Backroads

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. 

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. 

More than that.  "as doctrine TODAY."
(I can't remember the source for what I'm about to say.  So if someone knows it, I'd appreciate a link.  But...)
I understood that Brigham Young had said that this is not to be a permanent practice.  There would come a time when the ban would be lifted.  So, obviously, there was some condition of the world, society, peoples, or whatever that was extant, but is no longer.  Unfortunately, such conditions was never disseminated.
So, it wasn't something inherent in the race itself.  It was some condition surrounding blacks of that era.  And apparently, it continued until the 1970s.
While we still don't know what the condition was, the data at least point to this understanding.  For this reason, I lean away from the curse of Cain thing.

Excepr the Church doesn't say that. The Church says (through the aforementioned essays) that those explanations are not accepted AS DOCTRINE, not that they are not accepted in principle or unacceptable to LDS belief or something of the sort.
Let's pretend that God his six feet seven inches tall. I mean, he must be some height, right? So let's just pretend it's 6'7". Now, does the Church accept AS DOCTRINE that God is 6'7" tall? No, of course not. Does this mean that God is not in fact 6'7" tall? No, of course not. God is whatever size he is, no matter than such a trivium is no part of our doctrine. In the same sense, God did what he did for his own purposes. The fact that those purposes form no part of our current teachings (aka doctrine) doesn't mean God didn't say or do what he actually said or did. It just means that's not a part of our doctrine.
Honestly, this is not a hard concept. Why so many pull against it and insist on obfuscating what should be a clear issue confuses me. The only answer I can arrive at is that such people seek to obfuscate because they don't like the teachings and they want to supplant them with their own ideas.
Agreed. And here's what we could do: Tell them that they are misrepresenting Church teachings and preaching falsehoods when they say what they say. For any honest and humble seekers, that will suffice. For those who are not honest or humble, nothing will suffice.

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. 

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. 
 

Almost.  I believe you may be referring to the oft repeated phrase that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.
As has been said, we don't believe our prophets to be infallible - even when speaking in an official capacity.  So, why do we follow them?  Because they are prophets.
As an orthodox Saint, I believe that if the prophets and apostles are ever wrong about something, it won't be something so bad that it will affect my personal salvation.  And in the end, that is the only thing that matters.
Some people complain about things that will negatively affect them or a family member.  But every episode that I've been on the listening end of it is because "Hey! That's not fair because that means I get the short end of the stick!"  Or "Hey!  Don't you talk about my kids that way!"
I believe a recent thread talked about how some bratty kid is causing trouble for all the kids in the class. But the parents always want to believe that their child was the saint.  And all the other kids (as well as the teacher) just didn't do enough to accommodate him.  Well, I'm afraid things like that happen with LGBTQ issues and Church doctrines and practices, as well as a bevy of other things.
There is also another principle that I personally invoke as far as checking the Prophet.  There are in my mind some principles and doctrines that are so central and so basic that if you took that away, it would completely destroy everything we believe in.  Nothing would make sense.
Imagine if the Prophet were to say that there really was no Atonement of Christ.  That would be fundamentally flawed.  If we take that away, we're left without a religion.
Similarly (but not quite as fundamental) the eternal nature of families is also so deeply embedded in our beliefs that it cannot be casually discarded.  If we allow gay marriages and transexual marriages in the temple, this would completely destroy the idea of eternal marriage and eternal families.  Without that, we just become another Christian church without any divine power.  And yet, this is one of the things that "Protestant Mormons" use to say that the prophet is flawed?
I know that each person has to draw the line somewhere.  But some people place that line on things that make no sense to me. It is either so frivolous, or so selfish, or so prideful that I can't believe they use that logic to think they can second guess God or His Prophet.
/rant off.

