MrShorty

couldn't agree more. Ironically that’s why I think arguments about “protestant mormons” are so damaging. Someone looking at the faith with fresh eyes is going to see discussions like this and say “Nah, I can get drama and arguments at work, home, etc. I don’t need this in my religious life.” And move on. You might think it doesn’t happen, but I’m assuring you it does. 

I live in the anti-Bible belt (Pacific Northwest) --an area where 67% have no religious preference. It's been like this at least since my childhood (1960s-80s). Nationwide 70% still claim to be Christian. Of course, that's not true--but it's a lot higher than what we feel.
There's is much to frustrate us. However, when the Spirit of God moves it's amazing how many respond. I believe Christianity's best days are yet to come. I'm expecting revival prior to Christ's return. If I'm wrong, come Lord Jesus, come. The harvest really is ripe. I suspect we are much like the prophet's servant. He could only see the approaching enemies. He could not see that angels surrounded and protected him. Likewise, the prophet who told God he was the only faithful one left. God said, no there were still thousands of faithful. We can't give up. We can't give in. We must dig in. 

I still remember when the Reagan administration (which I still love) claimed that ketchup was a vegetable. At the time I fancied myself a strong conservative and tried to defend providing minimal school lunches. As I've aged I've moderated. Sadly, for some kids their best meals are the ones schools provide. They should be filling and yummy. I suspect that a strong school lunch program would do more to prevent crime and violence than a boatload of gun restrictions. Oh...and I suspect Jesus would favor generous school lunches. 😉

Over the years I've told various stories of being faced with having to forgive a rapist, abusive in-laws, incestuous BILs.  Succeeding in following the commandment to forgive has probably been about the greatest aid to the life of peace I've been able to live.   Being able to look at someone who has done incredible evil, inflicted indescribable harm on someone you love, and being filled with compassion for them, is truly one of the best things about this life.  If I should be so lucky as to go to heaven, and see them there, I would leap for joy, because it would mean they found a way to make themselves right with the Lord.  
Not only are such things possible, without betraying the people who were hurt, but it's also a commandment to do so.
So, from that standpoint, let me be blunt.  If you don't forgive Hitler, an uncaught and unrepentant criminal, and the person who hurt and wronged you, then you carry a sin worse than the sin they carried.  That's how we interpret that statement. 
Another way to put it, if you can think of someone you wouldn't want to share heaven with, then you don't need to worry, because you won't make it there in the first place.
In order to reach our great reward, we must give up earthly mortal notions of fair, justice, and mercy.  God simply does it better, in ways we simply can't comprehend in some situations.
 

Greater than the sin his brother committed against him. At least, that's how I've always understood it. I've always wrestled with this doctrine; it's so unfair. But when I decry something as unfair, in almost all cases it means I don't understand what's really going on. And so I think is the case here. We in our mortal state dutifully strain out insignificant gnats while swallowing whole camels, and often don't even realize that's what we're doing.

D&C 64:9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.
Greater than what? Greater than any sin someone may have committed against us? I can think of some sins that to me are worse than withholding forgiveness. Of course any sin left unrepented of will have a damning influence upon us and leaves us "condemned before the Lord", but in the hierarchy of sins I would say there are some far worse. So how do we interpret that statement?

