dprh

That’s a very interesting description, and one I can totally accept. 

So I was watching a youtube thing on the movie. So even Hugh Jackman, who is, reasonably speaking, a good singer who's done broadway type shows a lot, etc. was absolutely terrible as a singer in it. Apparently, in order to get the realistic starved look, he went through the same sort of crazy ordeal to get lean for it that body builders use, which is brutal to energy levels. And then because of the decision to film all the singing live on camera instead of pre-recording or something, they're singing for 8 hours a day, doing different takes...but you can't cut takes the same way you can in a normal movie because of the singing...so whole songs over and over again. And then the choices to really prioritize the "acting" instead of singing. And he's just terrible. He speak sings half of it. He's pitchy. His voice is unpleasant. And his rendition of Bring Him Home was the worst version I've ever heard of it.
Anne Hathoway -- same sort of thing. She starved herself to look starved. Then cried for real through her singing. And whereas it was, in her case, some pretty moving acting, as a listening experience it's not very nice. Her I dreamed a dream was, at least, very powerful as an acting experience. So I'll give her that.
Russell Crowe was, indeed, woefully miscast though. I don't think even pre-recording things would have helped there.

I listened to the Hamilton soundtrack quite a few times after it came out.  (I really liked hip-hop in the 90's which definitely influenced me on my taste for Hamilton.)  I like the music and the lyrics a lot.  To me, it is a different form of poetry. 
I've seen the show live, and I really enjoyed it.  I haven't watched it on Disney +, mostly because when I do have time to myself to watch a show, I'm trying to catch up on MCU shows (wow, WandaVision, F&WS, and Loki....wow)

I listened to the Hamilton soundtrack quite a few times after it came out.  (I really liked hip-hop in the 90's which definitely influenced me on my taste for Hamilton.)  I like the music and the lyrics a lot.  To me, it is a different form of poetry. 
I've seen the show live, and I really enjoyed it.  I haven't watched it on Disney +, mostly because when I do have time to myself to watch a show, I'm trying to catch up on MCU shows (wow, WandaVision, F&WS, and Loki....wow)

Talk about casting celebrities over singers....smh.

I don't watch musicals very often, so I don't have very strong opinions on most.  (Although I'm a huge White Christmas fan)  Usually I just listen to the soundtracks at work.  

With Pierce Brosnan singing? 

Mama Mia....Mama Mia.....Mama Mia.....anyone?  

Mama Mia....Mama Mia.....Mama Mia.....anyone?  

Phantom is the musical the really got me into musicals. But it was the soundtrack. I distinctly remember my sister coming home from school one day with a cassette tape, saying, "Listen to this!" And pressed play on our family stereo system.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM BUM BUM BUM BUM BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I was hooked. Wide eyed and overwhelmed by it. And amazed at how familiar it all seemed and felt despite the fact it was the first time I'd heard it. Andrew Lloyd Webber is no Mozart. But he is oft times amazingly amazing at melody writing.
Speaking of Lloyd Webber -- one of my other favorite stage musicals (I know only from the soundtrack too), is Sunset Boulevard.

Yes, agree again. Phantom has always been more style than substance, though Masquerade has always been great. 

