Anddenex

If you know what a symbol stands for and then produce your own "meaning" for the symbol while protesting your "meaning" of the symbol -- it shows ignorance, rather than intelligence.  The flag is a symbol of the Constitution which people have swore to protect, including myself, to protect the United States Constitution, and its symbol our United States Flag. They go hand in hand. If during war, some United States military unites started burning the flag -- you think somehow this doesn't disrespect the United States Constitution, the United States as a nation, and the people who died to protect our rights? Remember, it is just a symbol -- so who cares -- right? If just a symbol it then doesn't matter what avenue the protest -- it is just a symbol. Do they have the right -- sure -- is the showing disrespect -- yes, sure is.
I also defend the right for adults who act like "little children" in their lame and disrespectful protests. I also defend the right of any corporation to fire or remove someone from position that gives a bad name to the company. People have the right to protest. They also have the right to accept the consequence of their decisions. I feel no pity for Colin Kaepernick and his childish methods of protesting.  I also defend Trumps right to express his thoughts on the matter -- even at the pulpit as president -- as he has every right to protest other people's protest. Unless you think the President doesn't have this right, and if so, did you feel the same way with Obama who used the same method? I don't agree with Trump. I didn't agree with Obama. This doesn't cause me to even consider to disrespect the United States symbol of freedom and liberty.
We can protect "rights," and we can call an apple an apple, and an orange a orange.

That's an excellent point.  I think that could actually be accurate.  I had my uncle die in World War 2 in the Pacific Arena.  He was quite young at the time, and because of that I never got to know him.  That particular uncle would be close to the family that I was born into, and so has particularly big effects on my family as a whole.  What is interesting is that he was a member of the LDS church.  He got converted to Mormons soon after he joined the military.  His mother was particularly anti-Mormon (my grandmother), which makes it an even more interesting item.  Due to his death, it meant that his brothers and sisters did not join the church with him, but it left a big enough impression on his close family members to reverberate through the years...and hence...here I am.
I had another Uncle (an Uncle Frank I believe) who was also killed in World War 2 and a cousin, but as my family was not particularly close to that family member, it really doesn't have a major effect on me, at least right now in the physical world (who knows, he may be my guardian angel for my life thus far which means he'd have had a profound effect on me).
Looking at another relative who's spouse served and then got injured and is now disabled 100%, taking care of their spouse and living that marriage is a HARD thing for them.  I think that perhaps the greater challenge sometimes, and the greater sacrifice are those whom the veteran who dies leaves behind, or who suffer from the sacrifice of the veteran.  In that light, I imagine they too give much or all to also protect our freedom, but a different type of sacrifice than expected from those who serve in the military.

This confirms the irony, thank you. As to the last line, I don't need to wear a uniform to know what is disrespectful and what is not disrespectful. That is absurd.
As to the military connection, the flag and national anthem, <sarcasm> "Ya, I never really understood the connection either." </sarcasm>

Oh, we are having a God's law/Man's law moment here.
Sure, a gay faithful couple who love their children and fulfill their family responsibilities, much better than a gay couple who abuse each other or children and don't fulfill responsibilities.  Obviously, the first one is better for society than the second.
But as I'm sure you're aware, this is an LDS board, where we talk about more than just what's good for society - we're interested in what God wants for us individually and collectively.  And, as you're probably aware, we LDS figure that God is still saying what He's always said - that His definition of marriage is one man and one woman, and any other definition isn't His, but man's.  So by that standpoint, no, LDS people aren't "good" with the normalization of what we consider to be re-defining marriage away from what God intended.  

The very quote you used to bring up your question answers your question using the bolded words. Chastity and marital activities (read: anything sexual in nature) between gays are incompatible.
The underlined portion also happens to be exactly what Elder Oaks talk singled out, cohabitation and same sex marriage both of which are Satanic counterfeits of the God-ordained family.

Feel free to read the entire document, which clearly answers your question.

My uniform wearing probably doesn't count for much (I did air cargo in the AF Reserves), but.... Saying you can't use soldier's honor as a point of debate unless you've been a soldier is about as good an argument as saying you can't discuss race unless you're black, can't have a view on women's rights unless your'e a woman, etc, no voice on trans-sexuality unless you are transsexual, etc., etc.
One could try and use that argument about Mormonism and Christianity too but, of course, it would never fly because as you well know, not believing in religion or God does not mean you cannot have an opinion about those who do, their actions and morality related to others.
Anyone who's had someone die for them has the right to expect a certain amount of honor given to those who died for them. That is all of us.

My he rest in peace, and I am thankful for this servant of the Lord and all that he accomplished, even though he was imperfect.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-robert-d-hales-passes-away?cid=HP_day_date_dPAD_fANN-HALS_xLIDyL1-A_

This is who I think is in for a big surprise when push comes to shove.  The progressives are used to the conservatives rolling over and playing dead.

Right on. When Trump is right, defend him. When he's a buffoon, call him a buffoon.
Some things Trump says are simply indefensible.
Stop supporting people, people, and start supporting right and wrong, right?