Churches sometimes have problems--aspects that outsiders criticize and aspects that older teenagers and young adults find more difficult to accept than past generations did. Examples:
1. Politics are too conservative: Both of our churches lean right. The last U.S. president was particularly difficult for some to stomach. My short answer is that how members vote, despite their insistence to the contrary, is more a mark of their politics than it is a religious distinctive. The #1 reason many in my fellowship vote conservative is that they are prolife. Members will sometimes say, "I don't know how a true Christian could vote for a proabortion politician." They can say that, but there is no political litmus test in church.
2. Church doesn't do enough for the environment. My church might be especially guilty on this because we believe Jesus will return at any time. So, some members disregard environmentalism. Nevertheless, "creation care," is something Christians of many stripes embrace. We may not be the most earth friendly, but taking care of what God made is scriptural.
3. Sexual holiness codes are hypocritical and especially hurtful to LGBT. First, they are not hypocritical. Adultery, fornication, and porn viewing are all sinful. We don't talk as much about this because very few Christians are advocating porn viewing, fornication or adultery. They know it is sinful even if it happens a lot. We love LGBT folks, just as we love those who fornicate, commit adultery, or view porn. Nevertheless, if there is sin the call is to repentance--not affirmation.
4. History: The two biggest TV evangelist scandals of the 1980s were of Assemblies of God ministers--Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. What most don't know is that both men were defrocked. We don't speak ill of them. What they do is now between them and God. As a result, some believe that they faced no accountability. They did. Rather than submit to our restoration process they gave up their ministers' credentials.
5. Overemphasis on doctrinal distinctives. Usually this has to do with our belief that speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence that one has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is our teaching, and the belief can be explained biblically. However, we're quick to add that when people convert to Christianity they immediately walk with the Holy Spirit, and many will enter the kingdom who have not and will not speak in tongues. 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faces many of these broad issues. Some can be answered fairly quickly. Nevertheless, there seems to be lingering struggles. What we grapple with is different, but there are some similarities. Call this a commiseration string.

I totally agree with you. 
 
That’s a big fear of mine. Generally speaking I think religion is a good thing and people should at least try to keep a marginal/nominal faith. My fear is that arguments like this are 1) pointless and 2) might keep people from joining or exploring the faith.
 
Also, with the rise of “nones” I fear we’ve passed the point of no return. 

My suggestion was that sometimes it's not our age that makes us liberal/moderate/conservative so much as the age of the person who labels us. I've problably gone from conservative/fundamentalists to moderate/conservative over the decades. However, the younger a person is the more likely they are to pigeon-hole me as a rabid, right-wing extremist. 
Most religious leaders care more about people than politics or ideological purity. However, even trying to keep people in the pews can be a futile effort. We had those who insisted on masking and those who opposed masks during COVID. Our approach was to obey the law but to treat people like adults. Some of the mask-insisters left and more of the mask opponents left. Some said we didn't care about the health of our community and others said that we compromised with the Antichrist. 
All we can do is keep focused on the Good News and trust the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and bringing in. 

No disagreement there, but it doesn’t address what I said. 
 
I go back to the Southern Baptists and Catholics. Both are plowing through members like you and I go through disposal razors. The SBC are focusing on getting liberals out of the church, the Catholics are focusing on getting conservatives out. Google “Synod on Synodality”.
 
In the meantime, your average SBC pastor and Catholic priest are doing their best to keep what parishioners they have to keep coning to church.  LDS bishops and SP’s are probably doing the same thing. They don’t care about “Protestant Mormons”. They just want LDS to show up in church. The labels are meaningless if the pews are empty. 

Do you think it has anything to do with age? Yes, I know it’s a generalization but it’s not always wrong. When I was active I noticed that (again, generally speaking) older people were more traditional, Gen X (my age) were more “nuanced” and young people either didn’t show up or were hanging on by a thread. 

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.
In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.
In the 1990s he was considered moderate.
Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. 
His views never changed. 

I am beyond not qualified to discuss the details of this thread. Instead, consider what has happened to the larger Christian movement. It has formed into three branches.
The modernists/liberals interpret the Bible in light of modern cultural mores. Some even argue that the reader's perspective is primary.
Fundamentalists try to preserve and defend what was. They sometimes insist on the King James Version of the Bible, the singing of hymns, extensive holiness codes, and lock-step doctrinal adherence. From the second group I offer the following example: I went to see my aunt baptized in this type of church. The minister's sermon was aimed at criticizing my church's beliefs. After the service he came up, shook my hand, and told me directly that the sermon was aimed at me.
Then there are those, and I probably fit in this camp, who take the scriptures as mostly historical, mostly literal, and absolutely inspired of God. We try to engage the culture rather than condemn it. Our hope is to focus on Jesus and the Good News and not get sidetracked by secondary stuff. Sadly, we often fail.
 I'm wondering as I read this thread if much of the LDS world is also split into modernists, traditionalists, and the messy middle? 

