person0

We had a GA at stake conference not address this directly, but essentially said that if you're following the world, not the church, you'd better wake up and get onboard.

I believe the answer was given in the 2022 General Conference by Elder Dallin Oaks on woke doctrine.
----------------------------------------------------------
Fundamental to us is God’s revelation that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman.  That divine doctrine is why we teach that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
That is also why the Lord has required His restored Church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, to oppose changes that homogenize the differences between men and women or confuse or alter gender.
The restored Church’s positions on these fundamentals frequently provoke opposition. We understand that. Our Heavenly Father’s plan allows for “opposition in all things,” and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to that plan. Consequently, he seeks to oppose progress toward exaltation by distorting marriage, discouraging childbearing, or confusing gender. However, we know that in the long run, the divine purpose and plan of our loving Heavenly Father will not be changed . . .
A uniquely valuable teaching to help us prepare for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God,” is the 1995 proclamation on the family.  Its declarations are, of course, different from some current laws, practices, and advocacy, such as cohabitation and same-sex marriage. Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy.  In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.

Unfortunately, I am less concerned about the world and more so about the Church.  Currently, the General Handbook contains the following in section 38.6.23 paragraph 9:
The guidance clearly states that a preferred name may be used, and gives no such indication for preferred pronouns, though it acknowledges that such a preference might exist.  In my ward, however, our Bishop and some youth leaders are choosing to interpret that they should use the preferred pronouns (we have socially transitioned youth).  In my view, using preferred pronouns teaches inappropriate lessons and sets an improper example to both youth who experience transgender feelings, and those who don't.
This prompted me to communicate with my Stake President and higher leaders the following message, which specifically focuses only on the principle of honesty, to keep it as brief and simple as possible:
We are awaiting an official response and potential escalation, if necessary.
I don't understand why faithful members are so easily willing to adapt themselves into using  language that validates an identity that is biologically, doctrinally, and eternally false.  It is a struggle for me to send my children to youth classes because an unsafe environment now exists within the Church where they will be taught to embrace falsehood.  We don't have to acquiesce in order to show true Christlike love and acceptance of those who are at a different point on the path back to Christ.
I believe that Christ would not use pronouns for an individual that were contrary to their true eternal identity, because He is perfect.
I am willing to accept the Lord's will and instruction, but I am currently unable to comprehend upon which doctrinal principle it would be appropriate to validate a false identity.
What, if anything, am I missing?

I agree, though personally I am willing to accept a preferred name in the same way I would a nickname or common name; I myself don't use my legal name except where required because it is a somewhat complicated native Arabic name.  Is it reasonable for me to expect that my children should not be taught by the example of their leaders to do differently?

