scottyg

As far as I can see, only the Catholic Church is more valuable in monetary terms. Others like Novo Nordisk or the Gates foundation are both less than the LDS church, but those are foundations...not charities. Not much of a difference by definition, but still less.

As I was reading D&C 3 this week (specifically verse 2) I was reminded of a past experience. About 7 years ago, my wife and I had our 3rd child. After the child was born, I received a strong spiritual impression that my family was complete - that 3 children were what was being sent to me by the Lord, and that our family as presently constituted would be my family for my duration on the earth. The impression was very specific, comforting, and clear - it was not my own thoughts. I was a bit taken aback by this as my wife and I hadn't ruled out having more children. We took each potential pregnancy one at a time, and had talked about possibly having up to 5 kids. Later, after talking with her about this she also said she felt like we were done having children, and that our family was complete. We were both happy with the impression and life was great.
Fast forward 5 years, and we ended up having a 4th child. We never felt like we needed another one, and we weren't trying to have one, but we also weren't preventing it per se. Now, I love my youngest, and we're very happy to now have 4 kids, but I have always pondered that impression I received. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why the Lord would send me a clear spiritual impression about my long-term family if He knew that our situation would be changing in a few years? Why not just let us continue our lives, and give us the impression to have another kid when the time was right if our family needed one? Neither of us were against having another child, and if that impression came, we would have done it wholeheartedly.
Yes, God's ways are not our ways, but He also doesn't say one thing and then do another. I have thought about if for a couple of years now and it still befuddles me; God is omniscient, so why would I receive an impression from Him that was contradictory to, or inconsistent with what would ultimately happen?

Yup read the study.  
We knew this going into the Pandemic.
Yet I am still wearing a mask in my clinic and the hospital.  By mandate.
 
 

When receiving inspiration it's so easy to attach our own conclusions to what God says that it can be difficult to distinguish between where the inspiration stops and where our own thinking starts. And if our conclusions (even the incorrect ones) don't interfere with "the plan" then there really isn't a need to correct us.
Not saying that's the case in this instance but I'm sure I've experienced this before.

If I might offer my own thought.
Maybe the Lord was telling you and your wife that was all he 'required' of you.  That is easy enough to take as 'being done.'
But doing more then just what is 'required' is usually a good thing.

In D&C 19:6-7, the takeaway almost seems to be that the Lord will (if not lie to us) tell us things He knows we will construe in a particular (inaccurate) way if it leads us to actually doing what He wants done in a particular moment.
I don’t know how that squares with Enos’s description of God as being a god who cannot lie; but it’s food for thought.

Who says you interpreted what He said correctly?
Maybe what He said was, "You're done, for now" and in your mortal weakness you just didn't understand the "for now" part.

My family felt complete @ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 
Really complete @ 9
# 10 & 11 have been a blast.
Can’t imagine life without the caboose.
I must have been reading Palms 127:5

It still boggles my mind how people can downplay CHAZ/CHOP as a big nothing burger, and yet view other things like the Canadian Trucker Protest as an act of rebellion worthy of military force.

An unorthodox idea straight out of left field:
Maybe your premortal family was reflected in your three-child family. It was complete. Maybe you added to that family with another child.
Not suggesting this is the case. Just a thought that came to me reading your post. Take it for what it's worth to you, or leave it altogether, as you see fit.

Possibilities:
It was what you needed to hear at the time to allow for a bit of a gap between your 3rd and 4th because of other plans that the Lord had.  (Morpheus: You need to know the difference between knowing the path, and walking it).  "Impressions" are often not very specific instructions.  But they lead you in a direction.  You went that direction.  And the Lord blessed you with another child, a little later in your life.  So, good on you.  OR It was a "commandment" rather than a prophecy.  And you failed because you didn't "prevent it per se." OR It was not a message from the Lord.  It was all between you and your wife. And a beautiful life happened. Apart from physical/health limitations I cannot fathom why the Lord would tell anyone to not have any more children in a loving, faithful household.  Have as many as you & your wife want, and what you think you can handle.

It still boggles my mind how people can downplay CHAZ/CHOP as a big nothing burger, and yet view other things like the Canadian Trucker Protest as an act of rebellion worthy of military force.

