NeedleinA

Same experience as you both... also BYUtv on Roku.
Wonderful first session. There is no doubt that General Conference(GC) takes on a totally different tone when you are prepared, listening for answers and have a sincere desire to watch and be taught by the Spirit. As a youth GC was unfortunately a time to take a nap and often done as an obligation... one of those things I wish I could go back and change about myself.

I agree with Vort.
Our family just had a discussion about this thread during dinner. We are a mixed race family from the USA. We talked about how we would feel if roles were reversed. What if the church was restored, and had primarily grown through it's history in another country, say Japan, Congo or Tonga instead. We would perhaps naturally see more Japanese or Congolese or Tongans in higher up leadership roles as a result of: proximity, language barriers, or even generational maturity in the gospel. We discussed the fact that there are wonderful, incredibly strong diverse members across the world, but perhaps right now they can "best" serve by building up the church in their own nations and languages first. Ultimately it is not our choice to pick and choose leaders, we are not in control despite any political landscape or personal desires. It can often be hard being in the minority of anything, political, religiously, or ethnically, but that fact alone doesn't make others wrong or open to criticism just because they aren't what we had hoped for.

There was an LDS book put out by Deseret for many years on this subject.
I believe the title may have been "Why The King James Version?".
I could be mistaken either regarding the title; OR that a book, by that title, was written by an LDS author.
Perhaps someone else knows.
My reason for preferring the KJV is that acceptance of modern translations implicitly involves acceptance of a scientistic, secularist view of Revelation.
This almost imnediately--within one to three generations--undermines the historic foundational distinctives of any congregation which adopts modern translations.
Within one to three generations after this, change agents subvert the direction of the sect or denomination for their own purposes, usually to use that church's resources as an instrument for pursuing public policies and anti-traditional cultural change. 
This in turn erodes the membership base of such a church, who feel their values and beliefs affronted.
Who  resent what by that time has morphed into a purely secular religion, a mere mouthpiece and tool for cynical power brokers.
The use of traditional hymnody;  traditional Scripture; a faith-affirming self-understanding; a formal set of traditions; all come together to create a muscular and healthy Faith which can weather both personal crises and persecution far better.
Which can stand aloof from the excesses of popular culture and speak prophetically against them.

During LDS church services, on Sunday, there are two main combined adult classes for instruction: Gospel Principles (basics) & Gospel Doctrine (more advanced). I should be attending the advanced, but like going into the basics instead. This class is intended for investigators of the church and newer members just starting out. There are about 3 of us in this class who should be in the advanced class, but choose to be there instead. Sometimes I feel like I better not leave the basics class, if for nothing more than trying to keep the other 2 "advanced" members from "information dumping and overloading" the investigators and new members. 

In any setting, it is obviously good to get to know your audience and if you want to have a meaningful dialogue, start by speaking at their level first.

No different than a doctor or computer "nerd" dumbing things down into understandable/common terms for clients.
Cute missionary story, but bummer.

Also, I'll leave with one of my favorite Sisters of all time: Sister Okazaki. (Thanks LP)
Chieko Nishimura Okazaki (October 21, 1926 – August 1, 2011) was first counselor to Elaine L. Jack in the Relief Society general presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1990 to 1997. She was the first non-Caucasian woman to serve as a general presidency member of an LDS Church auxiliary organization.[2]
Okazaki was born and raised in Hawaii as a Buddhist, the daughter of Hawaii-born parents of Japanese descent. At the age of fifteen she converted to the LDS Church. She later married Edward Y. Okazaki and they had two sons. Professionally she was an educator and taught in Hawaii, Utah, and Colorado, and was also an elementary school principal. 

I agree with Vort.
Our family just had a discussion about this thread during dinner. We are a mixed race family from the USA. We talked about how we would feel if roles were reversed. What if the church was restored, and had primarily grown through it's history in another country, say Japan, Congo or Tonga instead. We would perhaps naturally see more Japanese or Congolese or Tongans in higher up leadership roles as a result of: proximity, language barriers, or even generational maturity in the gospel. We discussed the fact that there are wonderful, incredibly strong diverse members across the world, but perhaps right now they can "best" serve by building up the church in their own nations and languages first. Ultimately it is not our choice to pick and choose leaders, we are not in control despite any political landscape or personal desires. It can often be hard being in the minority of anything, political, religiously, or ethnically, but that fact alone doesn't make others wrong or open to criticism just because they aren't what we had hoped for.

