carlimac

I have not seen the video. He evidently needs a ministering brother right now who can answer his questions and help him with his conclusions.
Beginning with doctrine, God did not make him gay. This goes against the Church's position that we do not know the causes of why people are attracted to the same sex. The BYU 2019 valedictorian tried to assert this and it is false doctrine, which is why I think Elder Holland in his August 2021 speech to faculty, administration and student leaders used this as an example of "friendly fire." Emotionally vulnerable people need to make Christ the focus of their lives and he will carry them along.
Another point is that nowhere does the Church promote marriage as a function of sexuality, only gender, and that only gender is an essential, eternal characteristic. Again. emotionally vulnerable people cannot easily accept the difference between sexuality and gender.
People who cannot connect with others except through social media transactions will have a very hard time getting through their trials, and helping others with their trials without the Spirit. David has the gift of the Holy Ghost and can be grounded and settled in Christ. The depths of extremity Alma the son of Alma went through before he could find Christ were from sin, but such depths can be felt from physical and emotional pain as well, and Christ is just as ready to save.

Yep, this means I will be there and to some that will seem like hell...but we are both progressing and repenting.

Obviously, it’s hideous to all decent people in 2021. I’m sure even back in 1959 some people found it disturbing.
 
Sadly, sometimes people/institutions do heinous things like this out of ignorance because they were popular at the time. The best we can do is accept that it happened, don’t try to sweep it under the rug, and do our best to ensure that it never happens again.  

I can imagine that.  My wife used to be a public school teacher, so she is accustomed to the effort.  We have a dedicated homeschool room where she works her magic with the kids.  I think it is fair to say that the majority of her time as a mother is spent teaching and preparing.

Indeed; redlining has been illegal since the late 1960s.  I can *sort of* see the argument that white middle class folks from better neighborhoods were able to leave their kids with a bigger inheritance which percolates down to the present day.  On the other hand, speaking anecdotally:  my parents inherited very little on their own parents’ deaths, and what they did inherit was after they were well-established in life.  The “inheritance” that really matters is cultural—a stable trauma-free childhood, two parents in the home who are both engaged in their children’s care and upbringing, and inculcation of values like respect for authority and delayed gratification and resilience and planning for the future.  
I would acknowledge that there are still stereotypes and influences out there that mean that all other things being equal, a black person probably has to work somewhat harder to get ahead in life than a whole person does.  But don’t think that skin tone alone permanently hamstrings a black person’s ambitions in the way the critical race theorists want me to think that it does.  Rejection of traditional American cultural values that critical race theorists pooh-pooh as “whiteness”—the stuff in that infamous Smithsonian infographic, for example; like nuclear families and property rights and rational, linear thinking and independence and self-reliance and scientific method and politeness and ability to keep to a schedule and clarity in speaking and writing and judging people by their intent as well as the results of their actions (https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333)—rejection of those ideals will set you back; in any society, no matter what color your skin is.  

The first step that must be taken by any individual racists promoting their brand of racism - is to convince themselves and others that the human society can (ought to or must) be divided into categories based on nothing other than race.
 
The Traveler

These are the definitions as given in the articles.  And this is about as good as it gets.
These definitions can actually have some beneficial educational applications.  And I'd applaud it if that were the way it is applied.
The reality of how it has been applied is somewhat different.
1) I believe that the history of this country certainly shows rampant examples of systemic racism.  I don't know if anyone could disagree with that statement if one knows history.
2) I believe that we've made HUGE strides in eliminating these vestiges from our legal system.  I don't know if anyone could disagree with that statement if one knows history.
3) I believe we cannot completely get rid of ANY stupid behavior (yes, racism is stupid.  I said it.) among humanity just like we cannot completely get rid of crime.  We keep it to a minimum and do the best we can to deal with the minimum, just deal with it as best we can.
Question: Are we about as good as any flawed, mortal system is ever going to get?  
???
The reason why we can't give clear definitions of what it would look like in schools is that it has indeed been applied differently from location to location and from teacher to teacher.  There really isn't any clear definition.  It is just the "general idea" that "systemic racism exists".  The "what do we do about that" is left out of "official definitions" because part of the strategy of implementation is to allow the imagination to run wild.  And that is where things can get weird depending on the specifics of policy and the notions of teachers and  other individuals.
It could be as simple as "raising awareness" and let people know, "No, belittling someone because of their race is not acceptable" to "kill any white person you see in your neighborhood" (yes, that has happened because of CRT).  
With that wide range, one would think that people should be responsible for their own interpretations. Yes.  But it is interesting how much people have their interpretations "steered" by people who don't say much.
What do you think is the likely emotional response to people being told "There is nothing you can do.  This oppression will always be over your head.  And THOSE guys are responsible"?  If you teach it so that someone absolutely believes that, what is the natural reaction?  No manipulation there.

