MrShorty

In book 1, she is born prescient, speaking within seconds of being born.  If I remember correctly, book 2 shows her as a teenager.  Pretty hard to find a better tragic character that surpasses Alia in tragic tragedy.  I'm looking forward to seeing the next movie, to see if they do anything with her.

That's an awfully presumptive (and accusative) question.
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."  Yes. I'm familiar with all such verses. But you're making the same mistake that so many others make when reading this entire passage.  Context matters.
Jesus was explaining that the Law of Moses was a lesser law.  Now he was asking his followers to raise the bar.
Thou shalt not kill -- > Don't be angry, don't cuss them out, don't call him names. Thou shalt not commit adultery --> Don't even look upon a woman (who isn't your wife) to lust after her. Always stay true to your oaths --> Keep all your commitments regardless of whether you've sworn a formal oath or not.  Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Love thy neighbor --> Love thine enemy. Do you honestly believe that being angry at someone is equal to killing them?
Notice that I said "they can be a member in good standing" and "your thoughts and feelings are of lesser magnitude."  That doesn't mean they are without sin or weakness.  It means that it isn't cause for excommunication or other Church discipline.  I'd hope you understand the difference.
Some may think I'm psychotic for admitting this, but I've had several times in my life where I was so angry with someone, who I definitely believed to have been worthy of capital punishment, that I began planning out how I might dispose of the body such that I could get away with it.  And, yes, I believe I could have disposed of enough evidence that there would have been much more than reasonable doubt as to my guilt.
Am I worthy of excommunication?  Have I lost all opportunity for Celestial Glory?  No.  Why?  Because I never went through with it.  I never ACTED on that plan.
Was that mental exercise a sin?  Absolutely.  But the sin I was guilty of certainly wasn't murder.
We all have weaknesses.  We all have evil tendencies.  And if every tendency or thought was exactly the same as the act, we'd all be in a lot of trouble.

I totally understand the strong opinion against using preferred pronouns and acknowledging transitions and whatnot.  But I have to balance Judge not and Judging with Oaks' Divine Love talk from 2022, and also include what's in the handbook, where "Transgender Individuals" now has an entire section all for itself.
Folks are making sure that last sentence's use of the term "may", gets highlighted.  But at the end of the day, if Fred turns into Shelia and wants to be called sister Shelia and moves into your ward, your bishop may chose to announce it in sacrament as "We've received the records of sister Shelia Lastname.  Everyone who can raise a hand of fellowship for Shelia and her family, please indicate by raising the right hand."
Would you raise your hand and welcome the person born Fred but wants to be called Shelia?

I didn't see this yet.  So...
 

So, your mileage may vary, but here's just my thoughts:
I've been actively seeking out folks who tinker with their pronouns, so I could see for myself what I thought about them and their pronouns.  I've found maybe a dozen over the years, been able to speak with a handful, and gotten to know maybe one or two.  What I've discovered, is that the 2nd great commandment pretty much settles matters.  If you can respect someone's basic humanity, and find ways to show them that respect, they'll return the favor.   In my discussions with these folks, I don't think I've used their preferred pronouns a single time.  I just focus on using their names and restructuring my sentences so I don't need a pronoun. 
I totally get that some folks would consider using a trans person's preferred pronoun to be lying, and therefore they won't do it.  And I've met umpteen million people who consider using the pronoun to be a virtuous thing, and go out of their way to accept and advance the agenda.  Both sides of the issue require passing a judgment.  So far, I'm making it through life just plain old choosing not to pass judgment one way or the other.  People have always been able to change their names, and if a Fred wants to be called Shelia, then whatever.  Pronoun usage communicates a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the thing, and Imma just hold on to my choice to decline to pass that judgment.   
I think Elder Oaks has my back here, but again, your mileage may vary.

