Backroads

I remember as a kid we would have Stake wide initiatives in Northern Colorado to write to our local access channels requesting that they broadcast conference. I beleive most years we were able to get it too.

This would have been early 2000s when you could get conference just about anywhere. I was nannying for my cousins, and my wealthy uncle had rented out some office space for a conference party for fellow friends/neighbors (we were not in the Mormon Corridor) of our faith and was able to rig up some streaming. It was kind of fun.
These days, living in Utah, I'm spoiled. I told the Google thingy to play KSL radio while I tidied the kitchen this morning.
 

Not everyone has reliable internet access even nowadays, but there are still places where over-the-air TV and radio are big things. 

Everyone brings up "toxic marriages" and how they're worse for the kids than if you just divorced.
But there are quite a few studies that suggest if the couple can more or less get along, the kids do it better.

Everyone brings up "toxic marriages" and how they're worse for the kids than if you just divorced.
But there are quite a few studies that suggest if the couple can more or less get along, the kids do it better.

Everyone brings up "toxic marriages" and how they're worse for the kids than if you just divorced.
But there are quite a few studies that suggest if the couple can more or less get along, the kids do it better.

I always considered that a false argument.   You got to compare best with best and worse with worse.
The best two parent home will be better then the best single parent home.
The worse two parent home will be better then the worse single parent home.
But a bad two parent home versus a really good single parent.... okay yeah the single parent probably wins that one depending on the details of how bad and how good.
 

I've yet to meet anyone in real life or even on most of the internet who is truly against the two-parent home and a stable family.
I think where the generalized left wing is struggling here is trying to defend the situations without two-parents. Some years ago I read an article about a study where they were trying to prove that single mothers are raising boys than married mothers are. Apparently some journalist dared to ask the person over the study about her happy stable marriage to her children's father and it didn't go over very well.
I think people want the single parent to be "just as good". And I know some excellent single parents who give it their all and do a fine job. 
I just don't think that cry needs to be louder than "two-parent families are a good norm and goal". 

The idea is that the "ideal" would be to have children raised in a stable two-parent home.  Where that isn't possible, we do the best we can.  That is a simple enough position.  And I don't see any reason why some people would object to it.
It would be incorrect to say that people are saying "It is less desireable to have a stable two-parent home over a single parent home."  I've never heard anyone say that.
What I have heard people in real life say is, "You need to keep your stable two-parent home away from my family because it is making my children feel inferior.  And that is all your fault for lording it over us.  You should be ashamed of your two-parent home."
While people haven't used these precise words, that is the underlying message that I have heard IRL.

I've yet to meet anyone in real life or even on most of the internet who is truly against the two-parent home and a stable family.
I think where the generalized left wing is struggling here is trying to defend the situations without two-parents. Some years ago I read an article about a study where they were trying to prove that single mothers are raising boys than married mothers are. Apparently some journalist dared to ask the person over the study about her happy stable marriage to her children's father and it didn't go over very well.
I think people want the single parent to be "just as good". And I know some excellent single parents who give it their all and do a fine job. 
I just don't think that cry needs to be louder than "two-parent families are a good norm and goal". 

This doesn't really address your comments but thought I would share. 
While on my mission in Albuquerque NM in the early 80s we listened to conference via a telephone line at the church building.  It was, however, broadcast live in the Salt Lake area.  Following one of the Saturday sessions (morning or afternoon, I don't recall which) a tape of the broadcast was put on a flight from SLC to ABQ.  I was assigned in the mission office at the time so my companion and I ran down to the airport to collect the tape.  We then took it over to one of the local network affiliates who played the session Sunday morning at 7:00 am as a public service.  Shortly after 9:00 we were back at the affiliate to collect the tape and take it back to the airport for its return trip to Salt Lake.
Today's technology pretty much eliminates stories like this.

Two-parent certainly is a privilege that everyone should and can have access to. 
When we recognize that this is something that is lacking in many people's lives, we can do one of two things:
Do everything we can to allow all children that same privilege. Do everything we can to condemn any children who have that privilege at all. One of these is a reasonable and celestial choice.  The other is... not...
 

Not exactly. However, we have two papers that cover most of the issues: one on sexuality (homosexuality, gender identity, purity, etc.) and another on domestic violence. You may be aware that most Evangelicals (including AoG) believe that in the life to come we will love all of our brothers and sisters more than we currently love our family members but that we will not marry or give in marriage.

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  Marry yourself another wife, and your kids won’t be in a two-parent family anymore.  

It's not just conservatives. 
One of the syndicated radio shows I listen to is "The House of Hair With Dee Snider", a 2 - 3 hour (there's two versions) weekly syndicated number in which musician Dee Snider looks back at classic rock and metal bands from the 1960s - 1990s. 
On the episode that aired the weekend of 17 September 2023 (that is, two weeks ago as I type this), he got a request in from someone who was hoping that the song in question would save his relationship. The requester and his girlfriend were starting to drift apart despite having a child on the way, and the requester was wanting to signal that he was willing to put in the effort. 
Cue Dee, who is pretty open about being left-wing at times, going on a monologue about how children need both parents and ultimately encouraging the couple to work it out. 

