scottyg

Let your son know that he was called as a missionary to represent Jesus Christ, and was originally assigned to a particular mission. He was later reassigned to another mission. His MTC district peers have apparently been re-reassigned back to their original assignment. Bully for them. That doesn't really mean anything. He is at the disposal of the Lord and the Lord's servants, and is called to serve wherever he is assigned.
Now I'm not heartless. I know how your son feels, and I completely sympathize with him. But if your son could truly and deeply understand that where he serves is irrelevant, as it is at the discretion of his leaders, and that how he serves is literally the only thing that matters, I think it would help him get past feeling left out. There is a General Conference talk delivered in the last few years that talks specifically about this. I can't find it on a quick search, but maybe some helpful soul here at 3H will help me out and post a link.

Oh indeed.  If you ever want to know if someone talking about gun control is serious and worth listening to, ask them how their proposals will help things in St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago.  If they do not have a ready answer, you can tell they are idea-heavy and information-light.  Zeal without knowledge is useless at least, dangerous and destructive at most.

In my research I have found these shootings are extremely rare and sensationalized by the mainstream media.  It is no secret they want our 2nd Amendment liberties gone sp they can exert more unrighteous authority on us. 
Secret combinations are at work in our highest parts of our government trying to implement tyranny on the general population at the present time.  These people would like to control all private property in the United States.  This is difficult to do when the general population is armed with firearms especially long guns.

Was it ever on properly???

Was it ever on properly???

Was it ever on properly???

The sheepskin slips.

Ah, there we have it folks.
What Jonah really wanted to share with us all.
You too can leave the Church, just like Whitmer, just follow his link.

"I am optimistic about the future. It will be filled with opportunities for each of us to progress, contribute, and take the gospel to every corner of the earth. But I am also not naïve about the days ahead. We live in a world that is complex and increasingly contentious. The constant availability of social media and a 24-hour news cycle bombard us with relentless messages. If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men that attack truth, we must learn to receive revelation.
Our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, will perform some of His mightiest works between now and when He comes again. We will see miraculous indications that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, preside over this Church in majesty and glory. But in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost."
Russell M. Nelson, April 2018 General Conference
 
This was given almost 3 years ago. The days are no longer coming...they are here now. No more arguing please. The Holy Ghost will tell you the proper course of action you and your families are to take, and, (for reasons known to the Lord) that direction may not always perfectly align with direction given to another. Don't worry about the actions of others. Do not gauge what you are doing to be right or wrong based off of what others do. Trust in what the spirit whispers, and follow the Lord's judgement and timing.

I have a friend in Mexico that shared an article from his area that indicated that 80% of Mexicans plan to come to the USA within their life time - either to work or retire.  This included all economic categories from poor to the very wealthy as well and unskilled labors to the most educated.   It seems logical to me that this is reflected in other countries south of our border as well or more so.  I am sure that such a human drain would be more harmful to our neighbors than to us (as much as it is to our economy and culture).
However, what concerns my friend the most is how much of the problems at the border are worse for Mexico than the USA.  Not only are the drug cartels (organized crime) financed with a free flow of $$$$$ going south but also weapons - including military grade weapons.  Besides the nonsense of "Fast and Furious" military grade weapons pour across the borders into Mexico from the USA.  The cartels are better armed and financed than the Mexican military.  Plus the international cartels have taken control of the Mexican government.  It is obvious to me that such international cartels have every desire to influence the politics in the USA as well.  
I have speculated that politicians under the international cartel's control will work towards:
1. Open borders
2. Abolishing ICE
3. Defunding the Police
4. Limiting 2nd Amendment rights as much as possible for law abiding citizens.
5. Make chain of custody impossible to validate in elections (ballot harvesting and no voter verification).
 
But I also wonder -- as much as cartels may wish to smuggle undesirables into the USA through the masses seeking to enter illegally - that many more desirables than undesirables may be in the mix.  But I am concerned that before the desirables are separated from the undesirables that there will be a lot of violence that will pass upon the innocent and undeserving - both here in the USA and abroad. 
 
The Traveler

I agree. The same should go for the young men administering the sacrament. However, sometimes we need to reach out and be more concerned for the safety and well-being of the one over the ninety and nine. We have a less-active young man who only wears a blue shirt when he comes to church. If he comes, and says he is worthy, we allow him to bless the sacrament with the others who are in white shirts. Now that doesn't mean that we should always be catering to the one, or lower our standards long-term/permanently. But, this sister in particular perhaps needs to be in the temple as it is likely the best thing to prevent her from going down a path that will not lead to happiness. If she fades away later in life, she can't say that she wasn't given every opportunity. Sometimes bending the standard down a bit to help others reach it is the best route to take. Then once they do, the spirit has an opportunity to lift them up higher up.
These cases truly are exceptions though, and many latter-day saints that I see day to day need to stop trying to make themselves into an exception.

