mordorbund

You hold infants to such high standards
 

Marvin Perkins has argued—he thinks, convincingly—that BoM references to “black” or “white” have nothing to do with skin color.  

I generally agree with you here; though I would note that in a LDS context “bishops” are often people we’ve known for 10-20+ years before they became bishops and who we trust, in large part, because of that previous association.
I would ask, though:  Would you leave your child alone with a teacher or a psychologist or an LCSW?  What about (assuming you were a widow or divorced) a romantic partner?
I’m all on board with “trust but verify”.  What I’m not on board with, is the notion that church leaders (especially LDS ones, who have not actively sought the positions they hold) are particularly suspect compared to other trusted adults in a child’s orbit.  A staggering proportion of child sex abuse is perpetrated by a parent’s new flame.  My parents are teachers; so other teachers were a big part of our family’s social circle.  And as you know, I work with psychologists and counselor/therapists and LCSWs multiple times per week (and MDs several times per month) and have gotten to know quite a few of them reputationally and personally.  “Education” and “certification” don’t necessarily translate as “trustworthiness” or even “general decency” or “good intent”.  Not-uncommonly, the reverse is actually true.
Again, I’ll reiterate my support for “trust, but verify”.  But I will also unabashedly say that if we are unable to verify and must resort to comparing the traits of “trustworthiness”, “general decency”, and “good intention” (and heck, I’ll also throw in “sexual restraint”) as between a random professional and a random LDS bishop—I’d pick the random LDS bishop every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

But that’s just it.  They *should be*, because—outliers aside—they were *intended to be*.
Churches have traditionally advanced ethical frameworks around, inter alia, marriage and sexuality; which tended to prevent women from being used for transactionalized sex, empowered them to turn down undesireable suitors, disincentivized husbands who might otherwise later be tempted to abandon their wives, reinforced family ties that designated the father as the primary protector of the women in his household against physical and sexual and economic abuse, and stigmatized men who failed to live up to their obligations under this system.  The fact that some—perhaps even many—men abused their various roles within these structures, doesn’t make the structure inferior to the calculatedly systematic exploitation of women and children (or the just-plain-anarchy) that prevailed in various earlier societies.
(And, let’s be honest here:  your average Reddit guy may gloat in feigned horror over the SBC sex scandal—but in his heart of hearts, he’s really just remembering all those church girls who wouldn’t get drunk and sleep with him and other guys whose motivations matched his own.  These girls, statistically, are a much larger sample than those who were unfortunately victimized by their own ecclesiastical leaders.  Our Reddit guy knows that for all their problems, these churches have actually deterred the exploitation of their female members that he would have committed if he could. That’s why he hates them so much.  You’ll note that our Reddit guy doesn’t hate or talk about the mainline liberal churches who also have occasional bad guys in the pastoral ranks but who were already openly telling their youth that sexual promiscuity was part of normal adolescence/ is inoffensive to God/ is not something for which one ought to have any degree of accountability). 
Schools, too, are theoretically supposed to (among other things) empower kids with knowledge that makes them more resistant to exploitation by charlatans and schemers.  Whether they acruelly accomplish that, is certainly a fair question.  But then, it’s overwhelmingly not conservatives who are administering and staffing the public schools these days; it’s not conservatives who are forcing kids to attend those schools with the threat of imprisoning their parents if they don’t; and it’s not conservatives offering the schools full legal immunity for any outrages perpetrated by their staffs or on their campuses.  If leftists want to pooh-pooh public education as sort of a child grooming operation, I guess I won’t push back too hard so long—so long as I’m allowed to point out that the “groomers” here are overwhelmingly their allies, not mine.

This movie had an interesting question about Job.
A Hallmark style rom-com about a widowed pastor and his late wife's sister getting together.  The sister is not too keen on religion.  She asks the question about Job:
This doesn't really seem like it is germane to the story until you realize how sad and incomplete the pastor has been.  He's kept a stiff upper lip (as they say).  And he tries to smile his way through the day.  But when he realizes he's in love again, he chases her down and they have a happy ending.
I'm not really doing it justice.  But at the end, everyone is happy that he found love again.
I think that we hear that "Job got another wife" and miss the fact that "he fell in love again."

@mirkwood, if I can entrap @LDSGator into coming into your jurisdiction, can you please arrest him for me?

It is my considered opinion that truly profound doctrine almost exclusively focuses on one or more of four topics:
1. Faith
2. Repentance
3. Baptism
4. Reception of the Holy Ghost
The only modification I might make to the above declaration is reconsidering the use of the word "almost".

Odd, when I grab my phone and say "Siri, call waifu", it calls my wife.  
(My wife is also my dakimakura, but be careful googling that, or you might think less of me for knowing the word.)

When I was in 8th grade we had to do a report on our biological family and their nationality. I’m adopted and at that time did now know my biological family . I also have blonde hair, blue eyes, and I am the whitest white guy you’ve ever seen.

