Midwest LDS

We were able to see it from our backyard.  The kids were more interested than I thought they would be.  I took these with my Pixel3.  
Thanks for all the pictures!
 

My wife took the following photo and made an interesting observation.

It took a while for us to find a suitable spot to get out and take pictures.  So, I told the family we were like the wise men seeking the Christ Child.  We found the spot.  Our shadows made an interesting nativity scene.

I took this photo with my old iPhone 7.  Is it any good?

For those of you keeping up on the "Christmas Star" news...I took some pictures.
First, a "big picture" view.  The lone shining object in the sky is the conjunction.

Then a zoom in:  The brighter light to the left is Jupiter.  You can kind of make out the half shadow because the sun is to the right in this photo.  Then the "blur" to the right of Jupiter is actually Saturn.  It was much more clear to the naked eye than my puny camera.  But that is what it looked like.

And for comparison:  The moon.  In reality the moon is pretty much at first quarter.  But the corona was so bright, it looks like a waxing gibbous or maybe even a full moon.  But to the naked eye it was pretty clear it was a quarter.

“Whatever doesn’t kill you gives you inappropriate coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor . . .”

Christmas 2020--and my last day as supervisory chaplain at the jail. I'll do some visitation around the building, clean out the office and close out this very rich, fulfilling calling. My staff chaplain keeps telling me, "BTB, brother! Better Than Before!" He's got it. What lies ahead is better than that which has gone before. The capstone will be opening presents tonight with the fam bam! I gotta love my girls--they say they like opening presents Christmas Day evening. I suspect it's because they are okay with my calling, and perhaps with me.

Violating justice means being wrongly deprived of something that is rightfully ours. In no sense did the fall of Adam and Eve violate justice, either from Adam and Eve's point of view or from anyone (or anything) else's.
The earth was created primarily as a dwelling place for the children of God. The plants and animals of this world may be more than "mere chattel" (to use Hugh Nibley's phrasing), but they, indeed the elements themselves, are put here ultimately for the benefit of man. It's no more a violation of divine justice that their state was changed on the fall of Adam and Eve than a lion eating an antelope might be a violation of divine justice. Existence itself (in the sense we're talking about) is a gift from God. Neither animals nor plants nor the elements themselves have any "right" to exist in any given state. Even we as children of God have been granted rights of living only on the principles that God has established.
The whole business of salvation and atonement is based on the idea that we have lost whatever "rights" we may have possessed to eternal life and glory, and that God seeks to restore those to us. God strictly maintains divine justice at all times. He must necessarily do so; it's implicit in the term "God". He can only be a perfectly just Being, now and forever. But he has created for us a duration of space and time wherein we may choose and decide without immediately feeling the inevitable consequences of our actions. As the mortal Lord, the Great Judge himself in the flesh, told the sinful woman taken literally in the very act of adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee." This is not our time of judgment and condemnation. That is to come, when the Lord will surely condemn all those who do wickedly and do not repent. For now, we are granted a space of time to repent (2 Nephi 2:21, indeed all of 2 Nephi 2, 2 Nephi 9, Mosiah 2, Alma 5, and I guess all the rest of the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets, past and present).
If we repent and come to God, justice will pave our way to joy beyond measure. If we do not repent, justice will land us in the very situation we will have chosen. That is the justice of God, and it operates upon God's children. The rest of God's creations simply experience and fulfill his will in the spheres in which they have been placed.

Two things:
FIRST:  D&C 10 was referring to the retranslation of the record of Nephi after the "lost manuscript" was stolen.  So, specifically, that verse was not talking about the Church or even the organization.  The Church hadn't been organized -- and wouldn't be for another year after that.
SECOND: If you have to insist on making this about the establishment of the Church (which it isn't):  The Lord had already known that the early Church as He established it would be destroyed.  An entire world and society so evil that they would crucify the only perfect being to walk the earth was not a world where the Lord's Church was going to survive in its fulness.
So, he set things up to be restored at a time when the world would be more prepared to receive the fulness of the Gospel.  Even then, it almost got snuffed out.  But with all the enemies and all the wholesale slaughter they wrought upon the Latter-day Saints, and even the government of the United States out to kill them, the Church survived.  That, to me, is a testament that this really is a work that was protected by the Hand of the Lord.