I think that using the words and actions of a prophet as a means of determining whether or not a person is a prophet is at best a secondary means of coming to know something. The best illustration of the fallacy of this approach is 1 King 13.
I think the primary means of knowing something, which I feel is far more reliable means, is a spiritual conviction that something is either X or not X. President Nelson can say on Tuesday that the moon is yellow and I look at my window and see a blue moon. On Wednesday he can say the moon is not, and never was, yellow, but is actually purple and I look out the window and see an orange moon. Neither event should have the least impact on my testimony of whether or not President Nelson is a prophet. No doubt President Nelson has good reason for saying such things and its not for me to question. But if I am living worthily and doing all that is required to receive spiritual guidance, and the Spirit says that President Nelson is not the Prophet, then I would begin to be a little wary and to start asking a few questions. I might be inclined to adjust the weighting of my priorities away from President Nelson and more towards the Quorum of the Twelve. But before doing anything serious or making any serious decisions I would give prayerful consideration to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk about doubting your doubts.
I’m in favour of the idea that a spiritual conviction can/should only be overcome by another spiritual conviction and that such convictions should therefore be impervious to, and uninfluenced by, the words or actions, or the logical arguments of men. I can't see any situation at all, ever, where logic would be sufficient to overcome the promptings of the Spirit. If President Young said the Priesthood ban is doctrine and divinely inspired, (which he didn't) and President Monson, through the essays, says that the ban was never doctrine and not divinely inspired, and that President Young was wrong to say so, (and President Monson or the essays don't say that) and then someone says look, two prophets have taught the opposite teaching, both of them can't be true, therefore one of them is not a prophet, that would look very much like a logical argument. 
And I would hope that even a spiritual conviction that President Nelson is not the Prophet would not be enough to turn me away from the church. That particular testimony that he is the Prophet would probably be considerably damaged, more likely destroyed, but I have always been wary of what I call the connected testimony, or the single pillar testimony, whereby our several testimonies of the truthfulness of the gospel, the plan of salvation, Jesus Christ, the reality of temple work, Joseph Smith, and all the other truths of which we have a testimony are all dependent on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. As stated in Doctrine and Covenants 93:30 "all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it" and one truth should not be dependent on, or used to prop up, another truth. There is no reason why the destruction of a testimony that President Nelson is God's prophet should cause any damage to any other testimony of the truth. One truth does not depend on another truth. 
 

Ewwwww!

We need an "Ewwwww!" icon.

Meanwhile, Klaw has become quite the skilled fly-hunter.  He seems to think they're quite a tasty treat.  I'm just gonna take his word for it without testing that claim.

It doesn't MATTER what you may feel or think, just as it doesn't matter what I may feel or think.
The question posted is WHY people are acting as they are and what are some reasoning behind it.
I understand what some of them are.  It is as I said.  They read these essays.  When the Church says they don't accept the explanations of why the ban was put into place...
Well...that means they don't accept the explanations.  How much more clear can that be?  The explanation was that it was revelation and doctrine.  The Church doesn't accept that explanation (as per the essay).  [The Church says they don't accept any of the explanations...how can it be more clear than that?]
That's how it is understood.  Doesn't matter if you and I say it means something different.  This is a major problem for many people.  They've referenced ME to these essays with the exact reasoning that I've given to you.  This is what they use to try to discourage people (I know, they've tried to target me with this reasoning that I've relayed in this thread).
If they WANT it to be understood other than how some people understand it, they need to revise how it is written. 
I actually agree.  It does seem at times that those who are in charge of the Essays and the things stated by the Apostles are on different pages at times on certain subjects though. 
The Essays are NOT Church doctrine.  They shouldn't be accepted as such. I see that they are being used by some to try to claim it though.  HOWEVER, I do completely agree with your take.
But if that's the reason they are having problems with the Church and leaving it, I think there could be things that could be done on our part to change that. 

I know what it says.  I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting).  I asked what you meant.  It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant.
Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God.  Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God.  The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension.
The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when).  The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban.  Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected.
Nothing in the essay negates that statement.
Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will.  That was not my question and cannot be my concern.  My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God.  Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.

In a lot of ways I'm all about that "relationship with God first" but I think there comes a point where it's like, what's the point of a church, then? And that's not the best place to be. I'll go out on a limb and say that many members of their churches have their pet focuses and quirks, but when I truly think of "Protestant Mormons", the ones I've interacted with have the gospel watered down so much that the resulting church isn't anything special or remarkable.
I've certainly heard my share of people going off the rails with their own personal interpretation of everything, but if not more so it seems their personal revelation is that much of our doctrine is simply a story or tradition. Book of Mormon isn't real, temples are just a fun little thing, etc. 
 