We know that spirits who were “intended” to be one way, with relative frequency are born into bodies that fall short of the form the spirit was intended to take—people are born without limbs, or with congenital defects in this organ or that.  We know that some of these defects occur at the genetic level (propensity to breast cancer, for example).  People being genetically intersex is a thing (we used to have a forum participant here who claimed to be genetically intersex), and I regret not having engaged with them better to learn more about it firsthand.
Similarly, there seems to be a physiological basis for many (not all) natal males who at some point identify as females—exposure (or lack thereof) to various hormones in utero seems to affect whether certain physical features of the brain develop in a particular way.  
But . . .
There is also a subset of male-to-female transsexuals, and (from what I gather, though data in the latter case seems to be lacking as occurrence of male-to-female Gender Dysphoria in statistically significant numbers is apparently very new) nearly all female-to-male transsexuals, for whom socialization seems to play a major role.  Up until a few years ago, in cases where gender dysphoria had only presented for the first time in adolescence (as opposed to early childhood), the general therapeutic approach was “watch and wait”, giving the kid space to figure things out on their own and not pushing them to prefer one potential identity over any other.  When that was the approach, something over 60% of such kids eventually “grew out of it”.  But now the prevailing therapeutic approach seems to be to lock ‘em into (“affirm”) a new identity early—announce new names and pronouns to all their contacts (guaranteeing that any backpedaling will result in social humiliation), give ‘em hormones (with a false promise that their effects are completely reversible), give ‘em puberty blockers (with another lie about potential reversibility), give ‘em top surgery, give ‘em bottom surgery . . . and once started down this path it becomes very, very hard for a kid to change direction.  I suspect that’s one reason that the Church handbook discourages both medical *and* social transitions, and names both as grounds for the imposition of certain membership restrictions.
On the other hand:  it just seems like common courtesy to call someone by the name they want to be called.  I transitioned from a diminutive nickname to a more “adult” nickname around middle school, so I have some appreciation for people who are conscientious about that sort of thing—but I also have little sympathy for people who make a big dramatic performance out of the fact that someone slipped up and called them by their “dead” name.  These people have known and loved you all your life—have a little charity, for Pete’s sake!  
But pronouns . . . Yeah, except in the case in genetically intersex people:  that’s perpetuating an untruth.  I’ll try not to cause pain by needlessly using a pronoun they reject in their presence; but I won’t call them something they’re not. 
Going back to the socialization aspect:  I said it in another recent thread, and I’ll say it again:  if it’s legit to stay home from a ward meeting to avoid an epidemic of a disease that kills/maims virtually zero percent of the kids who get it, I think it’s legit to stay home from a ward meeting because the leadership is openly embracing an epidemic whose effects on a child’s body and future are far more catastrophic.  The fact that one spreads biologically and the other socially is, to my mind, a distinction without a difference—the effect is the same.  And what’s more—to all appearances, the modern mental health establishment doesn’t want it to stop.
Until we understand what causes the spread and come up with some proven methodologies to counteract it—as a parent, it seems we have few options to protect our own kids from this other than isolation.  And that is a tragedy.

Unfortunately, I am less concerned about the world and more so about the Church.  Currently, the General Handbook contains the following in section 38.6.23 paragraph 9:
The guidance clearly states that a preferred name may be used, and gives no such indication for preferred pronouns, though it acknowledges that such a preference might exist.  In my ward, however, our Bishop and some youth leaders are choosing to interpret that they should use the preferred pronouns (we have socially transitioned youth).  In my view, using preferred pronouns teaches inappropriate lessons and sets an improper example to both youth who experience transgender feelings, and those who don't.
This prompted me to communicate with my Stake President and higher leaders the following message, which specifically focuses only on the principle of honesty, to keep it as brief and simple as possible:
We are awaiting an official response and potential escalation, if necessary.
I don't understand why faithful members are so easily willing to adapt themselves into using  language that validates an identity that is biologically, doctrinally, and eternally false.  It is a struggle for me to send my children to youth classes because an unsafe environment now exists within the Church where they will be taught to embrace falsehood.  We don't have to acquiesce in order to show true Christlike love and acceptance of those who are at a different point on the path back to Christ.
I believe that Christ would not use pronouns for an individual that were contrary to their true eternal identity, because He is perfect.
I am willing to accept the Lord's will and instruction, but I am currently unable to comprehend upon which doctrinal principle it would be appropriate to validate a false identity.
What, if anything, am I missing?

The handbook states their prefered name may be used. It does not say it must be, nor does it say preferred pronouns need to be.
I am willing to use almost any name a person wants, as long as it is their legal name and is not overly bizzare. If Bob changes his name to Sally, then his name is Sally. Stupid choice, but that is his name. I would likely call him Sal for short.
I will not however...use preferred pronouns. Caitlyn Jenner for example is Caitlyn...that is his legal name on his drivers license. He is male though...end of story. I will not call him a she.

Being fairly confident they will obtain at least a Telestial glory, I assumed we might consider that as "happiness" in the context.
Separate from that, I have traditionally separated in my mind the concepts of happiness and joy.  Joy being eternal; happiness being temporary, like fun.

Have these individuals expressed an intent to betray the Gospel of Christ?  Or are they just seeking attention?  If one claims the intention to live according to the commandments, what could be an appropriate purpose for coming out?
Edit:  As suspected, in Bergs case he's just completely rejecting the gospel.  I presume the same about Harkey.  😔

They are.
You shouldn't if they are in opposition to established truth.  A lady in my ward claims she has received confirmation by the Spirit that one day Homosexual sealings will be approved.  Should I take her experience at face value? Or should I stick to the doctrine?  I think the latter.
It is hard to get more universalist than the Restored Gospel already is.  Doing so requires embracing falsehoods and at that point, it is useless because it isn't true.
Like, perhaps, Christ's millennial reign?