What have you been doing poking around my house?

If we are going to toss names out, you should have included the Obama and Clinton supporters. 

False equivalency. I appreciate your metaphor, but even in the metaphor, the assignment of blame is greatly unbalanced. To say that "both are idiots" suggests that they are equally guilty. They are not, either in your example or in the real-life equivalent.
Trump is a buffoon and an embarrassment. He is still ten times better as President than Hillary Clinton would have been.

You are spot on as to the reasoning. This tact is recent though. It used to be--like less than 10 years ago--that politicians would all offer thoughts and prayers for a few days. THEN the claims of hypocrisy, "blood on hands" etc. would begin. I hate that "thoughts and prayers" is now being seen as a pro-NRA response.

Do you honestly think the existence / availability of guns is the cause of attacks like this?  The cause exists in the mind of the shooter, not in the gun.  The solution to behavior problems lies in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The best we can do is continue preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I know, you've already rejected that idea, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Simple fact: if everyone related in any way to that shooting were living the gospel of Jesus Christ to the best of their ability (possibly even half-heartedly), it never would have happened.  That this is a pipe dream doesn't alter its reality.
But, if we really want to accomplish the same end through gun control, the method is really quite obvious.  All the below must be done on a global scale, if even 1 thing / person escapes the plan, it fails:
Destroy all documentation on how guns, ammo, and related items work and are made - and that mention their mere existence.  (This includes all movies, books, and other media depicting guns in any fashion - including SciFi ray guns, toys, and the like.) Destroy all documentation that could easily lead to figuring out #1 Destroy all people who already know #1 and #2 Destroy all guns, ammo, and related items (includes toys - like rubber-band guns - we may have to remove all the index fingers and thumbs from the planet) Monitor carefully the thoughts of clever people who could become #3s - or just destroy them too Control all media so that none of the rising generation has any clue what guns are (the dictionaries, history books, all evidence of war, etc. will have to be censored) All of the above include military, police, government, hobbyists, criminals, etc., etc. It may sound snarky, but I'm quite serious.  Above is how we end all gun violence (at least until someone escapes the plan).  Anything short of this, and criminals will get guns.  Thus, "gun control" is as much a pipe dream (more, actually) as spreading the gospel.  The problem is not the weapons.  The problem is with people (whether the shooter, or those in the shooter's life) not living the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The solution is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.  (That stuff @anatess2 mentioned above that forms "a grievance-free citizenry" will help too (and is part of the gospel, actually), but is also a pipe-dream because we will never be free of people who want everyone else to work and give them things while they themselves refuse to work.)

Morality.
It astounds me that leftist ideology pushes relative morality and then seems oblivious to the consequences of relative morality.

It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to propose unrelated, meaningless solutions simply because an obvious one isn't at hand. When you or someone suggests after a tragedy of this sort that we need stricter silencer laws and someone like me responds by saying, "How would that have helped? That makes no sense." And you respond by claiming that I therefore don't care about the victims I cry foul.
I don't know, personally, what the solution is. But I know the legalization or not of silencers doesn't have anything to do with it.

Godless, I think there may actually be room here for a discussion about—say—bump stocks.  But when we start going off about specific “solutions” that clearly wouldn’t have prevented or mitigated the incident precipitating the discussion, it just looks like political opportunism.  
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you this, given your military background.  But for the benefit of others:  Silencers don’t make you stealthy; trained and prepared shooters can swap out magazines with barely a pause; and in this case, no one had any idea (and AFAIK it still hasn’t been firmly established) that the shooter had mental health issues. (c.f. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?nid&utm_term=.d6f254757e1d)
So the problem isn’t just that people are frustrated with one side’s stonewalling; it’s that the other side is presenting false solutions and then demagoguing anyone who won’t hop on their political bandwagon. 
But I do agree with @JohnsonJones that Trump has been a big factor in taking that kind of demagoguery mainstream.  And while dishonesty in politicians is par for the course, the Trumpian variant of “who are you gonna believe?  Me, or your own lyin’ eyes” in-your-face-ism has nudged America as a whole into a brave new world of political discourse.

I was going from ldsguy422's list who then said, "Okay, I misspoke. Elder Holland was actually ordained one year before Eyring." So, yes, this was the case according to ldsguy422's response, which like him I realized was incorrect and Holland was before Eyring. Either way Holland remains #3 due to his age in comparison to Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard.
I didn't think updating that would be important after I realized the mistake of who was Senior from ldsguy422's list. I blame @ldsguy422 --