I had never seen it before this year, and suddenly I have three cases. 

My reaction on seeing your thread title was, "Absolutely." But on reading your actual OP, these parents are insane. They are the poster parents for the "Why Homeschooling Is Evil" movement.
Of all people, homeschoolers—the real ones—know that performance is the ultimate and only true indicator of educational effectiveness. The attitude you describe is so Out There that I'm tempted to say it's not an appalling travesty at all, but merely a highly localized example of parental insanity that has no bearing on the larger world.

I've since seen a supposed tweet by a show producer that states they are two separate projects and there will be a Mando season 3 and the Boba Zett spin off.

Sheesh.  After what, two years?  And a lot of drama, this has finally happened:
https://www.ksl.com/article/50065193/colorado-woman-church-agree-to-dismiss-sex-assault-lawsuit-involving-ex-mtc-president
 

@JohnsonJones perhaps there is a healthy middle ground here.
Some possible interpretations I see from the handbook statement:
Possible interpretations:
1. None of the Church Handbook is considered doctrine.
2. The entire Church Handbook is considered doctrine (I believe this is your area of concern)
rather I believe it is...

3. Parts of the Church Handbook do contain doctrine while other parts simply contain policy. Just because it is in the Handbook does not make it doctrine.
The Church News released an article in Feb 2020 entitled, First Presidency releases new general handbook for Church leaders, members
it breaks apart the handbook:
Here is some additional wording that might help. This is taken from a statement the Church issued 31 July 2020 called, Significant Updates Made to Five Chapters of the General Handbook  It says:
So...
Do parts of the Church Handbook contain doctrine? Yes.
Is everything inside of the Handbook doctrine? No
Are some sections separated out between Doctrine vs. Church Administration? Yes
Are doctrinal explanations also scattered throughout the book to help explain non-doctrinal positions/issues? Yes

Just some thoughts, hopefully there is something of value to you above.👍

Jonah's presence in this thread, as someone who is "currently Catholic", is quite timely, IMO.   We need to make very, very sure that the philosophies and agendas of men, do not show up in our scripture.   From a Christian perspective, half of the New Testament is letters from the apostles to the various groups of early Christians, trying to get them to stop adding crap that doesn't belong to the beliefs of the saints.   From a Restored Gospel perspective, that effort ceased once the apostles were all martyred, errors and agendas crept in, creeds, schisms, heresies, councils, reformations, and now we've got Christianity split into a ton of different groups.  Most of them thinking they've got the most-correct, best-preserved version of what Christ and the Apostles laid down, all of them arguing about who can be considered "Christian", who gets communion with who, whose baptism is valid in another faith, who can marry who in order to maintain the same faith.  It's a mess: 
 
Our LDS perspective, is that that "Restorationism" line is badly drawn.  We're not an offshoot of Protestantism, our little green line goes straight all the way back to Early Christianity, before people started getting together in Councils and voting on what God's word is and what it is not, inventing the notion of "trinity",  etc.   We are Christ's church, because He came down personally and redrew that green line to where He wanted His people to be.
Throughout our churches history, the call has always gone out to not drift from the scriptures and God's messengers.    
@JohnsonJones is a little worried that a Church Handbook, the dictionary definition of "something a bunch of people came up with", might be drifting into the area of scripture or official doctrine.   I am absolutely in agreement that such worries are good things to have.   I just don't think there's anything to worry about here - the church's claims about the handbook are all about how often it changes and gets revised, based on this or that new understanding, this or that new revelation.  It's a book of "the best we've got right now - check back next week for updates" - it isn't doctrine.

And a bit of context around JJ's troubling sentence is in order.
 

