lonetree

Thanks for the question! Yes, I do consider that kind of thing, but in my full paper I discuss how using a common phrase in the context in which it normally occurs, but with the opposite meaning in mind, and without any cues, would be rather problematic. We would need some kind of evidence for that, and as I discuss in the paper, my reading actually fits seamlessly with the rest of the Book of Mormon's discussion of the two-stage soteriological process of reconciliation with God (also called "justification" in the New Testament), and then exaltation, with only the latter being addressed in 2 Nephi 25:23.

add me to that list  

Yes, that's how we misunderstand it. Before the early twentieth century, "making a difference" only meant to differentiate or distinguish (the phrase is used more clearly to mean that in Leviticus 11:47). The KJV was published in 1611, and was a very conservative revision of a translation from the early 16th century, and so what it was saying was "on some have compassion, but be discerning regarding on whom you have compassion." Because that phrase took on an entirely new meaning around 1900, though, and pretty much lost that earlier meaning, when we read it, we think it indicates the new meaning, when it has nothing to do with it. The same is true of "after all we can do." When the Book of Mormon was published, "after all we can do" only meant "despite all we can do." We read it differently now for a variety of reasons that I describe in my paper (the interview was just a preview, the full paper goes into a lot more detail). 

People are buying less gas because they aren't travelling as much.
Other industries aren't using as much because the products they make aren't being sold or the plants are closed down.
Thus, suddenly where there was a huge demand, there is suddenly a lot less of a demand.
It's not just oil, but that's what is making the headlines right now.

I think it's a historic first. We were unlikely ever to see this day. But it's a market fluctuation, albeit extreme. This too shall pass.

I have some problems with your facts and even reasoning.  But they're not worth dragging through right now.  The one biggest flaw in this theory (hold on till the end when I partially agree with you) is that we're now getting more and more complete data on the real numbers.  And the fact is that it seems that it is far LESS deadly than we had originally thought.
The whole reason for shutting things down was that the initial numbers + the deception from Chinese data indicated that this virus had a much greater spread rate than the common flu and it had about a 10 to 50 x greater mortality rate.  That's panic-worthy.
But the latest data we're receiving as we actually have time to administer accurate tests in large quantities indicate that it is not very deadly at all.  The rate the numbers seem to be dropping, it may be that the mortality rate is actually less than the common flu.
So, how do I agree with this conspiracy theory?  Because by giving a false impression about the deadly nature of the flu, the US economy is in ruins.  We have no idea if we'll bounce back or how fast.  Maybe, THAT was the game plan all along.
But that's ... just a theory.  A CONSIPIRACY THEORY!!! (dramatic music/fanfare).

I had never heard of this term until I saw you and JAG talking about it in the other thread. Honestly, I think it dovetails in very nicely with President Nelson's prophetic direction to set up family centered church supported worship. I hope we have not gotten to the point that Christians were in during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Part of me, if I'm honest, loves the American Empire as I've always pictured it, stalwartly standing against the evils of Nazism, Imperial Japan, and Communism. Of Ronald Reagan standing in front of a waving American flag. But part of me also recognizes that that America is rapidly disappearing. I hope it doesn't get to the point in my lifetime where the Benedict option is the only path forward for us as faithful disciples of Christ, but the realist in me says we are almost there. I hope I'm just being cynical, but I don't think I am.

JAG introduced me to this term in another thread. Here's a FAQ-style writeup about the so-called Benedictine option.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/
Granted that the author and his audience probably would not even recognize the Restored Church as Christian, I nevertheless think there's a lot of good thinking and, probably, truth in that article. It seems to apply quite well to us as Latter-day Saints, though we have the huge advantage of being led by a prophet. I'd like to hear what other Latter-day Saints think about this.