I watched West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof back to back last week. I can't decide which is the better movie musical. But this much I can say. They are, without a doubt, top 2 in my opinion. Objectively The Sound of Music is as good a movie musical...but less my cup o' tea....er....cocoa...I mean cup o' cocoa.
If I had to choose though, I think I'd have to put West Side Story as my #1. Fiddler is phenomenal. Maybe even objectively better. It's deeper in meaning. It's filmed better (for the most part). More grounded. Less...gang-members-doing-ballet-y (which I don't hate...but....objectively....I get the critique....). But I just like West Side Story. I'm really interested in what Stephen Spielberg does with his upcoming remake.
I'm talking movie musicals. Stage musicals I'm more of a Les Miz, Miss Saigon fan. But the movie of Les Miz was, perhaps, the biggest piece of junk movie musical ever made. When it comes to Sondheim, I also quite love Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods, but really only know them from the recordings, having never seen them on stage. I've seen the movies, and although Sweeney Todd is one of the better recent movie musicals, it pales compared to stage versions where the singers can actually sing. (Speaking of which, I recently came across the version with Michael Ball and Imelda Staunton. Wow!
But I've been thinking and wondering... Up and into the 70s movie musicals were, in my opinion, oft times stronger than the stage versions. Now I can't directly compare to the stage versions of yesteryear, having not been alive then, but I can to the stage versions of them I've seen. And even if they didn't completely out class the stage versions, they were still really well made, good renditions of musicals. Oklahoma, South Pacific, The Sound of Music, Man of La Mancha, the afore mentioned West Side Story and Fiddler on the Roof. These are solid interpretations of musical adapted to a movie.
Since the 1980s movie musicals STINK. There are rare entries that are okay-ish. But way inferior to their stage counterparts. The most egregious of these being the Tom Hooper versions of Les Miz and CATS and the awful version of Phantom. To be fair, CATS is a garbage musical anyway, in my opinion. But the movie is even worse, removing the primary meaning and plot of the stage show.* Phantom is also a terrible musical but with some wonderful, wonderful music that almost saves it. As a soundtrack it does save it. So what do they do for the movie version... ruin the ONE thing it has going for it by casting a lead that can't sing or perform the part correctly! Seriously!?
There are exceptions. As I said, Sweeney Todd was well adapted. Chicago was great (though not to my personal tastes). Into the Woods was okay-ish (some disagree...it was, in some ways, pretty gutted... but that's a longer conversation that I won't go into.)
But why? Why can't they adapt musicals to movies any more with any level of proficiency? It's frustrating to me. What changed? Or do I simply see the "olden day" movie musicals through rose colored glasses?
* Edit: The CATS movie, however, for some reason is a bit of a guilty pleasure. Something about it was actually enjoyable. Not enough that I'd own it or watch it regularly...but....

I have spent a good portion of my life trying to overcome this poisonous philosophy and to teach my sons and daughter that it's a Satanic falsehood. We appear to agree on most matters, but if your summary above is sincere, we certainly disagree on this.

You can reject it all you want...  But can you show that is it factually wrong?...  That God didn't say that eternal and endless actually mean something different.. 
 
You can disagree with me all you want... But to insult my character, and me as a person, is unacceptable

Which is why I said I do not see how.  Which is why I said it has to be an addition of Light and Truth not a subtraction.   But we also have to acknowledge that God has altered the way we understand certain words before (See endless and eternal as relating to punishment).  And if he has altered the way we understand terms at the definitional level before then he can do so again.  And if our confidence is based on "because that is what the words mean," then we should be aware that our foundation just might not be as solid as we hope.

Sounds like polyandry to me.

Fun story: When my daughter was around 7, she needed double-foot surgery to give her arches, so she could have normal feet and walk without problems.  A month or two after surgery, she needed to have the steel pins removed from her feet.  We put her on the table, and the doctor grabbed each pin, and pulled all 3-4 inches of it straight out of her feet while she shrieked in terror and pain.  Me and mom held her down while she struggled and screamed.  A dozen years later, she still remembers the trauma and pain.  She thinks of the event, as the day she stopped being a little girl, and became a big kid. 
I hope someday that medicine advances to a point where we've got a better option, and such a procedure can be considered inhumane and barbaric, even punishable by law.  I'm even ok with some clueless person from that future time, ignorant of their place in history, thinking evil of me and accusing me of child abuse.  Telling me I can't consider myself a disciple of Christ after doing that to my own daughter.  Because, you see, when faced with that future clueless person, I'll know the truth, and they'll be ignorantly wrong.
This isn't a condemnation, clbent04.  I figure you can think your way past this issue that is obviously troubling you.