I agree when we take it in the most direct manner and interpretation (And that is normally the one I use...I provide the following only to show that though we probably should take the more conservative interpretation for ourselves, perhaps we should not be as harsh on others if ever in a leadership position and someone has difficulties)...
Though there IS another interpretation of the scripture that makes it a little easier.
When using the word lust, it is the idea that if they had the opportunity to do so, they WOULD do so.  That they actually DESIRE it strongly to the point that they WISH they had such.
It is the same type of terminology that lust has been utilized in the past for other items.  A more understandable idea is the LUST for riches.  When one lusts for riches it isn't just looking at wealth and saying..gosh darn..that looks nice.  It is actually wishing you had it and if you had the opportunity, you wouldn't turn it away, you would actually take and keep those riches. 
It is where you have already determined in your heart that if you had the opportunity to do something or gain something, you would do something or gain it.  You just have not had the opportunity as of yet (if ever). 

My stance on pronouns is this:
I have such a history of head trauma that I'm lucky to even remember names when I meet people the first time. 
Pronouns represent double the information I have to try and recall, making it more likely I'm going to botch something. 
If you're patient with me, I'll try to be patient with you. 

Yep, and the recourse already open to all teachers, bishops, and friends, is to call child protective services if they believe the child may be harmed at home, so the government can conduct an investigation.
What is happening in schools across America, is parents are being kept in the dark by school officials based sometimes on nothing more than the child's worry about their parent's reaction. 
This is largely a parents' rights vs. states' responsibility to protect it's citizens issue.  Both are important, there's always tinkering with where the various lines should be drawn.  But the pendulum has swung waaaaaay to far left in many areas.  
"My dad'll freak out if I tell him" is being interpreted as "this poor kid will commit suicide unless I provide gender-affirming care and help the child hide things from their parents".   I get you're worried about ignorant parents pushing hate into their kids.  Hopefully, in light of the stuff I've showed you (including "We'll convert your children.  Happens bit by bit.  Quietly and subtly, and you will barely notice it."), you might see there's more to the story happening here.  
They tell me maybe 1-2% of the humans might have some form of gender issue, from a biological (hormonal, structural, chromosomal, etc) issue, to a mental (gender dysphoria, body dysmorphia, etc) issue.  In response, some elementary schools are asking children to pick their pronouns, middle schools are exposing children to sexually explicit adult drag shows, where sometimes the kids participate.  (You'll have to find those links yourself, posting them would be a violation of site rules, but I've seen at least five in the last year.)
There needs to be a happy medium found.  I'd suggest the 2nd great commandment is a good place to start, even for an atheist person such as yourself. 

Had an event last week that can barely be qualified as an incident, but it has stayed with me for several reasons. It was with my work (an online school). We were having a truancy meeting with a family. Again, it was interesting in many ways, but Mom's big argument for why her family needs a way around the truancy issue is because of religion. Her family is very religious (not Latter-Day Saints) and do not want to attend in-person school due to problematic influences. 
Okay, I can totally respect that. Not an uncommon reason for people attending our school at all. She complained about stuff in our curriculum but how it was still better than she could see what was there and discuss these things with her kids. Again, very fair and understandable.
The odd thing was that she kept saying "You Mormons just don't understand. I used to be Mormon and no one understands how important these family values are." 
The thing was, I'm positive I was the only church member at that meeting. Yet she just kept repeating stuff about how Mormons don't understand anything and referring to us as "those Mormons" just because we happen to be located in Utah just like her.
Nothing came of it, but it was really strange for a professional setting.

Come thou fount of every blessing.
Prone to wander, Lord I feel it
Prone to leave the God I love
Here's my heart Lord, take and seal it
Seal it for Thy courts above.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could hand our heart over to the Lord.  Unfortunately, we can’t.
We are prone to error.  Thank the Lord that the means have been provided for us to overcome sin.  It’s meant to be a process not a single event.
And every time we repent sincerely we witness the atonement. 

Mosiah 5:2 the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.
I have experienced this feeling at times, times I have really felt the Spirit, such as going to the temple and other spiritual moments. But it never lasts, the appeal of sin, any sin, eventually returns. 
My question is to what degree is this condition sustainable? Should we be able to, if diligent enough, maintain this condition always? Part of me wants to say yes but another part says a significant part of our mortal experience would cease should sin lose it's appeal.