They are.
You shouldn't if they are in opposition to established truth.  A lady in my ward claims she has received confirmation by the Spirit that one day Homosexual sealings will be approved.  Should I take her experience at face value? Or should I stick to the doctrine?  I think the latter.
It is hard to get more universalist than the Restored Gospel already is.  Doing so requires embracing falsehoods and at that point, it is useless because it isn't true.
Like, perhaps, Christ's millennial reign?

This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends.
I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to."
I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.

I can imagine a bit of a game of telephone.
Some individual goes to his bishop for a clear line.  The bishops may be vague in their counsel.  Then a discussion ensues.  And being human, they poorly worded statements come out in the course of a casual conversation.
Then the individual takes time to parse all the words and interprets the way, they want to hear them.  Then he repeats it to others.  Then others are interpreting...
Telephone.
The bottom line is that if someone is dead set on choosing evil, they will find a way to justify it to themselves.

I'll just leave this here for consideration. 
“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.” - Joseph Smith

This has infiltrated and infected our ward.  2 female youth who have identified as trans (one has fully socially transitioned), 1 who identifies as pansexual, 1 as bisexual, my daughter (for a time) was introduced to it by another young woman.  Our kids are homeschooled and video websites with suggested/automatic content are heavily restricted in our home, so nearly 100% of their exposure to this phenomenon has come through associations at Church.
Thankfully, intervention helped our daughter and at least one of the other youth to escape and align themselves on the path (for now).  Our daughter was being led down the path that could eventually have led to a trans identity (all seemingly stemming from a desire for social acceptance).  One of her so called 'friends' in the ward even helped come up with a new name for her that we quickly, lovingly and successfully shut down (thankfully).
We had three special counsels with ward and stake leaders (incl. youth & primary presidency) to foster ideas for how to help.  Admittedly, I am generally impatient and to me it seems that progress is slow.
Our ward has many woke individuals who publicly trumpet lgbtq affirmation (among other things), to such an extent that a member of the Bishopric, while teaching the plan of salvation, mentioned our eternal identity as sons and daughters of God and then followed up by saying that he "didn't mean to get into that", specifically referencing gender identity.  I don't blame the individual for the type of anxious thoughts and feelings that led him to say that; instead I question how we allowed such circumstances to develop in our ward in the first place.
Anyway, it seems this stuff is all over these days.  We have been seriously considering ward shopping to seek out an environment that is more safe for our children.  This coming Sunday we will be visiting another ward just for a break and to see what we feel from the Spirit.  Thus far, somehow, through all this, we have not yet felt a strong spiritual impression to flee (although a few others have already done so).

When I look at his Twitter feed over the last few months, it's hard to understand how that isn't representative of such.
Happiness? Yes.  Eternal life? No.

When I look at his Twitter feed over the last few months, it's hard to understand how that isn't representative of such.
Happiness? Yes.  Eternal life? No.

A nice-sounding sentiment, but there is no lasting happiness outside the kingdom of God, which is the Restored Church.

Do you also agree with Ben when he acknowledges that fraud wasn't ultimately necessary because the left wing media & social media outlets were successfully able to censor enough content and control the narrative sufficiently to produce an equivalent result by keeping the American people uninformed/misinformed?

This has infiltrated and infected our ward.  2 female youth who have identified as trans (one has fully socially transitioned), 1 who identifies as pansexual, 1 as bisexual, my daughter (for a time) was introduced to it by another young woman.  Our kids are homeschooled and video websites with suggested/automatic content are heavily restricted in our home, so nearly 100% of their exposure to this phenomenon has come through associations at Church.
Thankfully, intervention helped our daughter and at least one of the other youth to escape and align themselves on the path (for now).  Our daughter was being led down the path that could eventually have led to a trans identity (all seemingly stemming from a desire for social acceptance).  One of her so called 'friends' in the ward even helped come up with a new name for her that we quickly, lovingly and successfully shut down (thankfully).
We had three special counsels with ward and stake leaders (incl. youth & primary presidency) to foster ideas for how to help.  Admittedly, I am generally impatient and to me it seems that progress is slow.
Our ward has many woke individuals who publicly trumpet lgbtq affirmation (among other things), to such an extent that a member of the Bishopric, while teaching the plan of salvation, mentioned our eternal identity as sons and daughters of God and then followed up by saying that he "didn't mean to get into that", specifically referencing gender identity.  I don't blame the individual for the type of anxious thoughts and feelings that led him to say that; instead I question how we allowed such circumstances to develop in our ward in the first place.
Anyway, it seems this stuff is all over these days.  We have been seriously considering ward shopping to seek out an environment that is more safe for our children.  This coming Sunday we will be visiting another ward just for a break and to see what we feel from the Spirit.  Thus far, somehow, through all this, we have not yet felt a strong spiritual impression to flee (although a few others have already done so).