The problem I have with all attempts to make Brigham solely responsible... is who are they trying to protect... their image of God?!?  Smash that idol please.  God gets blamed for a lot of things and he is a big boy he can take it, deserved or not.  But I can only image the mental paradoxes one has to setup to Claim the Church true and is Lead by prophets except....  when its not...  And funny enough that "when its not" all most always involves personal gospel hobby horse.
Bottom line is I see no way of saying the Church is true and lead by God, without placing the blame for the Priesthood Ban directly on him.. either through direct action or just allowing it to happen. 

That is one of several items.  If we are addressing the Preisthood ban it specifically states
 
This goes contrary to what was originally stated and believed.  This was not the justification given.  If we want to say it, this is actually very close to gaslighting what actually happened in my lifetime. 
The explanation for this was that it was revelation (which, as the essay states, is not accepted as an explanation today). It was also official doctrine.  It was stated to be DOCTRINE when I joined the church.  It was being fulfilled during my lifetime (and we saw it being fulfilled in many ways with Spencer W. Kimball). 
 The Church prior to that had this doctrine reinforced in several ways.  One of the more famous today is a Statement from George Albert Smith from 1949 which states
This is why the revelation to the Prophet and the Twelve was such an astounding and marvelous revelation when it came.  It was prophecy being fulfilled (a prophecy that had also been made by Brigham Young and later others such as Wilford Woodruff). 
Bruce R. McConkie had said to the effect that the African American would not get the Priesthood and then, after the revelation, had to stand and bear his testimony and retract that to reassure us that this was indeed revelation.  He had been wrong with how soon it would be fulfilled.  It was being fulfilled in our DAY!!!
Part of the reason WHY some saw there was a restriction also applied to others who did NOT have a genealogy tied to Africa as well.  We STILL have this restriction in place TO THIS DAY.  (this does NOT mean this WAS the reason, only that some SAW it as the reason...it was NOT because they necessarily saw those with genealogy from Africa as Inferior or any other nonsense, at least where I was at).
The restriction boiled down to choices in the pre-existence.  We made choices in the pre-existence that affect where we are and what opportunities we have in this life.  This is why there are those today that may not have the opportunies others have.  In some instances it constrains what we can obtain or not obtain in this life.  We may not understand things (for example).  It is this reason why we at times do not cause those who are severely handicapped in certain manners to be baptized or to receive the priesthood.
That many would use these very essays against the Church and what it is teaching is NOT surprising.  To ACT surprised at how it is being interpreted by others is to ignore what is happening to some who read and interpret these essays.  It is to ignore many who use them as a primary method to instill doubt in young members today online.  These Essays have turned into POWERFUL anti-LDS tools that are used on a regular basis along with other items (which I won't bring up here, because frankly they aren't Church supported items and have no purpose in being here).
So, we may not necessarily see it in this manner (which you point out), but it is absolutely seen in this manner by some out there and it has affected them in the way I have described.  It's not just this essay either, there are other essays that they utilize as well. 