Sorry to hear about your health issues.  But you may want to have the interview anyway.  I remember hearing an address about this very situation.  And the counsel we received was that it was still a good thing to have the recommend even if you can't go due to health reasons.
You might want to consider it.

About 14 years ago, I said something similar in a different forum.  Someone on a mostly conservative forum was absolutely shocked that some parents were so irresponsible with the raising of their children that they spewed out the idea 
I responded:  Oh, yeah, I can just see it now. 
Wait, you're both virgins and you want to get married?  No, I'm afraid you're going to have to be more experienced before we can license such a union.
Nope, you can't have children yet, you haven't even been married 7 years yet.  We know that it takes that long before the two of you will be fit parents.  I'm afraid you're going to have to abort the baby or we'll have to take it and put it in foster care.
You both observe the same religion?  No, we can't let you raise this child in such an intolerant home.  Either abort or foster it.
You don't think that two year olds can be trans?  Oh, I'm afraid that such ignorance indicates you're not fit to be a parent.
When there is NO HOPE of raising a child up unto the Lord, the shortening of days shall commence.

The SEC has thousands of fun ways to fine people. This isn’t a big deal-sometimes all companies have to do blink the wrong way and the SEC gets fussy. 

If that's true they need to take a long look in the mirror.

As far as I can see, only the Catholic Church is more valuable in monetary terms. Others like Novo Nordisk or the Gates foundation are both less than the LDS church, but those are foundations...not charities. Not much of a difference by definition, but still less.

In less than 2 years we will be seeing the advocacy for early childhood sexual encounters with "experienced adults".  Parents will also leave their kids at daycares that openly state they will have practical sexual education with the kids. The progressives will say "how else will our children know at an early age that they are gay or transgender? We need them to have sexual encounters with others of the same gender as early as possible so their transformation be more effective...because we all know from "science" that transitions are more effective the earlier it is started."  Children being allowed to live with pedophiles as a "civil union" will soon follow.
Folks can scoff at this all they want, but if Barak Obama openly campaigned on the left's current platform in either 2008 or 2012, he wouldn't have won a single electoral vote in any state. Now almost half the country advocates for (or at least turns a blind eye to) this madness. Mankind's morality falls very, very fast.

Interesting related item:
When Anatess visited with me, she and her husband talked about how in her "conservative Florida" they are dealing with a gospel doctrine instructor who proudly wears a rainbow pin on her lapel each week at Church.  I'm assuming she wears it everywhere.
The story was that this instructor was giving a lesson on "judging".  In said "lesson" she told everyone in the room,
(If Anatess is reading this, please forgive me if I misquoted you.  But that was the flavor of the story).
You know, I just gave a lesson a few weeks about about how we are ALL sinners.  The difference is that the righteous, while still sinners, are also repenters.  She was surprised I still remembered that from her posts here earlier.  That was a few years ago.
The thing about the movement is that it encourages people to continue in sin.  In fact, it encourages a sin that most of the young, impressionable individuals would never have even considered.
Yes, we all sin.  Thus we all need to repent, not continue in sin.  That is the primary problem (from a salvation perspective) of this movement.  It introduces a sin that no one in their right mind would even consider.  And then it encourages them to continue with religious zeal.
Alma's counsel to Corianton: 
Happiness is not the belief that we don't need to change our way of thinking.  It is knowing that we CAN change to become more like the Savior.  And by the Grace of God, we WILL become like Him.

Bingo.

The bishop should absolutely keep it confidential.   You can ask him outright if he intends to before you talk to him.  
 
That said, feeling the spirit is tricky for me, too.   At one point I realized I'd been feeling the spirit and didn't even know that's what it was.   I try to be in tune to it, but I don't pretend to be the best.    Based on outcome, I think my decisions are based on guidance from the spirit even if I can't key into the specific time the thought came to me.   I act in faith and I believe He guides me as long as I do.  I believe that more because of the times I've been punched in the face by the spirit for not following.

Coming from a tax background, often when laws are made there are lots of gray area that aren't specifically addressed by the law and only get settled once the government decides to take legal action against someone who interpreted that gray area differently than they do. This is where much of the details of law get hashed out and precedence is established. But until then individuals and institutions have to do their best at interpreting the law. 

I'm another that never heard of it until today.

Bingo.

Bingo.