I think there are a variety of things going on here.
JFS, JFS-II, and McConkie all had their perceptions of academic scriptural scholarship colored by the fact that the prevailing higher critics of the early 20th century (and on up through the last twenty or thirty years, really) could best be characterized as being positively hostile to the Biblical teachings that McConkie described as the “three pillars of eternity”—the creation, the fall, the atonement.  I think Spackman himself has written about how academic Biblical scholarship has only really begun welcoming overt believers, within his lifetime.  (It’s one thing to believe Solomon built a temple; another to believe God blessed it with His presence.  One thing to acknowledge the possibility that Yeshua-bin-Yusuf really lived and was executed by Romans; another to believe that that death had meaning or was reversed by a resurrection three days later.)  The “fundamentalist” Church leaders of the mid-20th century felt that the spiritual costs of allying with the academic community outweighed the benefits—and I believe they were essentially correct, even if they perhaps didn’t quite understand how or why they were correct.
Our leaders have made the best sense they could out of the scriptures, using the best tools that they dared to use.  In every way that is essential to our salvation, they were right.  Certainly, we can be grateful for the deeper textual or historical understandings coming from a new generation of scholars using new tools and pursuing new avenues of inquiry.  We can also appreciate the service of the now-departed shepherds who defended their flock from an earlier generation of ravening wolves; and we need not second-guess the shepherds’ techniques just because with the benefit of hindsight the “wolves” have now been largely reduced to paper tigers.
The shepherds of 1960 did what was needful then.  We look to the shepherds of 2020 to do what is needful now.  We should be wary of “fundamentalists” who demand we define our spirituality by the way we garnish the sepulchers of the dead prophets.  We should also be deeply suspicious of liberals who resurrect dead prophets only because they want an excuse to crucify them afresh, hoping to create a mob that will bury the living prophets along with the dead.

My first sentence was all about what a prophet says. The prophets teach us to gain a testimony by the Spirit. If I, by following the counsel of the prophets, gain a witness through the Spirit of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and it's church and then leave said church because the prophet got some teaching wrong, that is on me. It is I who rejected the witness of the Spirit. Now I get the need to try to be as accurate as possible even with non-salvation required doctrine like the meaning of firmament in order to help those struggling with their testimony. But at the judgement bar if we have refused to allow the Spirit to guide us the blame will be ours alone. 

Thank you for stating the LDS case so clearly.  My view is that-in the case of theistic evolution- there would be an enormous amount of suffering to account for by a loving God. I say pointless exactly because life is involved. How much natural carnage is enough to bridge the gap between animal changes and species-over millions of years? (I admit my knowledge of the whole process is sketchy here-but we're talking about a good long time). And even in the general LDS view of suffering, there is an end to it ultimately(as Rev. 21.4 says), isn't there? Or will there always be that good-evil reality?
     Additionally, as far as I can tell, the LDS concept of God is a very personal one. And He is not only a personal being but has a fair amount of power-compared to ordinary mortals. Theistic evolution may be a great fit for an impersonal lumbering 'divine' force, but for an acting, choosing & because of knowledge acquired, very resourceful deity, I can't see it. The pre-Darwinian account of creation, on the other hand, removes that tension but leads to other problems.

I disagree with some of it.  There was a shift towards fundamentalism, but some of the items listed are actually NOT A SHIFT but reverting to older doctrine and teachings.  There are items that were stated by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F. Smith which were basically reiterated by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. 
Notably, one of the interesting items is that they inferred that the words of a modern prophet should agree with that of the older prophets.  A difference between real prophets and false ones were that their teachings and words would disagree with each other.  Thus, much of what they said were attempts to try to show agreement between the modern teachings and those of the older Prophets such as Brigham Young.  In many cases it was simply due to people misunderstanding what the older prophets had said in earlier decades due to modern understandings or morality rather than that of the time period they were stated. 
In essence, if the teachings agreed with those of old, one could reliably say that they were true teachings.  If they clashed or disagreed or said the old teachings or scriptures and doctrine were wrong, one might be able to identify that this was something of man...not of heaven and it's eternal principles.
A classic case of this was the idea that Brigham Young had this strange belief that Adam was the same being as his father.  The idea that he ever said this was a fallacy.  Joseph Fielding Smith tried to write about what he was teaching at the time and trying to convey.  Instead of glossing over it and simply talking about modern things, he tried to help the Saints undersand the important ideas Brigham Young was trying to teach the Saints during his time.  Brigham Young was shown demonstrably to understand that he spoke of Adam the first man of mortality being different than his Father who was the Father of Heaven and the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ.  Brigham Young DID stress to an extreme idea the same idea that Joseph tried to teach, the our Father was once a man and went through life to become what he was in an immortal and eternal sphere. 
Heber J. Grant had various ideas to try to reform the church during time as President.  Some of these tried to move away from the teachings of earlier prophets and reform the church.  Some saw that this heavily damaged the church (though others would say it was the period over which he presided over the church as it was a tough time for many, not just members).  He had tried to change the Doctrine and Covenants and take out and change up some of the doctrines taught. 
In this, one could say it was a step back towards a time prior to him that they were moving.  They consistently referred more to Joseph F. Smith and the prophets prior to him, than those after his time period.  It was more of a reversion back to the initial doctrines and teachings of the church without invoking some of the more troubling terminology that some use today (such as Adam-God, or other such terms) that brought misunderstandings about the doctrines taught by those prophets and what they actually meant when they were teaching over the pulpit.
However, they also had a more fundamentalist view (Which was shared by some of the prophets from prior decades, while at the same time others were not so staunch on it), some of which also were started during the Heber J. Grant years.  The tended to take the Bible very literally.  In this, one could say they were fundamentalist.  It was not just the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well. 
This flavored many of their ideas which they spoke about, but which they were very clear upon later on that they were writing as men, not necessarily by direct revelation from the Lord on many of these items.  One of these was the idea that men would never land on the Moon.  Joseph Fielding expressed this idea, but also expressed that this was how he felt (not that it was an actual revelation).  Later, as men DID land on the Moon in his lifetime, he could point out that this would be an example of him speaking as a man expressing his feelings on the matter and thoughts, but not revelation from the Lord.  On the otherhand, when he spoke about things of the Spirit as the prophet, it would more akin to revelation.
This idea of literal interpretation of the Bible and Book of Mormon may remain in the Church today (I know I am one that takes the scriptures as literal), however I think this influence that they laid down in the mid to later half of the 20th century is fading and there are many Saints alive today who do not take the Bible or the Book of Mormon quite as literally as the Smiths or McConkies. 