@zil2 I understand the idea, and I agree that there is at least part of God's judgement that considers what our parents, teachers, leaders, and even prophets have and have not taught us. At what point does this idea end up at, "none of us is accountable for our sins, because, at some level, our sins are just a reflection of ways that our parents, teachers, leaders, and prophets have failed to teach us correct principles."
If you will indulge a somewhat tongue in cheek case study, I am reminded of something Senator Harry Reid said in a speech at BYU. He said that he is often asked how he can be both a Democrat and a Mormon. He said that he often answers that he is a Democrat because he is a Mormon, followed by some discussion of the different lessons he learned from parents and church leaders and scriptures that motivate him to be a Democrat. Now it is well known among LDS church members (that lean very heavily Republican) that being a Democrat is a sin (not really, but let's pretend for this brief moment). Considering the Sen Reid committed this sin because of things he learned from parents and the church, will Sen. Reid be absolved of the sin of being a Democrat, and his parents and leaders and such will be held accountable for his sin?
In the "proving contraries" theme, we also have a long history of talking about personal accountability and moral agency wherein we emphasize that we are each responsible for our own instruction and learning. I don't claim to know how God will judge us, but, as I noted, I think God will perfectly know how to balance personal accountability against things that we did not know because others around us did not teach us. I'm not sure what that means for the hear and now and how I engage with what our prophets and apostles teach.

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 idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

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. 
 

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. 
 

Here is my take:
If you do not believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church, led by Jesus Christ himself, then disregard everything else I have to say as it's irrelevant without that belief.
 
If you do believe that, then you only need to trust in Jesus Christ.  Because if he's in charge then:
1. He called the President of the Church and the apostles.
2. If they lead us astray in some way, then trust that Christ will stop them.  (D&C 43:3-4, for example.)  (You don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)
3. If they lead us astray and for some reason Christ doesn't stop them (yet?), trust that the sins will be on the leaders' heads, just as scriptures say the sins will be on the parents' heads if they fail to teach their children (or on Laman & Lemuel's heads for generations of their descendants - there's a staggering thing).  (And just as the sins will be on the heads of priesthood holders if they fail to do their duty - think temple....)  (Again, you don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)
In other words, you can't go wrong following the prophet - if this is Christ's church.  That does not mean you have to follow him blindly.  You can compare his teachings to the whole of scripture from Genesis 1 to Article of Faith 13.  You can ponder and pray about it for a testimony of its truthfulness.  You can ask questions and work through difficult things (e.g. Nephi's working through the command to kill Laban).  There's nothing wrong with any of that.  The wrong comes when you start trying to lead others away from the prophet or publicly declare him not a prophet or some such thing.
My testimony is that Jesus Christ lives.  He is the Son of God.  He loves us.  This is his church restored to the earth.  It comes with his priesthood, complete with its keys, ordinances, and covenants.  Ergo, the prophet is led by him and if the prophet goes astray, Christ will deal with it and I don't have to worry about it because I trust Christ.
FWIW.

In addition to being high-functioning autistic, my high-end and low-end hearing are both better than normal, to the point that I'm into the range of hearing generally associated with canines. It's true that my mid-range has been damaged by loud noises over my lifetime, but my high-end and low-end are so sharp that once upon a time I could tell when one of my flip phones was done charging because the electrical current passing through would make a different noise the second the battery hit 100%. 
Total silence can leave me scrambling to figure out if I actually heard something or not, and if so just what I heard. 
This is one of the many reasons why I made it a point to sync my iPhone to my iTunes account and download some radio apps, as being able to listen to music keeps me from hyper-fixating on what I might or might not have heard while also giving me a bit of a mental boost. 