edit: Upon re-reading my own post, I see it may not be as clear as I intend.  I apologize for any weakness of my own trying to convey what I mean. 
This is a tough one in my opinion.  The Church itself on it's own website is claiming this already in the Gospel Essays.  I find it has confused a great many.  I've seen youth use these gospel Essays as the PRIMARY reasoning for their having opinions contrary to the Church and even proclaiming ideas that the prophet today is not the prophet.  That if a prophet can retroactively proclaim what another said was divinely inspired as just an opinion, than neither is divinely inspired nor a prophet.
That actually troubles me.  It has left a wide rift among many and I have no answers on this.
My only thought is that the prophets of the past are inspired and divinely led as well as those today.  The differences are how those doctrines are understood.  I'll elaborate in a PS below as how this works isn't really pertinent to what I want to say.
The problem today is that people see two things as facts that they should not see. 
1.  When they declare the Church is true, what they mean is that the Church is perfect in every way.  When they find out that the Church can have problems or even difficulties it deals a powerful blow to their testimony.  If their testimony was based on the idea that the Church was perfect and they find out that it is not...then they have a conflict where facts don't support their belief.  It can cause a crisis which some do not survive.
2.  When they say they believe in the Prophet they mean that they believe the Prophet is infallible.  They believe he is just as perfect as a Deity.  When they find he may have faults or is just a man, this can cause a Crisis.  Facts do not support what they believe, and as such can cause them to lose their entire testimony because their testimony was based on a falsehood.
This is where the core thing comes in.  We SHOULD recognize that our Church leaders are MEN.  They are HUMAN.  They are NOT deities and are NOT who we worship.  We should follow what they teach and do what they say (for example, if the prophet says that we should all get rebaptized, we get rebaptized.  If the prophet says we all should wear masks and get vaccinated, we should all wear masks and get vaccinated).  However it does not mean we necessarily see him as anything greater than any other member.  HE IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but he is ALSO a person and a member just like you, or me, or others.  Trying to hold him to inhuman measurements when he is just a human is bound to cause problems eventually.  (edit:  This is where I do not know if I am being clear enough.  HE IS holy and he IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but to expect him to be perfect or be greater than a man is unrealistic expectations.  Our prophet is chosen by the Lord for certain things which we may or may not know or understand.  This is not necessarily because he is the most righteous or the greatest among us, but because he is the RIGHT individual for that position at THAT time [just like any other calling hopefully].  To expect him to be the most perfect or righteous individual of the church, or even greater, a perfect being, is only setting our faith in false expectations that probably could never be fulfilled.  I see far too many setting up this expectation of the prophet in their lives though.  He COULD  be the most righteous and the greatest, but it is not necessarily true either.  What we HAVE to understand though is that HE IS a man, just like us, and AS a man he is Not yet perfect as only the Lord is perfect).
I think one problem today is we've raised many of our children to think of things in a higher status than they should.  Rather than see the Church as the vehicle for ordinances and covenants, they see it THE thing of worship.  Instead of seeing that the Church is made for man, they see that man is made for the Church and it's perfection.  Rather than see that the Prophet is merely the mouthpiece of the Lord and his representative to use, they see him as the Lord's avatar in the Flesh.  This is bound to cause problems and I think it is causing problems.
 
 
PS: In reference to the above, a prime example is the Adam/God theory.  As people from Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith explain, the way Brigham Young said it and meant it actually perfectly supports the same way we believe today.  The PROBLEM is that shortly after Brigham Young, his words were misunderstood and as such got reinterpreted to mean something entirely different than what he meant.  If you understand Brigham's method of talking, you can understand perfectly what he said, but if you do not understand that method, you take it to mean something that does NOT represent what we believe.
The problem came then that there were many who started to believe this theory meant something entirely different than what Brigham Young stated or intended it to be.  They felt that it meant that Adam (or Michael) was the Father who is the Father of our Lord in spirit and flesh.  This was incorrect, and as this idea became the meaning of what was meant when people mentioned this theory, that theory as it was understood in that way, had to be disavowed.  We DID NOT throw away Brigham Young's speeches of it in the JoD, nor did we try to erase Brigham Young's teachings.  We only disavowed the changed understanding that utilized the label and as that was the label used, disavowed it.
I think the same could be said of some of the other teachings these days and how some people are understanding them.  They understand it with a modern lens without actually understanding what was said.  It is their current understanding of the thing which is being disavowed, not the teachings and doctrine that Brigham Young taught himself, and that applies to other prophets and such as well. 

I think we're beating a dead horse.  Obviously reason comes into play (if the prophet tells us to go out and do something that's always been a sin, of course one isn't going to do that).  Obviously consistency with established teachings (in scripture and from other prophets and apostles) comes into play.  But if one is doing the best they know - if no one ever taught them that X was a sin - no one, ever - and they had no reason (scripture, prophets, the Holy Ghost) to believe something a sin, then why do we think they'll be held to count for it?
But frankly, these examples seem far-fetched to me.  What potential sin is President Nelon asking us to commit?  What righteous deed is he asking us not to do?  How is he potentially putting our salvation at risk if we follow him?