I agree. The same should go for the young men administering the sacrament. However, sometimes we need to reach out and be more concerned for the safety and well-being of the one over the ninety and nine. We have a less-active young man who only wears a blue shirt when he comes to church. If he comes, and says he is worthy, we allow him to bless the sacrament with the others who are in white shirts. Now that doesn't mean that we should always be catering to the one, or lower our standards long-term/permanently. But, this sister in particular perhaps needs to be in the temple as it is likely the best thing to prevent her from going down a path that will not lead to happiness. If she fades away later in life, she can't say that she wasn't given every opportunity. Sometimes bending the standard down a bit to help others reach it is the best route to take. Then once they do, the spirit has an opportunity to lift them up higher up.
These cases truly are exceptions though, and many latter-day saints that I see day to day need to stop trying to make themselves into an exception.

Speaking of 'judges'...
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Other sources say the judge also "headed 'Drag Queen Story Hour' " reading books to children.
 
Helaman 7: 4-5
 

IMHO, this is one of the major dangers with Critical Race Theory—it’s a crutch that tells us that the “fence” we find inconvenient (whatever it may be, whether free speech or free markets or individual property or individual liberty or parental rights or trial by jury or general meritocracy) is only there because Whiteness, and we don’t need to investigate its origins or purpose any further before dramatically overhauling that aspect of the system.

"Chesterton's Fence" is the idea that just because you don't see the reason for something, that's not a good reason for removing it. Reforms should only be made after you've understood the reasons for the status quo. I only recently learned this expression, but since then I've been seeing examples of it everywhere.
Chesterton's* own example was of a fence across the middle of the road. The hasty reformer says: "I don't know why this fence is here, let's take it down". The more thoughtful reformer replies: "Let's first find out why it was put here to begin with."
A particularly good example of this occurs on the roads. Driver A is in front and Driver B is behind. Driver B is a bit on the impatient side. Driver A sees some hazard in the road in front of him and slows down. Driver B cannot see this hazard, and assumes Driver A has slowed down for no reason. He swerves out and around him (probably with some snotty remark about "Sunday drivers") and ploughs straight into the hazard.
This happened to me once when two pheasants ran out in front of me. I stopped, but my "Driver B" swerved around and hit one of them. I was momentarily very angry, but then I remembered how nice a pheasant would be for Sunday dinner, so I took it home and put it out under the porch. But unfortunately (for me) Mr. Fox came along during the night and had it for his Sunday dinner.
There was another much more tragic case in the news a few years ago. On this occasion "Driver B" didn't know that a gang of particularly stupid boys were playing a game of "lie-down-in-the-road-and-see-if-the-cars-stop", and that that was the reason "Driver A" had slowed down. Consequently the boy whose turn it was died a horrible death. The police didn't bring any charges against the driver (which I can kind-of understand given the stupidity of the young man) but it does show that if you don't understand the reason for something, don't assume that no reason exists. 
*This was G.K. Chesterton who wrote the Father Brown books, and The Man Who Was Thursday. The Man Who Was Thursday deserves its own thread sometime: I'd be interested to hear how other people read the moral of the story.

Cue the Roast in the Oven Story, which we have probably all heard:
A mother cut the ends off a roast before putting it in the oven. Her daughter asked, "Why did you cut off the ends?" The mother replied, "Because that's what you need to do with roasts." The daughter asked, "But why?" The mother said, "I'm not sure. Let's ask Grandma."
So they called Grandma and asked, "Why do you cut the ends off a roast before putting it in the oven?" Grandma responded, "Because that's what you need to do with roasts." "But why?" came the rejoinder. Grandma said, "I don't know. Let's ask my mother."
So they called Granny. Grandma asked, "Mom, why did you cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the oven?" Granny answered, "Because my roasting pan was too small to fit the entire roast."