My question is why can some people look at attractive individuals and not feel any arousal while others look at individuals and it becomes sexual attraction? Why does it become a sexual attraction? Also how is it that some people can be so very happily married to someone who is not physically attractive and produce children with them when sexual attraction is so darned important- like so important that it defines the very labels and identity we give ourselves!? (sarcasm alert)
 
I feel pity for David because if he decides  to lay hold onto what little attraction he has for women in order to obtain the family he wants, he will have to fight the world and community that wants him for their own. He’s kind of a meek guy. I’m not sure he’s strong enough for that fight. The cat’s out of the bag and it’s not ever getting back in!! 

I would never do such a thing.

I’m just here to add to the quote chain

There is an advertisement on TV about "good enough" - sorry I do not remember what was being advertised but the concept is that good enough is a road to failure.  I remember a quote from my first mission president, "Your best is not good enough and good enough is never your best."
I have a trusted friend that does construction work for me.  He struggles with a smoking addiction.  For years I have encouraged him to quit.  I do this because I know he wants to quit.  I offer any assistance or encouragement whenever I can.  A week ago he said he had quit for several days.  I praised him for his efforts.  On this day his #1 assistant was with him and I noticed that he also has a smoking addiction.  I pulled him aside and told him how much I like his boss and then asked him if he could refrain from smoking around his boss that was trying to quit.  He said he would and I thanked him.  I have discovered that such discussion are all but impossible with the LGBTQ+ community - even (and perhaps especially) those that have connections to the Church.
It would seem that things are more open for discussion - but there seems to be a caveat.  That is - that we speak in "support" of the taboos?  We are warned in scripture not to call evil things good and also not to call good things evil.  I have discovered that speaking of such things from a perspective of religion is what is becoming taboo.  Though it is not as rejected - it does appear to me that even science is ignored if it does not support the desired narrative. 
 
The Traveler

I think we talked about Stacey from Studio C.

Both Pavlov and Skinner demonstrated that learning by association (lowest cognitive level of learning) that we may not be aware of the association - thus we may wonder, as the dog, why we are salivating when a light is turned on.   Freud believed that there was a lot of learning going on in infancy and because mothers are the primary care givers that mothers are critical to a child's learning.  Other research has demonstrated that learning is taking place in the womb even before a child is born.   As I stated before - because there are so many varied physical attractions is strong evidence that such types of behaviors are learned or acquired.  If a behavior does not vary across a species it is evidence that such behavior is not acquired but rather genetically imbedded (aka - from G-d).
As for Dave - I believe he has to power to make choices.  I also believe that we make choices difficult by our own inner conflicts that we create for ourselves.  Mostly I fell sad because our society has made it impossible for David to get professional help if he wants to change his sexual conflicts with his chosen religion.  Thus he is only left with his own devises and his personal faith.   I believe that there are ways David can be helped but any help has been defined, not only as bad or evil but illegal.  I believe this creates more inner conflict that leads to more inner inabilities to deal with such issues.
 
The Traveler

I do not want to create condemnation but there are things that are scientifically obvious that do not seem to be socially obvious.  There has been a great deal of research into behaviors and how different species acquire behaviors.  But before I go there I would point out that the scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and alter cognitive behaviors or cognitive responses.  It is obvious that one must be cognitive or aware for controllable behavior or response.  In the human species there are three physical neurological responses - the sympathetic and the parasympathetic both of these systems are associated to cognitive awareness.  Sexual arousal is well defined as a parasympathetic response that can be altered by what is called the lowest cognitive levels of learning.  This was proven by the famous Pavlov's dog experiments.  The third system is called enteric and has nothing to add to this discussion.
The point is that science has demonstrated that parasympathetic responses (including sexual arousal) can be alter and controlled by various learning processes - including the lowest cognitive level of learning.  The other point that demonstrates that sexual arousals are not "G-d" given or genetic imbedded responses in the human species is the vast variety or means by which individuals are sexually aroused. 
At this point I will add my personal conjecture for a reason that sexual attractions may seem unobvious is because - like with Pavlov's dog we may not be aware when and how we are acquiring various parasympathetic responses.  This can also accrue with various fears, like fear of spiders, heights, fire or any number of fears.  In addition in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, without what I would consider a viable explanation, defined sexual attractions as a none treatable behavior - despite knowing full well that sexual attractions are parasympathetic.   It would seem that in our modern society that many scientist are not very scientific.
Something else that we need to understand is that any cognitive behaviors that are directly connected to the release of endorphins present unique problems in learning override behaviors; especially when addictions are involved at any of many levels.
The final thought I would add is that of "Agency".  As a firm believer in the LDS doctrine of agency - I believe that G-d has given the human species (with the cognitive ability to be "accountable") the power of agency.  The primary concern I have for the LBGTQ+ community is a claim that their responses are not within their ability of agency.  It is my personal belief that one can lose their agency - I am not sure that the loss of agency is something that can be completed in this life.    I could be convinced on way or the other by significant scientific evidence or by revelation that is confirmed to by by the Holy Ghost - that has not happened to my understanding.
I remain unconvinced that a railing accusation is NOT the best or primary means to call anyone to repentance -rather from the D&C 121:
 
The Traveler

On a personal note, I certainly wish Archuleta the best.
On a broader cultural note:  I wonder whether we will ever see the day when men who publicly commit to chastity while maintaining that their attraction to children was God-created and God-approved, can get the same degree of sympathy and support and acceptance as men like Archuleta who publicly commit to chastity while maintaining that their attraction to other men was God-created and God-approved.
I rather don’t think we will.
Because I think that in our heart of hearts we all know that when someone says “this is how I was created and God doesn’t mind”—they are, consciously or not, laying the foundation to justify a future course of tangible action.