And then there’s this 

This isn't a person I really pay much attention to (still haven't seen that one movie). I think the media will do what the media will do. Without more evidence, I'm content to remain a neutral party.
That all being said... no one, church members included, are perfect, and not all Latter-Day Saints are, well, saints. 
I guess I'm not making assumptions yet, but with all the stuff that happens in the world, I won't put him above such behavior.

I'll stick to the 2 hours thank you very much.

I think it only magnified whatever was already going on for each individual/family.  If you spent some time at home studying, pondering, praying, fasting... you'll do a bit more of it now.  If you spent time surfing the web or reading junk... you'll do a bit more.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll say that I've noticed group leadership seems to be taking that extra hour to hold group meetings a lot more often.
From my perspective as Sunday School teacher, I get to look through two weeks' study material so I can pick and choose what I want to emphasize during class time.  I still have to keep it to an hour of class time.  So, I have to prioritize the topics and chapters we go over.
I certainly hope that by having to prioritize, I focus on more meat.  But each teacher has different styles.
My preferred M.O. is to ask,"What is a perspective on these chapters that the average saint is probably not going to know about it?"  I guess that may sound like I'm trying to sensationalize it.  But my motivation is more of "Wow!  I discovered something that really inspired me.  I've got to share this with others."
Just this past week, I really didn't find much that I found personally inspiring.  (I know I'm going to offend any Paulites lurking, but he tends to repeat himself a lot).  But I chose specified verses from the manual and asked various individuals to read them.  When they did, I asked them to interpret that and give their thoughts on what it meant to them.  Easiest lesson I've ever (not) planned.

Indeed.
Then again, the scenarios exonerating Tim are also based in an awful lot of speculation.  

This is a situation, one of those pickles, where the Church is put in a bad position either way -- my opinion. The Church is taking a proactive stance it appears (if this is all reality). If the Church didn't take a proactive stance, and then these accusations are true could you imagine how many ex-members and antis would come out and use this as more evidence as to why they have left, "You see, <insert finger of scorn>." And then you have the opposite side, "I can't believe the Church didn't back him up...<insert finger of scorn>."
I think we are going to see the Church, more often than not, take the proactive stance for what appears to be better. Awkwardly backing a sexual predator to the end, until they find out he actually is, or take a proactive stance to back away. At the same time, I feel for any individual who is being targeted by our modern social and news media.
@Just_A_Guy --> I have wondered the same thing in this type of scenario, and you give evidence to confirm my thoughts. I knew of individuals who were undercover with drug rings. There were certain crowds where they had to take the drug in order to get further into the ring to find the head of the ring. I think in some ways finding the sexual predator rings might even be more disturbing (at least ones like shown in the movie). When I watched the movie Sound of Freedom it caused me to ponder even more what these undercover rings might do in order to track down these predators while keeping themselves from getting killed. Can a person truly come unscathed from this type of situation and hostile environment when undercover?

Undercover work is necessarily shady business (I defended a couple of prostitutes who got caught in a massage parlor sting about 10-15 years ago; and after reading the report of what the SLC vice squad officers did, I really don’t know how those guys could go home and look their wives in the eye each night.  Suffice it to say—they enjoyed their jobs.  A lot.)
I could easily envision a scenario where people who were already part of Tim’s organization (so, no donor/financial gain aspect to it) got uncomfortable with some of his methods and were reassured by him with something along the lines of “Don’t worry about this psychic thing, I have President Ballard’s personal blessing that what we are doing is totally legit!”  
Do I believe that President Ballard withdrew association from Tim without attempting to offer so much as a word of explanation?  As someone who believes in President Ballard’s prophetic calling and good intentions and general character as a minister and a gentleman:  No; no I don’t.  Maybe he tried to reach out and Tim, basking in the success of his new movie, refused to take the call.  Or maybe he *did* get through to Tim and that Tim now, as an experienced undercover operator, is using his particular set of deception and manipulation skills in order to misrepresent his past activities and entice his current audience into believing that he and they have the same fundamental values.

This isn't a person I really pay much attention to (still haven't seen that one movie). I think the media will do what the media will do. Without more evidence, I'm content to remain a neutral party.
That all being said... no one, church members included, are perfect, and not all Latter-Day Saints are, well, saints. 
I guess I'm not making assumptions yet, but with all the stuff that happens in the world, I won't put him above such behavior.

My parents were on a cruise with her last month. Said she's delightful.

I respect this.
I'm actually something of the opposite. I've come to realize I'm a hermit, and working from home these past few years hasn't helped that. And heck if I don't like it that way.
So, for some reason, I tend to be more social with church. I hate the idea of calling church a social club, but it's a nice way for me to be social and connect with people. I'm actually the one chatting it up.