Recent comments in other threads as well as a new thread started by @Carborendum have led me to ponder on how God responds to people's hard-heartedness and inability (or refusal) to hear his teachings. It reminded me of an Ask Gramps question and answer from last year, which I've cut-and-pasted below. What do you think?
**********************************************************************************************
Question
Gramps,
With the United States going through cultural change such as women’s rights, abortion, and LBTGQ issues, are we Mormons resistant to change in the public’s eye? It just always seems like we’re one step behind in these issues.
Daniel
Answer
Daniel,
Before I answer your question, let me preface my remarks what should be a needless disclaimer:
I speak for myself.
This is true, even when I speak forcefully. Ask Gramps is not an official representative of the Restored Church, its doctrines, or its policies, no matter how much some readers may look to it as such. That doesn’t mean that what I write is wrong; obviously, I believe I’m right, or I wouldn’t say what I do. But whatever I say, please measure it by the yardstick of the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets and apostles. I will not hold back (much) in giving my views on this question. It is your duty to consider my words in light of prophetic teachings, and seek the Spirit to guide you in the paths of truth.
With age and experience comes some measure of wisdom, along with years of perspective by which we consider matters that come before us. As a grandpa with his fair share of experience, let me share my perspective with you.
Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin famously said (or didn’t, depending on whose history you believe),
I see this phenomenon throughout politics, and I often wonder about how often it must affect us on a more personal level. How many parents have watched their own children leave the gospel path that they, the parents, have spent their lives trying to teach and live by? How many such parents have compromised on the principles of their household—regarding Church attendance, perhaps, or drug usage, or maybe even sexual activity—in the hope of not losing their wayward children forever? Too often, such well-intentioned compromises are disastrous. But in some few cases, some wise compromises may be helpful, even necessary, to lead and reclaim the erring sheep.
This is dangerously thin ice upon which we tread. If ever a parent needs the guidance of the Spirit in making such decisions, this would be such a case.
Is it possible that this same phenomenon, this same stark choice, might affect even the very kingdom of God? Many of us would like to believe that God’s kingdom never compromises on any principle, ever. But consider a bishop leading his ward. What if the congregation members refuse to follow his lead? What does the bishop do? Stick to his guns and let the consequences follow, or try to find some way of getting out in front of his flock and helping them? If the individuals in the ward simply will not follow the bishop’s exhortations to minister to one another, should the bishop leave them to their despair? Or does he instead change his approach, modify his expectations, and try to lead them by the hand?
What does the Lord do for us?
In most cases, the Lord has given us commandments and expects us either to follow them or to accept the consequences of disobedience. In some cases, it seems to me that the Lord takes mercy on us in our fallen foolishness. God literally cannot bless us in disobedience, but in some cases, he may modify certain expectations to allow us to eventually succeed despite our weakness.
This may even come about due to circumstances beyond our own disobedience. The commandment for plural marriage was removed about 60 years after it was first given, not because it had served its purpose, nor even (as I have so fondly supposed) because the people were incapable of living it correctly. According to the testimony of the prophet, the commandment for plural marriage was rescinded plainly and simply because the Church was going to be wiped out and effectively abolished from the earth if plural marriage continued. For some reason, God didn’t save his people from their persecutions, but instead withdrew his commandment for which they had sacrificed so much and instructed his prophet to tell the people to stop doing the very practice that they believed made them unique and holy to God. I cannot help but have a little sympathy for those who found this too much, to be required to abandon the practice they believed would exalt them after their lifetime of sacrifice living it. These spiritual ancestors forgot that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
Just one generation ago, apostles and other Church leaders begged women to “come home”, to use their labors to build the home and fortify it against the evils of the world, and not to waste their efforts in the vain pursuits of money-making or career-building. But I haven’t heard any such thing in probably three decades. Is this because we no longer want women to stay home building the home? Did we decide that women maybe really are of more benefit out making money and building their career? Did God change his mind? Or shall we assume that the leadership of the time was just old-fashioned and out of touch, and that today’s apostles have finally synced up with the times?
Or is it more likely that the Church fought for the ideals that would best help the Saints and their families until the tide of decadent societal change became overwhelming and unwinnable in the near term (short of isolating ourselves from Babylon and giving up on the worldwide Church idea), and decided to turn its efforts to helping and supporting a generation that was growing up in a society created by those who had largely rejected that prophetic counsel?
That last possibility is what I believe. The principles have not changed. The doctrine underlying our practice cannot change. But the teachings are presented to each generation in a way that will be meaningful and helpful to those of that generation. We still prize above almost all things those women and men who put the well-being of their families above any other worldly concern. But for many people today, the situation looks different from what was faced by their parents and grandparents.
Don’t look for the Church ever—EVER—to approve of or sanction things such as elective abortion or homosexual “marriage”. Simply put, that will never happen. But now that homosexual “marriage” has been imposed by judicial fiat as the law of the land, expect the Church simply to not worry about it, but rather to teach its members that legal sanction for perverse relationships does not imply divine sanction. Elective abortion has been legal across the US since 1973, a nightmarish horror for which we most certainly will answer to God—but the Church has not decided that elective abortion is okay after all, just because it is widely and even casually used. It is not okay. It is the killing of a human being, an act like unto murder. That underlying doctrine will not change.
To answer your question directly: No, the Church is not “one step behind in these issues”. It looks to me like the Church is pulling at the cart rope with all its might to keep the horse from sliding further downhill, with the horse pulling so hard the other direction that the Church has to step further down to regain its footing and keep on pulling uphill. And as for “the public eye”, of course the Church is foolish in the public eye. It always has been and always will be. The mockers will mock, because that’s what they do. That is of no moment, and should be of no concern to any Saint.
Gramps