Each Pres definitely brings their own flavor to the calling to be sure. If you haven't listened to Pres Nelson speak since becoming prophet I highly recommend it. Your time won't be wasted.

I plan to watch a little of the Conference this weekend. The last time I viewed it Thomas Monson was President, and I shall miss his presence.

As an outsider, I remember reading Sterling McMurrin's stuff on evolution and theology in the 1990s and found it sensible. Nowadays I'm not so sure & tend to doubt whether theism and evolution can be reconciled. Even if evolution does not necessarily need to be 'godless' there are still the factors of the immense stretches of time, and (pointless?)animal cruelty to consider-at least for me. Of course, God could guide or use evolution to bring about a wonderful creation. But why would he-unless his options were pretty limited.  The Samuel Johnson observation on women preachers comes to mind.

As an outsider, I remember reading Sterling McMurrin's stuff on evolution and theology in the 1990s and found it sensible. Nowadays I'm not so sure & tend to doubt whether theism and evolution can be reconciled. Even if evolution does not necessarily need to be 'godless' there are still the factors of the immense stretches of time, and (pointless?)animal cruelty to consider-at least for me. Of course, God could guide or use evolution to bring about a wonderful creation. But why would he-unless his options were pretty limited.  The Samuel Johnson observation on women preachers comes to mind.

As an outsider, I remember reading Sterling McMurrin's stuff on evolution and theology in the 1990s and found it sensible. Nowadays I'm not so sure & tend to doubt whether theism and evolution can be reconciled. Even if evolution does not necessarily need to be 'godless' there are still the factors of the immense stretches of time, and (pointless?)animal cruelty to consider-at least for me. Of course, God could guide or use evolution to bring about a wonderful creation. But why would he-unless his options were pretty limited.  The Samuel Johnson observation on women preachers comes to mind.

As an outsider, I remember reading Sterling McMurrin's stuff on evolution and theology in the 1990s and found it sensible. Nowadays I'm not so sure & tend to doubt whether theism and evolution can be reconciled. Even if evolution does not necessarily need to be 'godless' there are still the factors of the immense stretches of time, and (pointless?)animal cruelty to consider-at least for me. Of course, God could guide or use evolution to bring about a wonderful creation. But why would he-unless his options were pretty limited.  The Samuel Johnson observation on women preachers comes to mind.