I've been thinking about this discussion and I also thought of something I've found to be important in matters of judgement. What is my motivation in judging this person? If my goal is to look at someone, as the Pharisee did to the Publican in the Savior's parable, and say to myself thank goodness I'm so much better than him, I'm failing to judge properly. Proper judgement in my experience involves also wanting to help either yourself or someone else do better. Am I explaining to someone why following the Word of Wisdom (for example) is better than not because the spiritual and physical blessings have greatly improved my time here on Earth and following it is the better choice? Than I am on safe ground. Am I snidely commenting to someone next to me that the brother in front of us is obviously a bad member because he smells like cigarette smoke? If I do so than I'm guilty of a greater sin because I'm just trying to make myself look better in comparison. Proper judgement also involves plenty of charity.

Sure you're allowed to speak hypothetically. Your phrasing didn't look hypothetical to me; it looked like a flat statement, an observation of fact.
These are excellent questions, especially when asked sincerely and not rhetorically. In my view, your comparison is not invalid. It is not the comparison model, but rather its application, to which I object.
People's spiritual journeys are of necessity unique, just as the individual circumstances and the individuals themselves are unique. But saying that a person is unique from all others does not imply that the person is essentially different from all others. Their body chemistry is not utterly unique, for example. The construction of their heart valves is not alien to all others. The neurological symbols by which their brain analyzes and understands the world is not essentially different from other human beings. Their legs do not grow out of the tops of their heads.
People are unique the way snowflakes are unique. We can appreciate the individualized beauty of a snowflake without ever supposing that this particular snowflake, because if its differences, may perhaps survive being warmed to twenty degrees above the melting point of water. It won't, ever. That is not the nature of snowflakes.
Man is bound by the laws of physics. Man is also bound by the laws of spirit, not because God has set up arbitrary bounds that we must toe for no better reason than that God said so, but because they are a description of reality. The laws of spiritual life and growth are not subject to the same kind of blind testing as the laws of physics, but both sets of laws describe reality. We can no more challenge the laws of spiritual growth than an infant suckling at his mother's breast can challenge the laws of Einsteinian mechanics, nor (IMO) do we have any more insight into the deficiencies of the spiritual model we are given than the infant does into the physical model mentioned. Our best course of action in all cases is to learn and follow the spiritual law, not kick against it.
I think I agree with your statement above, but I leave some wiggle room because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "judging the character of other people". You seemed to say that judging Jane Smith's decision to pursue her career as being a bad decision is wrong in all cases, that somehow we as outside entities are incapable of rendering any such judgment in a just manner. This is not judging the character of others, but judging best from not best. The suggestion that we are unable and unjustified in ever judging the decisions or the reasons behind the state of another person is naked nihilism, which I utterly reject.
No one is suggesting that they themselves are perfect. I may well be guilty of judgmentalism; if so, I must repent of that failing. I don't believe I am guilty of that, but I acknowledge the possibility. I have done such evils before, and worse. But if I must walk a line between judgmentalism and nihilism, I prefer to err on the side of being somewhat too ready to judge rather than fall into the paralysis of being unwilling to call a spade a spade.

In the context of this conversation, I mostly agree.  I can't see a person's heart.  It's important for me to judge their actions, lest my children or those outside the Church find such behavior to be acceptable.  This was a big issue for me as an investigator, which took quite some time for me to understand.  Doctrine says X, Y, and Z are wrong.  Members A, B, and C follow the rules by all appearances.  Member D openly doesn't follow the rules, talks about not following the rules, and by all appearances thinks it's perfectly OK to not follow the rules.  In fact, he may say those rules are incorrect.  Members A, B, and C seem to completely accept, and not challenge, member D's position.  It was very confusing to me as an outsider to understand what is or isn't doctrine or expected.  I make sure my children, and friends with questions about the Church, understand what is expected and what the Church position is.    I judge those actions, but I sometimes can't tell what their character is.  Are they addicted?  Do they struggle with doctrine?  Do they reject those teachings?   I can't tell, so pass no judgement.