Actually now I've got the rant out I feel better - even though no one's read it. I deleted it as it wasn't very charitable about a certain person (who has admittedly given me a lot of grief).
Sorry for the non-topic. I'll add an Adrian Plass quote instead. He's talking about how he shared his cheese and pickle sandwiches despite the fact that he wanted them all for himself:
"Life is mainly a choice between what you don't want and what you really don't want. I didn't want to share my cheese and pickle, but I really didn't want to be a follower of Jesus who didn't share his cheese and pickle. Every day you get these choices, like little tiny Gethsemanes, and the decisions you make are crucially important."

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
Alma 36:12 But I was racked with eternal torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.
Mosiah 27:23 And it came to pass after they had fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights, the limbs of Alma received their strength, and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort
I think that Mosiah 27:23 is the best evidence I have come across that Doctrine and Covenants 19: 7 refers to a type of punishment rather than a duration and that eternal punishment can actually be for only a very short period of time.
(I feel so much less stressed now knowing that all the bad stuff could all be over in just 2 days)
 

I was hoping to have an interesting and challenging discussion about abuse and abuse education in the church. 
I did not mean to make this about gender. 

 
My points were:
 
-The church doesn’t teach or train enough about the patterns of abuse, and A LOT of harm is caused by that.
-Abusers tend to be charismatic and abuse out of a belief of entitlement and control.
-The abuser is more likely to be the one who has their stuff together and to be a ‘handshaker’ that shows up to activities.
-The abused is more likely to look like they are falling apart.
-Abusers are making choices based on beliefs.  They don’t typically have a disorder.
-Physical and sexual abuse are only the visible parts of an iceberg.

 
I did not mean to come across as a man-hater, or like I think all men, or even a large portion of men are abusers.  I believe strongly that gender differences are eternal and happiness comes from embracing the best in our natures.  I was trying to sincerely share my own experiences and what I have learned so far and what I would like to see change.

I am planning a longer response; but prefer to do so on a full keyboard rather than a smart phone (since this is a delicate topic and I want to give it the care it deserves) and I cannot access this site with my work computer.
To be very brief:  I am a lawyer practicing child welfare law.  I take domestic abuse extremely seriously.  I also recognize the horror of emotional abuse, while also being painfully aware that “emotional abuse” can be a slippery term that is often weaponized in order to delegitimize “perpetrators” or excuse the destructive behaviors of “victims” in ways that lead to unjust results as accusers cash in on the sympathy society has traditionally offered to survivors of physical, sexual, and unquestionable emotional abuse; ultimately cheapening those survivors’ experiences and sufferings.  I am also aware that in a significant minority of cases, domestic abuse by one partner (whether physical or emotional) is often a response/escalation to abusive behavior by the other partner.
I am further aware that, in certain circles of Mormonism, it has become fashionable to use terms like “abuse” or “violence” to describe a situation where the Church is doing something the speaker happens to disagree with.  And if the criticism in the OP is that the LDS Church isn’t doing enough to deal with “emotional abuse” perpetrated within LDS families—I’m not altogether sure it’s fair to attack the Church for an inadequate response to a phenomenon that I, who am supposed to deal with that phenomenon for a living (and who hold government certification to do so), am not entirely sure how to define or (in the absence of explicit victim disclosure) identify.
In light of all that, I wanted to take a little more time with your post to really make sure I understood what your position is (and what it is not) and reply in an accurate, articulate, and appropriately nuanced way; and in the interim I asked a probing question so I could better understand the breadth and scope of your position.
And to the extent that your response tries to create a power dynamic by evoking in us a sense that we should feel shame for having manifested a disturbing sense of sexism that is (presumably) outside the bounds of normal humanity:  on what basis do we, your audience, acknowledge that you are simply participating in the traditional rough-and-tumble of people with varying opinions trying to debate and negotiate over their positions, as opposed to—say—accusing you of perpetrating emotional abuse against us?
These are tough questions; they deserve thoughtful responses.  You’ve clearly done your homework.  Give us some time to do the same!

