined.  I solved the problem of parents complaining about campouts by suggesting that they take over the planning and excitation of our next camping activity - which was needed for merit badges to keep their kids on schedule to complete their scouting experience.
 
The Traveler

In a previous ward, the tempo of the hymns made it feel like we were always at a funeral. The chorister was older* and had that calling a long time (most likely only active because of the calling) but the organists were all middle-aged and you could see him look at them and count the tempo before facing the congregation. Anyway, after being patient for some time, I mentioned it to my husband who was then part of the ward council. He told me he brought it up and all of them agreed about the issue. One of the bishopric counselors who had a good relationship with the chorister said he'd talk to him about it and things were much better after that. 
In a nutshell - yes, say something. Others may be feeling the same way. If it helps, maybe put it in context of if you were an investigator, would you get the impression people were happy to be there or come away feeling like church was a sad time.
*Age isn't always the issue. Some people just have a slower pace and others have a quicker pace about them. Maybe mention this concept to the bishopric as well so the issue isn't repeated.
 

As chorister, I don't know if I would want it brought up or not. It's a very common complaint around the Church, but it doesn't seem to change, so I don't know if bringing it up yet again will really change anything. Of course, I often feel like I am rushing the congregation and/or organist, so maybe I'm seeing this from the other side of the problem -- a fear of going too fast.
Having also been the accompanist, sometimes I think the pace is set by the organist/pianist, because that is the position related to music that requires the most skill. If the organist/pianist cannot play any faster, complaining that it is too slow won't help until the accompanist improves their skill level. Unless and until the Church decides to make accompanist a paid position (like other churches) we maybe need to be patient and tolerant of the volunteer musicians we use for this.
My feeling -- if you have a good enough relationship with the chorister/organist to gently say something, then say that you, personally, would like to sing some of the hymns at a faster tempo. Then, leave the job of leading/playing the music to those called to the job. If it changes, then good. If the tempo remains slower than you like, accept that they are doing the best they can with the skills and artistic vision they have, and be patient with them.

Earth.

An important refinement on this to make (speaking as an LDS Christian lady)
Free will is foundational to what it is to be.  It is intrinsic to whom person is.  The Father acknowledges this.  Christ (whom was always the chosen to be the Savior) choose to follow in His Father's wisdom in this regard.  It was Lucifer whom then said (in essence) "Time out-- no no, that's a horrible idea.  I'll force everyone to behave.  I'll be the Savior I"ll be the most High!".  The Father already had the Plan, Lucifer's rebellion was never a valid option.  But Lucifer did always have the option to obey or rebel, and he choose rebellion.
 
You can't get a more anti-Calvinist view point than LDS Christians.  The "sovereignty of God" is... not a concern.  Just zero.  We have all have choices- you, me, the Father, etc.  They are intrinsic.  Obviously some things aren't possible and consequences comes with choices.  Even the Father acknowledges this and works within that framework.  

Yes. Without free choice, it is just a game- a horrible game. There is no need for Satan, because God has become Satan. 

What's already done: All eligible folks in my family got vaccinated as soon as they were able to.  My daughter was/is too young.  Everyone distanced and wore masks very diligently through middle of summer, despite frequently being the only persons in the room to do so.   We did start attending in-person church again, my daughter frequently being the only kid in Primary to mask.  Our interactions with non-family were small in count (+outside + cautious), but super important to us.  through July we were less masked, but still cautious.  
What's now being done, as the result of life events + numbers going crazy + First Presidency letter: putting the mask back on and more reclusive.  If the only people at risk were adults whom willfully choose to not vax, that would be one thing (my sympathy is low for them).  But it's not: we still have unprotected kids, including our new baby, all of those people whom still need medical care to be available for non-covid stuff, and exhausted health care workers like my dad.  And my duty as a responsible citizen / child-of-God is not yet done.    So, back to stronger caution for us.  I really really want to be able to work full-time from home again.  I've postponed baby's baby blessing.  I'm really hesitant about continuing in-person church, knowing how so many of my ward are very un-cautious.  
As to folks that have other views:  I'm tired.  I acknowledge your view, same I think it's dumb or wise.  But i don't want to have this conversation again with folks I know surface-level in real life.  I'm just too tired, and hate how this whole thing has become crazy political and extreme-ified.  I don't want to hear my literal neighbors rant about the whole thing (whether it's a wise or dumb perspective), I'd rather just care for you without that contention.  

An important refinement on this to make (speaking as an LDS Christian lady)
Free will is foundational to what it is to be.  It is intrinsic to whom person is.  The Father acknowledges this.  Christ (whom was always the chosen to be the Savior) choose to follow in His Father's wisdom in this regard.  It was Lucifer whom then said (in essence) "Time out-- no no, that's a horrible idea.  I'll force everyone to behave.  I'll be the Savior I"ll be the most High!".  The Father already had the Plan, Lucifer's rebellion was never a valid option.  But Lucifer did always have the option to obey or rebel, and he choose rebellion.
 
You can't get a more anti-Calvinist view point than LDS Christians.  The "sovereignty of God" is... not a concern.  Just zero.  We have all have choices- you, me, the Father, etc.  They are intrinsic.  Obviously some things aren't possible and consequences comes with choices.  Even the Father acknowledges this and works within that framework.  

First, it is this type of YouTube video that makes me cringe. It is someone who doesn't know but rambling on as if he knows because he read research. There is plenty of scientific articles that support Free Will, and I have read how a professor used the same article and findings to support biological behaviorism (no choice, our genes dictate our choice).
There appear to be misunderstandings of the Church's doctrine surrounding "moral agency." First, is that our "free will" (moral agency) isn't "on loan" from God. Moral agency is a law in heaven, and without it we have the following verse of scripture, "And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."
If there is law, if their is righteousness, if there is goodness, if there is punishment, if there is wickedness then moral agency (not necessarily free will) exists. If a law that never existed until a society was created and a person can obey or disregard, then you know you have choice. Free will I believe is different from moral agency. Free will, technically, is action/choice without accountability. Moral agency is action/choice with accountability (thus the dichotomy of Heaven and Hell).
Second, it is semantics but an important distinction. God didn't choose the latter course. The course was already laid before us, it wasn't like Satan presented an opportunity before God the Father. Satan presented an opportunity for our choice, our choosing. The Father simply move forward with the plan that was already laid out.
Third, Jesus wanted to do the will of his Father and to obey the Father's plan. Jesus wasn't "wanting" God the Father to give mankind moral agency. Jesus was honoring the Father who understood the necessity for moral agency. Jesus was obeying and desiring -- as in life -- the will of the Father, "Thy will, not mine be done."
The first is a fallacy. Our actions are subject to our: knowledge, our appetites, our passions, our dislikes, and our experiences. The second bullet is a fallacy also. In what way do we not have control over our wants? Any concept or idea is suppositions. So, I have to agree/accept (a choice) -- the irony -- with the bullet to accept their is no freedom to our wants.
When I was 11 I had walking Pneumonia. At that time, this medicine was freaking horrible tasting. I wanted to throw up and gag every time I took it. I didn't "want" to take the medicine. There were many days I didn't take the medicine because it was disgusting. I "wanted" to get better without taking the medicine, and I got better even though I didn't take the medicine everyday like I should have.
If two wants exists -- guess what -- you have a choice between the two wants. And the concepts of choosing the want which is the strongest is faulty also. Are we able to act against the stronger desire? Yes, indeed we are. We see it with drug addicts whose desire -- the strongest want -- is to take the drug. But they stay their hand.
Driving down "free will" to one concept -- want -- is myopic.