People can be who they are but there are consequences. The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual. I feel Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven would be more accepting of mistakes and imperfections in us that McConkie was. And besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him and his very assertive and, frankly, scary style of preaching. 
But Vort I can see why you would like him. Your style isn't too unlike his. Just an observation. Not meant to be a cut. Some people are more straight liners than others.  

People can be who they are but there are consequences. The main thing I felt missing from Elder McConkie's style was any love or genuine concern for the individual. I feel Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven would be more accepting of mistakes and imperfections in us that McConkie was. And besides that, he was wrong on at least one issue so I lost trust in him and his very assertive and, frankly, scary style of preaching. 
But Vort I can see why you would like him. Your style isn't too unlike his. Just an observation. Not meant to be a cut. Some people are more straight liners than others.  

Good point.  He was an apostle of Christ.  But all apostles and prophets are people with different styles and personalities.  Just look at the current 15.  They’re all unique.  They preach the same gospel but do so in different ways.  Just like we have four different  writers of the Gospels.  
Individual church members often gravitate toward some General Authorities  more than others.  I have my favorites.  You probably have yours. 

Yes, you are right. 😀

Just as an aside, I’ve been trying to understand why so many people in today’s America say, “No, you’re right” (and other such similar incongruous expressions) rather than saying, Yes, you’re right.” As a consequence,  I’ve been trying to locate some kind of English language expert who can explain to me why this strange linguistic phenomenon is happening so often lately?
“Am I right in my assessment?” Yes. “If so, is it good?” Yes. So maybe someone can explain to me why so many 21st century Americans start affirmative answers to yes and no questions with a ‘no’ rather than a “yes?’

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.

The Church has to meet people where they are; and the simple fact is that a critical mass of people today don’t respond to Elder McConkie’s style the way they would have a couple of decades ago.
I think this is perhaps both good and bad.
On the one hand, I think there can be some nuance to the Gospel that—while I’m sure Elder McConkie was aware of it—it often isn’t fully captured by his rhetoric.  (But then, maybe that’s just the nature and constraints of teaching over the pulpit;  because I can’t really think of many modern apostles whose Conference talks are significantly more nuanced than McConkie or whose understanding of the Atonement are clearly deeper than his.)  Moreover—while Elder McConkie was indeed a giant, he is only one apostle out of over a hundred that we’ve had since the Restoration.  Twenty-two more apostles have been called after Elder McConkie.  There are only so many weeks (and therefore, Sunday School lessons) in a year, and it’s inevitable that the influence of old apostles will to some degree fade away as the Curriculum Committee tries to update its materials to include the light and knowledge we’ve received since Elder McConkie’s day.
On the other hand:  I think it’s pretty obvious that our society is plunging headlong into a state where it is ever less-willing to endure ideas it doesn’t want to hear, and willing to go to greater and greater lengths to silence and punish those who engage in WrongThink.  Elder McConkie stridently condemned sin, in ways that tend to alienate people today.  McConkie was also very fundamentalist in issues like creationism and scriptural interpretation; and our “science”-worshipping youth for whatever reason feel like there isn’t room enough in the Church for both McConkie and themselves. To the extent that modern Church discourse cites Elder McConkie less than it used to—I think this is probably part of the reason why, and I’m not sure it reflects well on the people that the Church is trying to reach.
 

Doesn't matter: they're all give you the exact same answer.  Just like my daughter is going to get the exact same message from both my hobby and I when she asks "Can I play my tablet in the middle of the night?".  Father, Son, and Spirit are on the exact same page caring for us all.  
 
(Speaking my personal thoughts)
In the eternities, we'll get to know each of the three different persons individually.  But for right now, it's more of a combined thing.  Our understanding of God is SO basic right now.

I'm agreeing with you carlimac.  The notion that our prophet is "acting as guinea pig" by taking a vaccine that has been tested on tens of thousands of people, found to be safe and effective, is preposterous.

*sigh*.   Ok, person0, let's quote directly from your link.
So again, here's where ignorance about mortality and control groups and double-blind studies and whatnot, really do a number on someone's ability to understand what's truth and what isn't.
No really - put 30,000 people in one room and give 'em the shot, put another 30,000 people in another room and don't give them any shot.  Track everyone's health, symptoms, and deaths.   The 30k unvaccinated folks have about the same amounts of deaths, syndromes, cancer, rotting teeth, erectile dysfunction, and cell phone reception as the 30k who got the shot.   So when we hear that someone got the shot and died, we ask why, and we hear "yep, they were sick and at death's door already.  Nothing to do with the vaccine."
Can you understand that, person0?