In related news, a boy in my ward has been coming to sacrament meeting in a dress and makeup for a few months.  This individual sang with the Young Women in our Easter Sacrament meeting program.  I don't know the family enough to know what's going on.  Seems like the two possibilities is this is either a transgender individual, or this is some boy who has been pulled in to the social media exacerbation.  I don't have enough information to form an opinion on the matter, other than I know the 2nd great commandment is "love thy neighbor as thyself".  

Well, I did some research on the Church website and could find no resources that directly address this passage in an attempt to explain what we are discussing, so I suppose your interpretation is as good as mine until more is revealed.
The most important thing I wanted to share is that when we really get down to it, permanent separation from God and His light is the only eternal punishment for all sin.  We also know that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.  Understanding this we can see that the eternal consequence of stealing a piece of bubble gum is equivalent to the eternal consequence of stealing a car (i.e. separation from God).  Our earthly laws would punish the one much more severely than the other, but to God, both would be immediately ineligible to dwell in His presence until they had truly repented.

On that note, consider how King Lamoni murdered his servants, and yet his repentance process took only a few days.  Alma the younger not only committed many unwritten sins, but he persuaded other to sin also such that he wrote of his effect on others as having 'murdered their souls'; similarly, his repentance took only a few days.  I think that the lack of lengthy punishment and forfeiture of God's Spirit and blessings was the result of the sincerity of their change.  It only takes a long time for some of us to repent because it takes a long time for us to truly decide to change our ways and be dedicated to following God's will in the thing for which we are repenting.
So anyway, that was my main point, that there is only one punishment for sin, and that punishment is permanent separation from God.

Well, I did some research on the Church website and could find no resources that directly address this passage in an attempt to explain what we are discussing, so I suppose your interpretation is as good as mine until more is revealed.
The most important thing I wanted to share is that when we really get down to it, permanent separation from God and His light is the only eternal punishment for all sin.  We also know that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.  Understanding this we can see that the eternal consequence of stealing a piece of bubble gum is equivalent to the eternal consequence of stealing a car (i.e. separation from God).  Our earthly laws would punish the one much more severely than the other, but to God, both would be immediately ineligible to dwell in His presence until they had truly repented.

On that note, consider how King Lamoni murdered his servants, and yet his repentance process took only a few days.  Alma the younger not only committed many unwritten sins, but he persuaded other to sin also such that he wrote of his effect on others as having 'murdered their souls'; similarly, his repentance took only a few days.  I think that the lack of lengthy punishment and forfeiture of God's Spirit and blessings was the result of the sincerity of their change.  It only takes a long time for some of us to repent because it takes a long time for us to truly decide to change our ways and be dedicated to following God's will in the thing for which we are repenting.
So anyway, that was my main point, that there is only one punishment for sin, and that punishment is permanent separation from God.

In Spanish we use the LDS edition of the Reina-Valera translation dating back to the 1500's.  It is very much akin to the KJV in its language as it pertains to Spanish.
On my mission, we used a 1960 revision from a different publisher which obviously lacked the footnotes which are included in the LDS edition.

Depends on how one is applying the word finite.  The duration Christ's suffering in the garden was finite according to our measurement of time.  However, at the same time, even a finite measurement of time can be subdivided into infinite moments, just as in mathematical theory, how line can be subdivided into infinite points.  In other words, something need not be endless in time in order to be infinite in scope.  Not that you weren't aware of this already, but I think it is worth stating.