With a complete straight face, I did my report on a local native american tribe.  I didn’t claim membership-but I dared anyone to call me out on it. 

 

As my dad liked to say, you can't please all the people all the time, but with a little effort, you can make them all mad.

First off, the image of sticks representing the records of Judah and Joseph is a secondary interpretation. As with the previous chapter where the assembled bones serve as a testimony of resurrection, the primary message is that Israel and Judah will be reunited. That said, the two sticks as records fits better than bones as resurrection because the Book of Mormon (as stated by Nephi) is a precursor and a facilitator of that reconciliation.
Now, on the point of the reliability of reading the sticks as books, it turns out that the word “wood” is far more versatile than you give it credit for.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=26&article=1011&context=mi&type=additionalhttps://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=26&article=1011&context=mi&type=additional
 
see the section on “What is an ‘Etz’?

And then suddenly they jump to 90 or whenever they start taking pride in being older. There's a lot of living packed into that year.

Still haven't found it yet, but this seems to be closer:
 

It's 29. Men!

Haha...I can just imagine some cheeky kid calling his mother "woman" and when scolded for it saying: "But didn't you say we should follow Jesus' example?"

Looks like @NeuroTypical is getting a new signature.

Looks like @NeuroTypical is getting a new signature.

Looks like @NeuroTypical is getting a new signature.

Looks like @NeuroTypical is getting a new signature.

Heber C. Kimball was a true prophet.

Nope. I'm on page 5.  No mention of blacks.  "Bro, Elder Ables" appears to have had a complaint about how he was treated ("misused"), but no details are offered, and by the middle of page 6 we're on to another topic. Page 7 has mention of "coloured population" and Bro Ables being "advised" to visit them.  The end.
That would have been a waste of time but for the highlight of this document: Brother Kimball telling people who couldn't stop evil speaking of others to "make a hole in their tongue and put in a ring and tie it up to something" ... concluding with quoting "hold your tongue and mind your own business".

The point is that this doesn't jibe with the calendar of events.  Did Coltrin remember properly or not?
Maybe a certain year may have escaped memory.  But when he specifically says that it was during his tenure of the Quorum of Seventy, that is a related event of which he had clear memory.  Coltrin had some sort of conversation of this matter in 1835.  And there is clear proof that Able was not denied temple blessings until after 1852.
If you deny this, you must deny his relating of events as "clear and convincing."  If this is not clear and convincing, then stop harping on it.  It is not a dependable accounting of events or wording.
Then you would have to also explain that Joseph refused to tell anyone else.  Did Joseph simply "forget"?  Was Brigham never told?  What has a previous prophet not informed the next senior apostle of a major point of doctrine?
I read that page you linked to.  I couldn't find anything to corroborate what you said.  If they said anything about not recognizing him as an Elder, you'll have to point to it. 
As far as "only" preaching to black people, you inserted that word into the document.  That word does not appear in such context.  He was assigned to preach to the black population, yes.  This is just like a Spanish speaking missionary in the US being assigned to Spanish wards/branches.  That does not preclude them from teaching whomever they come across if the occasion warrants it.  As a note, I was a Span-Am.  And I did teach to English speaking families on two occasions for special reasons.
So, please point out the words you claimed.
Nothing in that document talks about Blacks being ordained to the priesthood or not.  And they actually speak very highly of Blacks.  They say that if they were simply given the same upbringing and rights as Whites, they would behave as whites and probably better. 
What is your point with this document? 

That link shows a page which reads in part: "Brother Pratt arose and stated that the duty of the 12 is to ordain and send men to their native country.  Brother Able was advised to visit the colored plantation. The advice was sanctioned by the conference."  Then they changed subjects and talked about the temple.  

I can't really see how this record supports your claim.  I see nothing about how he shouldn't be publicly recognized as Elder.  There's nothing there about "only" preaching to black people - you added that yourself.  It wasn't 3 Q12 members, it was Brother Pratt.   It wasn't something he "stated", it was something he "advised".  Everyone agreed it was good advice. 
 
?    This page seems to be good evidence for a position exactly opposite what you're claiming.   "Elder Hyde enquired the situation of the Negro. I replied they come into the world slaves, mentally & physically. Change their situation with the whites, & they would be like them. They have souls & are subjects of Salvation. Go into Cincinati. or any city, and find an educated negro. who rides in his carriage, and you will see a being who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability."  Joseph is basically saying "there's really no difference between black and white folk, other than the circumstances of their environment, and a black man can do anything a white man can.  Just look at black folk in Cincinnatti."
Yeah, @Maverick I'm glad you're providing links.  They're not supporting your claims.  
 
 

We also have a difficult time getting our women to admit to aging. Many are still "39".
Mutton dressed as lamb indeed.