You are in our prayers!

I agree with Vort.
Our family just had a discussion about this thread during dinner. We are a mixed race family from the USA. We talked about how we would feel if roles were reversed. What if the church was restored, and had primarily grown through it's history in another country, say Japan, Congo or Tonga instead. We would perhaps naturally see more Japanese or Congolese or Tongans in higher up leadership roles as a result of: proximity, language barriers, or even generational maturity in the gospel. We discussed the fact that there are wonderful, incredibly strong diverse members across the world, but perhaps right now they can "best" serve by building up the church in their own nations and languages first. Ultimately it is not our choice to pick and choose leaders, we are not in control despite any political landscape or personal desires. It can often be hard being in the minority of anything, political, religiously, or ethnically, but that fact alone doesn't make others wrong or open to criticism just because they aren't what we had hoped for.

The house I would like to purchase is 1.2 Million, if I justify 90% of my earnings, sure I could afford it, but this would not be wise. I assume it really depends on how much parental support they are receiving. If the parents are paying 90%, and they are only left with 10%, then I don't see anything unwise. If the parents are supporting 5% and they are 95% of a home that is over 400K, and they make less than 30K a year -- unwise.

This is another example of the Church's getting in line with the scriptures as we Saints become more obedient to the Lord.
The Doctrine and Covenants makes the stake the fundamental unit of organization of the Church. When I was set apart as  missionary, an Assistant to the Twelve did the ordinance (as with all the other missionaries of the time). Today, the stake president is performing his duty. And so the responsibility for running the Church is again devolving to the stakes where the Lord has told us it belongs.
I believe the centralizing tendency we are now overcoming came about when an Apostles was simultaneously called as a stake president or a Temple president. The Church is too large for that now. So it is to our advantage to align ourselves with the Lord's will and command.
Lehi

I remember when the oppositionists started their online movement last year--they were so sure (based on experiences in the 1970s) that a "no" vote was an automatic ticket to a personal meeting with a member of the First Presidency.  I love, on many levels, the Church's response of referring the oppositionists back to their stake presidents.  Reinforces the role of a stake's Presiding High Priest (I think we often don't appreciate just how much priesthood authority our SP's wield), denies the oppositionists the access to power (and the PR value of being able to say they met with an apostle) that they crave, and compels them to "put up or shut up" by bringing their concerns to precisely the local leaders who many of these malcontents make it a point to avoid.

I agree with Vort.
Our family just had a discussion about this thread during dinner. We are a mixed race family from the USA. We talked about how we would feel if roles were reversed. What if the church was restored, and had primarily grown through it's history in another country, say Japan, Congo or Tonga instead. We would perhaps naturally see more Japanese or Congolese or Tongans in higher up leadership roles as a result of: proximity, language barriers, or even generational maturity in the gospel. We discussed the fact that there are wonderful, incredibly strong diverse members across the world, but perhaps right now they can "best" serve by building up the church in their own nations and languages first. Ultimately it is not our choice to pick and choose leaders, we are not in control despite any political landscape or personal desires. It can often be hard being in the minority of anything, political, religiously, or ethnically, but that fact alone doesn't make others wrong or open to criticism just because they aren't what we had hoped for.