Other times, I have no issue judging character based on their actions.  If you're a rapist,  I feel pretty comfortable judging your character.  (Royal "you", obviously.  I'm not insinuating that you are a rapist)

I'm thinking no.  They didn't say "in matters of doctrine".  They said "In matters of doctrine and Church policy", and went on to name scriptures (doctrine), teaching of living prophets (doctrine and policy), and the handbook (policy).
It's like if they said "In matters of large and small housepets, the best kinds are huskys, cats, and hamsters", and you said "Did they just elevate hamsters to the status of large housepet?"

Lots and lots and lots of updates.   No more Handbook 1 and 2, now everything is in one handbook.
Here's an 8 minute video from the church talking about things on a high level. 
Here's an outline of the changes. 
Here's chapter 27 - Temple Ordinances, which clarifies what temple things can and can't be talked about. 
 

You mean exclusively between the individual and God (and maybe bishop)? No, of course not. We must judge people's actions. That is exactly what you are doing; I'm surprised (but not very) that you would pass judgment of right and wrong on Latter-day Saints while insisting that they not pass judgment of right and wrong on others.
It is true that we cannot see into another's heart and are in no position to state what another person's standing is before God. But to take a position such as, "A mother with children at home should generally best be staying at home rearing her children wherever possible, rather than farming them off to a daycare so she can pursue her vocational dreams," is not wrong, nor is it wrong to refuse to concede that Jane Smith's case is different because she's special. That does not mean you're passing judgment on Jane Smith; it means simply that you know right from wrong, at least in your judgment of it, and you're going to stick with your beliefs. No condemnation of another is implicit in holding to one's beliefs.
You're an atheist. Honestly, how would you know the first thing about one's journey to exaltation—a state you deny and explicitly disbelieve even exists? In this case, you are demonstrably wrong. Strait is the gate and narrow the way that leads to eternal life, and few there be that find it.
Who is judging another's journey? I think you're making that up, just as you appear to have made up the initial condemnation that I first responded to. If your complaint is about Saints passing judgment, you're blatantly moving the goalposts from complaining about unrighteous judgment to complaining about any judgment—which we have already explicitly pointed out is our duty. Of course we pass judgment on the actions of others.

5 days

Social media sites, primarily Face Book, Twitter, and YouTube, all claimed that they were open forums, and that most of their content was user-supplied. They must not be held to account for what is on the site, because, by its nature, these sites are uncensored public domain. As a result, they got the following protection:
Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +0.4% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.
Of course, now they want to protect the public from dangerous content, based upon the site-owner's subjective, and usually left-leaning, perceptions. Moderates and liberals often see these as reasonable restrictions. They proclaim that private companies should be allowed to censor however they wish. OK. However, if so, then the owners are no longer disinterested providers of a user-driven content platform. They are now publishers. They are deciding what gets produced and what does not.
I oppose censorship and uphold the right of social media companies to control their platform content. Of course, Section 230 must be taken away. RIGHT???

FWIW, as I’ve observed that characteristic in ex-Mormons, I do sympathize a little more with Christians who are so concerned about their brethren who convert to Mormonism.  If they at least stay Mormon, all well and good; but if they then leave Mormonism, all too often, they are completely lost to the entire community of believers.  

I've noticed that many anti-LDS and anti-JW (at least on Youtube) are motivated by atheism and a supposed logic. Frankly, I don't get why nonbelievers care what people believe, There's not much I can do for or about them. However, the old school Evangelicals who oppose your church, as well as other groups, would do well to take your words above to heart. What good is it to de-convert someone, only to have them embrace atheism or agnosticism? The temptation is obvious--if I was fooled once by spirituality I'll not be fooled twice. There is counsel that I used to give our Christian volunteers at the jail. "Don't bother criticizing or opposing other religions--just lift up the beauty of your faith and what you have to offer." Jesus said that if He is lifted up then all will be drawn to Him. I still believe what I believe and disagree with perspectives counter to my own, but I have yet to meet a soul that has been converted via argumentation or by losing a debate.