Not discounting other things you have posted, but a stat of 10-1 is way off.  Somewhere between 70/30 to a 60/40 split would be more accurate (my knowledge comes from 26 years responding to domestic violence calls.)  I would lean towards 65/35.

Amazingly, one of the biggest advocates of paying attention to male victims of abuse was a very leftwing feminist professor I had in college for just one class. Everyone here (including me) would disagree with her on 99% of issues, but to her eternal credit she had no tolerance for those who believed the rubbish that only women are victims of abuse. 

Interesting; thanks!
Your post (understandably) focuses on emotional abuse perpetrated by husbands against their wives.  For the sake of rounding out the discussion:  what kinds of emotional abuse would you say husbands are at risk of suffering from their wives?  What indicators of female-on-male emotional abuse should church leaders be watching for, in addition to the flags you list above?

*I do have grace for the lack of knowledge on the part of leaders.  It is difficult to find knowledgeable therapists so it is probably unreasonable on my part to expect church leaders to understand things that are just being understood in the mental health field.
*I’m still mad about it, though.
*I also think it is time to be DONE enabling abuse, and the way to do that is through education and conversations.


 “I urge each of us to be alert to anyone who might be in danger of being abused and to act promptly to protect them. The Savior will not tolerate abuse, and as His disciples, neither can we.”  -President Nelson
 
You can’t say that you have a zero tolerance for abuse, and then NOT educate your leaders on what abuse actually looks like.  My husband and I have spent 2 decades in the 12 step program and it was minimally helpful because it focuses on addiction and not the abusive patterns that are typically present in addiction.  I have read through the church abuse materials (reread it again today), most of it is relevant to child sexual abuse, there is hardly anything about emotional abuse and spouses aren’t mentioned on the list of possible abusers.  When we first got married things immediately changed and I thought I was a bad person for wanting out.  I read all the church materials I could get my hands on, and the advice was essentially "Give 100% and don't find fault".  Which is possibly good advice, unless you are dealing with an entitled abuser.  Then it is gasoline on the flames.
 
I felt my hackles rise when I heard President Nelson say the church has a zero tolerance for abuse in the October 2022 session.  I have been married for over 20 years, and separated from my husband just after our anniversary this summer. It was two decades of sexual coercion (pouting and insulting me every 48-72 hours if I didn’t initiate) and emotional abuse (blaming his behavior on me, telling me I am mean and unthankful if I called him out, etc.).  He was very controlling of my time when he was home, wasn’t OK with me spending time on myself or with friends, expected me to spend any free time with him, would follow me around the house and unlock doors, etc. When we separated he was the first counselor.  Very fortunately for both of us, he chose to go to intensive group therapy and individual counseling for abusers, and things are AMAZING now.  He says he is happier than he has ever been and he never knew that what he was running away from (responsibility for his emotions and behavior) would lead to what would be the most fulfilling.  I am actually choosing him now because he is worth choosing, not because if I don’t he will punish me.

 
Stuff leaders need to know:
 
-Physical or sexual abuse are the visual parts of an iceberg.  Emotional abuse is not a separate issue, but a less visual type of harm that has the same root of entitlement and control.
 
-Lying is abuse and causes trauma.  (see Omar Minwalla’s paper titled ‘The Secret Sexual Basement: The Traumatic Impacts of Deceptive Sexuality on the Intimate Partner and the Relationship.’).  It is possible you don’t have control over yourself around porn/gambling/substances, but you 100% can choose whether or not to lie about it after.
 
-Honesty and controlling yourself financially and sexually are minimal standards of a marriage.  If you don’t have these (or aren’t moving very steadily towards them), you can’t work on anything else and the marriage is unviable.
 
-  “God does not value men more than women, or the institution of marriage more than the people who are in it.”-  Leslie Vernick. If you prioritize preserving the marriage above the well-being of the individuals in the marriage you are enabling abuse and NOT valuing celestial marriage.  Celestial marriage is a higher standard of spouses working together and caring for each other as EQUALS.  Both.  Not the wife carrying some toddler-man around for eons.
 