I am confident that God is less concerned with their hairdos or "excitement" quotient than he is with their hearts and their gifts.
It is not a competition, dahlia. Holding a general leadership position in the Church doesn't mean you win, and not holding such a position doesn't mean you lose.
I don't know if it's a requirement, but I suspect it is not. Sheri Dew, who was a counselor to the General Relief Society president around the year 2000, is a never-married businesswoman. In general, those called to such positions are married women. I believe that all men called to general leadership positions are called while currently married.
I don't know that you would have to apologize, nor do I see any reason the Church or its leaders would apologize for calling women to leadership positions even though they are white-skinned and blond-haired.
As the Church's demographics continue to widen, I expect we will just naturally see a wider demographic in leadership. That is currently happening, and has been for some time. We even have first-generation members (i.e. converts) in general leadership positions, demonstrating that a long, or even short, Church ancestry is not a requirement for such a calling. But we should be careful not to offer our hopes as expectation or instruction on how the Church should be run. I have never been, and almost certainly will never be, a man of great authority in the Church. That is not my calling. But I sustain my leaders and try to build the kingdom as I can. I assume that God will not judge me less worthy because of the fact that I was never called to a general leadership position.

Not women in the latter days, but still a demonstration of called vs. already qualified in Church History...

Not women in the latter days, but still a demonstration of called vs. already qualified in Church History...

Not women in the latter days, but still a demonstration of called vs. already qualified in Church History...

Thumbs up AI!

Steve, we worship the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament. We worship the Son and also the Father whom the Son revealed. If you want to maintain that you worship a different god, that's fine, I won't object. But what I do object to is someone instructing me who I do not worship. So to those who claim I worship " A Different Jesus®", I say, "Okay. I worship the Biblical Jesus, so I guess you must worship Someone Else®."

The fact that you have a very poor knowledge about the President doesn't change the fact that there is still only one President.  

As I wrote, I tend to perceive a bias in many other translations.
If you mean have I read many other translations, the answer is no. I have read in several others, but I have never read a non-KJV Bible all the way through.
If you mean have I read so-called "experts" give their opinions about various translations, the answer is again no. I have read a few. I tend to give little credence to Bible "scholars" whose scholarship consists of studying the orthodox ideas about what the Bible should mean, and even less to the "scholars" who, as JAG noted, engage in the so-called "higher criticism".

è tutto bellissimo Vort! (I attempted google translation)
I agree and believe she understands exactly what you and others were saying. In addition to the help of this thread, she says she just read her Ensign that arrived today in which there was a, "massive article about recognizing Satan's counterfeits or using the Bom to know when you are being spiritually duped.  That is what I love about the Church". She is looking forward to General Conference this weekend. 
Life is even better for her since my post 3 hrs ago. Thank you everyone!
 

Thumbs up AI!

I watched it on YouTube via The Mormon Channel, no delays although it's now nearly midnight in the UK.
It was my first time watching it.. It was awesome!
I liked these two quotes the best
 
"Satan wants us to think our joy is self delusion.  choose to have hearts softened and nourish the seed"
"when we are distant from God we want him to solve all ourproblems immediately, when we are close to God we willingly recognise all the blessings he is already given us"
I really liked the talk about being sensitive to those kids who's home life isn't the ideal.   It resonated with me as my husband is a Buddhist and my kids go to Church.  I think it probably has more to do with the recent policy changes for baptism tho.
 

Here is a link from lds.org that might shed some light on your question. This not an official statement, as it says, but is helpful "guidance".
I personally use the KJV only. I remember being in a religious book store one time, not LDS, and looking through all the different versions of bibles they had. On one row itself, it seemed like there where 100 different "Bibles". Versions for any age or lifestyle. Two that stood out:
1. What I would call a Nature/Hippie version
2. Teenage talk version. It read like teenager/high school kids would talk to one another
Though we use the KJV, we use a slightly different version of it. Slightly different in that there are tons of study guides included in the LDS version. Footnotes & Chapter headings to give additional clarifications, definitions, and scriptures that tie into the theme. There is also a Bible Dictionary & Topical Guide with massive information. 
Edit/Added: From the cover sheet of my KJV Bible, "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
 

Bob Ross spoke in General Conference several years ago, not sure if anyone remembers it? Some quotes from it:
"Brothers & Sisters, we don't make mistakes. We just have happy accidents"
"Trees cover up a multitude of sins"
lastly
"I remember when my Dad told me as a kid, ‘If you want to catch a rabbit, stand behind a tree and make a noise like a carrot. Then when the rabbit comes by you grab him.’ Works pretty good until you try to figure out what kind of noise a carrot makes…"