So, my family has realized that we all suffer from screen addiction.  Whether it is gaming, youtube, forums (a- hem) or whatever is out there, we spend way too much time on our phones and computers.
My eldest son who is about to return from his mission next week told us that he does not want a smart phone.  He just wants a simple phone that makes calls and that is all.  What is interesting is that my wife has been asking us as a family to start making the same transition.
So, I tried looking up various phones to see how we could achieve this.  The thing stopping us is that there are genuinely useful utilities on a phone that are simply not available on the true dumb phones (GPS, Calendar with scheduled meetings, multiple alarms, Church apps...)
Long story short, I bought a flip phone that has a fully functional android operating system.  But the processor is so weak and the screen size and keyboard size is so small that it is really slow, and it is difficult to use.
The idea was that if we REALLY needed the functionality of a full android, we could get to it.  But the operation of the phone and the tiny screen size made the process very uncomfortable.  So, that was the deterrent.
I've now had it for less than a day.  And so far it is working.  I have used it a LOT less than my Samsung.
But you know what is funny?  I really like this phone.  So, while I don't look at the screen, I'm still admiring the phone in my hand.  Just the phone itself.
So, my son yelled at me,"Dad!  Stop looking at your phone!"  
*****************
FTR, it is a CAT S22.  It is a freaking rugged phone.  I could drop it onto a concrete floor and I wouldn't even see a scratch.

As you probably ought to be.

This post reminds me of a recent Instagram post I scrolled into. The individual was a member of the Church who said, paraphrased, "I'm a member of the Church who stays in the Church and seeks to change it from within to be more inclusive."
This follows the thought provided, "We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church."
I'm, very much, in agreement with the idea and concepts being shared. This is definitely happening in the Church today. I'm pretty sure someone posted here a while -- a while -- back sharing a video from some movie, episode, or podcast where the individual said, "I can do more damage to the Church by staying in the Church..."
President Nelson's quote regarding having the Spirit with us is the only that we will make it through these last days before Christ comes as strong followers/disciples of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the Spirit is to bear witness of truth, and to help us see things as they really are.
@MrShorty "Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue."
As to the following thought here, the Church already figured this out. The answer is Jesus Christ. If a person truly believes in Christ and His Church, the focus will be upon Christ and building up the Kingdom of God/Zion. Those who focus on this will be able to work together in peace and harmony -- despite their difference of thoughts and opinions (because these individuals will wait patiently on the Lord and how he moves His Church).
This notion extends both ways on the spectrum -- far right and far left. We have been counseled and taught to avoid any and all "religious hobbies." Religious hobbies is one of the easiest ways for the adversary to gain control and place into the heart of individuals to follow forbidden paths.
When any individual places any idea, any action, any decision above the Lord and His Church then they (the individual(s)) will choose to separate themselves from the Lord and His Church. The doctrine is very very clear on many things (the easiest one is marriage), and yet we have members who seek to blur the clarity, and place their thoughts, their decisions, their life choices above the Lord and His Church. This brings up the notion provided by Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "they despised the words of plainness." And we have that happening in our day -- words of plainness being despised by members of the Church such that they seek to change it and are angry with it.
 
 

My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do. 

So, despite two forms of birth control, I am currently pregnant. Conception date? My dad's birthday. I'm a little weirded out by it.

Congratulations! Very happy news!

A couple of boomer scholars first called us "Millennials" in 1991. The name is a reference to the fact that we came of age in the beginning of the new millenium. The world changed so rapidly during our adolescent and early adult years that some of us were given the distinction of being a "micro-generation", the Xennials (because many of us relate more to Gen X than Y) or geriatric Millennials. This is where I fall. 
I also recently learned that kids born from 2010-2025 are being identified as Generation Alpha. I'm guessing that the following generation, which is a few years away from being born, will be Generation Beta.

My wife has a interesting ability to remember dates, numbers, and events...  Which is great because that means I only have to remember her birthday and our anniversary and she'll remind me of anything else I need to know.
Our Daughter just turned 18 and in the course of talking about her and birthdays she told us she did the math and figured she was a Valentine's baby.  I'm like sure OK that works I guess.  But my wife was like nope.  My birthday is several days before Valentine... and my darling daughter is a birthday baby as well.  

Uhmmm... Given that this was a response to *my* post... Uhmmm....

So, despite two forms of birth control, I am currently pregnant. Conception date? My dad's birthday. I'm a little weirded out by it.

I often hear this and wonder, why did they struggle so much in their marriages?
(No offense to Vort's original humorous post, but I'm one for those darn milennials (Or Gen Yers) who think the Boomers complain far more than my generation, so serious answers like this intrigue me).