-Abusers are more likely to look charming and put together than their abused spouse.  They tend to be the hand shakers that show up to all the activities. They care about appearances and power.
 
-The abused spouse tends to look like someone who has their reality dumped upside down and is told their opinion doesn’t matter on a regular basis.  Like they are JUST BARELY keeping it together.  
 
-Abusers will twist the marriage counseling process and use it as another tool to control their spouse and shift responsibility off of themselves.  Counseling the couple together is not appropriate until the abuser is in solid recovery (See Darby Strickland’s pamphlet “Domestic Abuse: Recognize, Respond, Rescue.”)
 
I am in a few groups that are for spouses of sex addicts and for women who are experiencing emotional abuse.  Over and over and over again I hear stories of bishops saying things like ‘You need to work on your trust’ or ‘You seem to be the one with the issues’ when they are married to someone who lies as easily as breathing.  If he hasn’t committed adultery or hit you for the past 3 years, then apparently the responsibility is on the wife to learn to trust, even if he continues to use porn, lie, control, blameshift, etc.  These women are already emotionally drowning and the church is causing them harm by NOT educating bishops on the patterns of abuse.  
 
One of the best choices I have made was to finally listen to myself and step away from my marriage.  If he didn’t change, I was done.  I am VERY glad he woke up and chose to change.  If he didn’t it would have been very difficult, but my kids and I would have been better off in the long run.  I believe knowledge is power and bishops will be better able to help families actually heal if they get training in recognizing the patterns of abuse.
 
Thanks for reading.

There are many LDS that are professional athletes and play on Sunday.  I really like Tony Finau.  Olympic athletes too.

Photo from last Sunday.  I watched him play on Sat.
I take community call and fix emergent fractures on Sundays occasionally.  I try to stay out of the hospital on the weekends if at all possible.
Eli Herring specifically states that he does not judge any LDS athletes that play on Sunday.
Its a personal preference between each person and their God.
I personally couldn’t recommend that any Saint go watch a sporting event on Sunday.  Although I have done so in the past.

My wife just reminded me of this anecdote:
When our youngest was maybe four, we knew that he had almost learned what it meant to refrain from telling people what their Christmas presents were when he told one of his brothers, "You're getting sewing machine underwear for Christmas!", thus preserving the secret that the brother was actually getting race car underwear.

There was also this guy (among others in the sports world.) 
 
So yeah, you do you and discuss decisions with the Lord.
 

To your true statement I would also add a caveat (sort of). Because we are judged according to our understanding of His word the Lord is at times willing to look past sub-optimal observance of His laws, such that what is deemed mercifully "acceptable" at one point in our progression may be unacceptable later on. But you are completely correct in that it is observance of the law according to God's understanding that is the one true way and the point we need to ultimately arrive at. And there is no playing stupid in God's kingdom.

We watched the king's coronation today. First time I ever saw one (except on film of course) - I wasn’t born when the queen was crowned. One disappointment though: no coronets. To explain, peers of the realm (lords) have robes and crowns similar to the monarch's (though naturally less elaborate) and though they do wear the robes on some occasions, they NEVER wear their crowns (or coronets) except at the coronation. I had been intrigued to see what they all looked like with their silly hats on, but no such luck. In the new "slimmed down" ceremony the peers were "requested" not to wear their crowns. Well, this was the only time in a generation they'd ever get to wear them, so what is the point of not letting them?
Yes, yes, I know - monarchy is an anachronism and we ought to have a President like the good ol' U S of A, apple pie and all the rest of it. Actually I'm quite fond of apple pie, but we've had a king (or queen) for well over a millenium and it would be a shame to abolish it just to keep up with our American cousins. (Our good sister Anatess would have plenty or answers to that if she were here, but of course she's not.)

Your desire to observe the Sabbath Day is commendable. But ultimately how you observe it is between you and the Lord. 
Having said that I think you already recognize that attending the event isn't the optimal way of observing the Sabbath. But if you do decide to go I would highly recommend finding ways to honor the Sabbath to whatever degree you can.