McConkie is largely responsible for the chapter summaries in all of the standard works, as well as the Bible Dictionary.  His contributions to understanding the gospel are unparalleled. 

I used to listen to him a bit a few years ago, but not anymore. Something just felt off about him and his wife to me. They seem to be the type of people that want others to know how smart they are. I also didn't like how they talked about things that had no real impact on our current standing in the Lord's plan of Happiness, aka, "vain mysteries". He often got into the weeds just so he could show others that he could find his way back out. If you keep getting lost on purpose, eventually you will end up that way.
An apostle of Jesus Christ may be wrong on certain issues, (they can have opinions too) but their faults will never lead you away from the Lord. I would choose McConkie every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I used to listen to him a bit a few years ago, but not anymore. Something just felt off about him and his wife to me. They seem to be the type of people that want others to know how smart they are. I also didn't like how they talked about things that had no real impact on our current standing in the Lord's plan of Happiness, aka, "vain mysteries". He often got into the weeds just so he could show others that he could find his way back out. If you keep getting lost on purpose, eventually you will end up that way.
An apostle of Jesus Christ may be wrong on certain issues, (they can have opinions too) but their faults will never lead you away from the Lord. I would choose McConkie every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I haven't really been following this sordid tale (fingers crossed) but whatever Meghan Markle says, her son COULD not possibly have been denied the title of prince because of his "skin colour". That's  because (as the child of a younger son of the heir apparent) he's NOT ENTITLED TO BE A PRINCE ANYWAY.
He could be blue with purple and green spots and he still wouldn't be a prince.
He is however entitled to call himself "Earl of Dumbarton" (his father's subsidiary title). But he doesn't. And do you know why not? Because Meghan-schmegan doesn't want him to!
Piers Morgan may be an irritating twit, but he's spot on about this. Meghan was talking rubbish.
P.S. "Skin-colour" nothing. Young Archie is as white as I am, and so's his mum.

Another possible interpretation:
Harry has always been a bit of a spoiled whiner, but since taking up with Meghan, he has become insufferable. The two now seek to disgrace the family name in word as well as in deed. So we're doing what we can to control their damage by cutting them out of the picture as much as possible. Our response to their latest flood of tears is "Bummer, so sorry." We feel that is much more dignified and kind than "Your tantrums and  humiliating behavior (sorry, behaviour) have inevitably resulted in this bad outcome. So instead of blaming us, please just lie quietly in the grave you have dug for yourselves."

Unfortunately I see this almost every week. We have a neighboring stake that hasn't followed much of the recent counsel from church headquarters regarding activities, sacrament meetings, etc... The Stake President was openly holding mass activities last year, and no mask wearing was enforced by him or the bishops under him. Some wards have even been holding in-person 2nd hour meetings, weekly youth activities all year, etc... I work in healthcare, and know that a lot of the issues surrounding covid-19 are completely bogus and baseless. However, I try to follow the counsel of my leaders, and would not go against their wishes as many in the church currently are. It is discouraging to see so much cherry-picking going on with regards to counsel and/or commandments.

Yes, I could see that happening. I believe the mark in our hands/foreheads will be more of a belief system rather than a physical mark...but it could physical as well. Regardless of how it comes to pass though, it most definitely will. It would be wise to get out of debt as quickly as possible, and to teach our children to live as self-sufficiently as they can, as the government will not be on the Lord's side in any way. Live within your means, get as much food storage as possible, grow a garden, get some chickens, etc...

Unfortunately I see this almost every week. We have a neighboring stake that hasn't followed much of the recent counsel from church headquarters regarding activities, sacrament meetings, etc... The Stake President was openly holding mass activities last year, and no mask wearing was enforced by him or the bishops under him. Some wards have even been holding in-person 2nd hour meetings, weekly youth activities all year, etc... I work in healthcare, and know that a lot of the issues surrounding covid-19 are completely bogus and baseless. However, I try to follow the counsel of my leaders, and would not go against their wishes as many in the church currently are. It is discouraging to see so much cherry-picking going on with regards to counsel and/or commandments.