While interesting, I question the validity that someone is assigning to another as a cross dresser, especially in the context of the stage.
Up until the 1950s, men dressing as woman on stage was actually far more the norm than the exception in many instances.  To equate these as the same as many of those who crossdress in public today, is a rather large fallacy for  someone to make.
Centuries ago, in most stage productions, the actors were all men.  Woman normally did not participate in acting. 
This meant that when there was a woman portrayed on stage, it was normally a man.
So, in the context of William Shakespeare, Juliet most likely was played by a man dressed up as Juliet.
This continued up until at least the 19th century, and even then was still very common for men to be acting as women on stage.  In fact, many strictly went by which gender they acted as, so if they were good at playing a certain type of woman on stage, that would be what they would normally focus on.
Woman started being more acceptable in theater, and it became more common for woman to be in theatrical productions, but it was still common for men to be acting as woman.
This was considered a respectable profession, and there were respected actors in that field. 
In the 19th century, some woman who were in the field were considered to have low morals, as it was more acceptable in many 'romantic' dramas to have men kissing actors portraying woman, than actually kissing woman who they were not married to (weird morality...maybe), if there was any actual kissing even portrayed.
There were notable woman actors in the 19th century, but they truly came to prominence at the beginning of the 20th century.  Even then, men portraying woman in acting continued, though not as much as it had in the past.  In some areas it was due to the availability of woman (as mocked in the film West Point Story with James Cagney), in others it was simply the tradition of that particular acting troupe or theater.
Now days, it has pretty much died off, but this is a more recent phenomenon.
It can not be denied there was a large amount of those that cross dressed in normal life who were in the theater, as well as homosexuality and other arenas of life, but typically these were not necessarily connected to what happened on stage.  An individual who portrayed woman on stage was not necessarily normally a cross dresser, and vice versa, someone who played men on stage may have actually been a cross dresser off stage.  One doing one thing, did not correlate to them doing something else.
I would like to see the documentation that Morris Young was not simply what some in modern day language would call a Drag Queen Entertainer (Drag Queens dress in woman's clothes, but are not necessarily Gay or cross dressing other than being on stage.  They come from all identities, genders, and other forms.  Some are also cross dressers or other dynamics in their off stage lives, but many Drag Queens also do it primarily for entertainment of others).  Every source I've seen regarding him thus far that try to paint him as something other than doing it simply for entertainment has come from questionable sources (which in typical fashion, are what many would call anti-Mormon resources).
I'd be interested in the primary sources which show if he carried this persona beyond the stage into his everyday life, or if it was just a stage persona that he participated in.

This is fascinating stuff, but probably should have had a trigger warning.  I will never be able to unsee those pictures!

Hello @Allison welcome to the forum. Please keep in mind that this is not an official church website, its just a place where a bunch of people, members and non-members, come to exchange views and ask and respond to questions and comments, so the views expressed here are mostly personal views rather than official statements of church policy. Its a great place to learn more about the church and gain a greater understanding of its practices and policies. Sometimes the discussions can get somewhat vigorous. If you have any questions about the church or the things you have learnt, this is a great place to ask them. Members of this forum are normally fairly gentle and supportive of newcomers who come here with honest, good intentions. I encourage you to continue with this new journey that you have started and hope that it leads you to happiness in life and membership in God's kingdom.  

On the whole, this is a foretaste of exaltation. My whole family home, together, under one roof, working and playing and eating and talking and just living together, with all the comforts and amenities of 21st-century America at our fingertips. It may not be perfect, but it's hard to imagine things being much better than this. Yesterday, we celebrated my youngest's 14th birthday, all together, something I never would have dreamed possible. The only thing that limits my enjoyment of our current situation is my own weakness.

Personally, I lean towards a theistic evolution viewpoint for the development of life, and I think there are others within the Church who entertain similar possibilities. I also know that we had a stretch during the middle and late 20th century when many of us (including leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie) who were staunch creationists and, while I don't think they ever spoke directly to the question of theistic vs. atheistic evolution, never spoke to the possibility of theistic evolution either. Elder McConkie, in his "Seven Deadly Heresies" speech, declared evolution to be a heresy. However, I have observed that he spends most of that portion of the speech decrying atheism and never directly addressed those who believe in evolution and retain a belief in God.
Some of this could be a conflation of the concepts of theistic evolution and creationism. I know they occupy different categories in my own mind, but it seems that, in and out of the Church, some people treat them as variations of the same thing and others treat them as separate things.
We had a creationist streak run through us for a few decades, but I see support building for shifting to a theistic evolution viewpoint.

The only idea not explicitly said, although maybe implicitly said, is that as members we are open and should be open to any truth. Truth leads us to greater knowledge and to God and His Christ. 
In that light, I would say we are open to any "true" cosmology that incorporates true principles and teachings. If a cosmology contradicts (or any other science emphasis) revealed world, then we will want to reject the theories that contradict. As we are informed, the theories of science and the theories of religion are what contradict. When we recognize what was actually "true" or see what is actually "true" we will then see how science and religion (as God's reality, his realm of knowledge and command), we will see they don't contradict.

When I distill the 1909 article, I end up with two main points -- God is the creator and man is created in God's image. I tend to conclude that we are open to any cosmology that incorporates those two elements (God is creator and man is created in God's image). Often the big debate that makes enemies of lifelong friends and so on is whether or not a theistic evolution worldview can adequately embrace those two points. As I noted before, I tend to think it can, but I know many in the Church past and present who felt that it could not.