Source https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/

I've had a hard time with this question myself. My thoughts will probably be unpopular in a conservative group like this, but, here they are anyway.
Many "justifications" for the apparent tolerance and even acceptance of slavery from Abraham to Brigham Young involve some kind of "all the other clans/tribes/peoples were doing it, so why not Israel?" The Church's race and the priesthood essay spills a lot of ink explaining how the Church was just segregating by race just like the rest of 19th and early 20th century America complete with the same "Biblical" (now disavowed) justifications for the practice. Yes, just how much influence does broader (Christian) society have on what the Church believes and teaches? Ancient Israel lobbied God for a king, and God eventually relented, and it all started because Israel wanted a king like all her neighbors. How much influence does broader culture and society have on what prophets, apostles, and the Church teaches? It seems that God might allow for at least some influence. And He seems willing to allow that influence to make something as categorically immoral as slavery be tolerated and accepted by His people.
For better or for worse, it seems to me that if God can allow His people to accept something as categorically immoral as slavery for most of human history, I see no reason -- whether same sex marriage is moral or immoral -- why God could not allow the Church to condone same sex marriage when the broader society and culture deem it acceptable.

I'm not a registrar, but as a teacher I have so much access to student records. There's a number of church members who (in the past) loved to claim religious exemptions to vaccines. 
Same ones who complain about FDA but then would see a bottle of essential oils on my desk during parent-teacher conference and try to strike up a conversation about the miracle of alternate medicine where FDA doesn't tread...

So, I think things have taken a turn for the better. I think a lot of prayer resulted in several very deep conversations that were too close together to likely be anything but some answers to prayer. 

I'm sure some on the forum ( @Carborendum definitely, right?) are familiar with Brandon Sanderson's books.  He write fantasy/sci-fi novels.  (Excellent books, btw).  Part of his magic systems depends on an individual's Identity (https://coppermind.net/wiki/Identity) If a person sees something like hearing impairment, autism, missing a limb, etc. as part of their Identity, they can't be 'healed' of it.  Rysn's character in the Stormlight Archive series (https://coppermind.net/wiki/Rysn_Ftori) is a great example of someone who's 'ailment' can't be magically healed. It's not presented in a light that one way is right or wrong.  It's an individual thing and I think it's really well presented.  
I think these ideas apply in this discussion.  Some hearing impaired or deaf people see it as part of their identity and don't think they need solutions.  Others do.  There's no one-size-fits-all application. 
 
 

As to my experience with Deaf culture, this statement pretty much sums up why the culture sees this as not the best source:
1) It isn't "healing". It is mechanical.
2) It says that there is something wrong with them.
3) The culture itself is a by-product of how the "hearing" treated deaf persons. Now you have "hearing" people telling them we can cure you.
4) If you spoke to a dwarf and said, "Hey, I have this surgery that would make you taller. You wouldn't be a dwarf anymore." You can see how that might come across a little obtuse. Or maybe an even better one -- this is a taboo comment, so if timid or easily shaken don't read further -- walking up to a flat chested woman and telling her, "Hey we can heal those breasts with a simple augmentation. You will look and feel more like a woman."
5) I haven't met a deaf person who wouldn't have been grateful if a true "miracle" occurred -- like in scripture -- for their hearing.
6) As with any mutation -- not considered normal -- it takes a long time (for many) to come to grips with their state and "love" who they are.
As the procedure gets better, I would assume more deaf persons will be more interested in it. Right now, it is new.

FWIW, I’m not considering using the LDS Church as an excuse for not getting the vaccine.
I believe in being honest.
But then again, I have been investigating the Scientology Church from afar.  I love to watch TV specials with Leah Remini.  And I’m a fan of Tom Cruise movies.
 

I think it's more than not helping the cause.  It's pretty much going directly against what Church leaders have stated.

ETA:  I'm not saying everyone needs to run out and get vaccinated.   I'm saying the First Presidency has been pretty clear what the Church's position is.