Let's review the highlighted portions of the quotes:
1) The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents
2) Jesus inherited the ability to endure suffering during His atoning sacrifice ‘such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible
3) inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father
4) From His Heavenly Father He inherited immortality and the power to resurrect.
The first quote emphasizes "physical, mental, spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers from his parents. God the Father was Christ's earthly Father. What physical, mental, spiritual traits, and powers did Christ inherit from his Father?
We know he inherited at least three things: 1) Powers of Godhood and divinity. 2) He was the only "human" who could say no to death. He was immortal. No one could take his life. He had to freely give it. 3) He had the "power" to resurrect himself. No other human who ever lived or died could resurrect (the combining of body and spirit in glory never to be separated again) anyone, let alone himself/herself. Only Christ could resurrect himself, inherited power because God the Father was his earthly Father. 4) He could endure suffering that no other human could endure due to his parentage.
I assume the powers of Godhood and divinity would umbrella "immortality" and "resurrection." So "immortality" could not have been the only thing he inherited. None of us are able to perform any miracle by ourselves. All the miracles we perform are through Christ and his priesthood, which he has bestowed upon all who are his followers. All miracles we perform are in his name (divine). I would assume these are also inherited powers of Godhood and divinity that none of us have in and of ourselves. It is only through and by Christ we can accomplish what we accomplish. When the Savior performed miracles they were performed by him saying "be healed." When I, or any other son or daughter of God (spiritually) performs a miracle it is in his name whose priesthood we hold.
I would say the quotes focused on more than just "immortality" from God. Are these the only things he inherited? I don't know. I haven't done any in-depth study to say anything else.

Huh.  There's a thought I never considered before.  Think I need the original quote now:
Physical, sure, I inherited physical traits from my mortal parents.  Mental - sure, we generally consider that part of the DNA inheritance.  But spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers from mortal parents?  There's an idea I have never considered.  From spiritual parents, duh, but mortal?  I think I'll let the back of my brain ponder this for a while.  Perhaps this quote is meant to cover things "inherited" through upbringing as well as DNA, after all, we believe Christ was taught by the Father in his childhood.  Still, I think I'll let the back of my brain mull this over some.

Let's review the highlighted portions of the quotes:
1) The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents
2) Jesus inherited the ability to endure suffering during His atoning sacrifice ‘such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible
3) inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father
4) From His Heavenly Father He inherited immortality and the power to resurrect.
The first quote emphasizes "physical, mental, spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers from his parents. God the Father was Christ's earthly Father. What physical, mental, spiritual traits, and powers did Christ inherit from his Father?
We know he inherited at least three things: 1) Powers of Godhood and divinity. 2) He was the only "human" who could say no to death. He was immortal. No one could take his life. He had to freely give it. 3) He had the "power" to resurrect himself. No other human who ever lived or died could resurrect (the combining of body and spirit in glory never to be separated again) anyone, let alone himself/herself. Only Christ could resurrect himself, inherited power because God the Father was his earthly Father. 4) He could endure suffering that no other human could endure due to his parentage.
I assume the powers of Godhood and divinity would umbrella "immortality" and "resurrection." So "immortality" could not have been the only thing he inherited. None of us are able to perform any miracle by ourselves. All the miracles we perform are through Christ and his priesthood, which he has bestowed upon all who are his followers. All miracles we perform are in his name (divine). I would assume these are also inherited powers of Godhood and divinity that none of us have in and of ourselves. It is only through and by Christ we can accomplish what we accomplish. When the Savior performed miracles they were performed by him saying "be healed." When I, or any other son or daughter of God (spiritually) performs a miracle it is in his name whose priesthood we hold.
I would say the quotes focused on more than just "immortality" from God. Are these the only things he inherited? I don't know. I haven't done any in-depth study to say anything else.

I am going by age alone, and recognizing older people usually die before younger (anything could happen to the others: car accident, sickness, plane accident).
1) Elder Nelson will be next in line as President of the Church
2) I would then say Oaks
3) Then Holland (Eyring, small chance between him and Holland, so Eyring could out live Oaks)
4) Bednar would be my last thought as of now (assuming he lives as long as others have lived)
Apostle:
1) Elder Robbins (Anyone from the Presidency of the Seventy)
2) Possibly chosen from the BYU President, or BYUI President (as this has occurred more than once)
........
........
........
........
3) And well, of course, (*cough*) -- myself

When I get confused by something the scriptures say, or the apostles, or the church, or God I do not assume it is because they are lying or being disingenuous.  Because I have Faith in Christ and faith that he has called his leaders and is guiding them and his church.  Thus all the messages are going to be in harmony even if I struggle with it.  Like the whole don't kill/utterly destroy example I gave earlier.   Of course the world changing the definitions and terms doesn't help matter but that is not on the Church or God.
So lets take an -ism, Sexism for example.  The world uses it in many ways and is trying to remove any differences between the sexes, but unless they are totally rabid they will know that some sexual discrimination is necessary and good.  For example if your are a guy you do not want your doctor to try to give you a pap smear, if you are a girl you do not want your doctor to try to check your prostate.  (To be fair even if you are the right sex you probably do not want those thing but that is a tangent)... When this is pointed out all most everyone (who is not beyond reason) will refine their definition to someone acting out of Pride, or Hate or Fear to persecute someone else.  No one wants to be told they are inferior because of their sex, no one wants to be attacked and hurt because of their sex.
This holds true to all the other -isms too.  Their are some legit differences based on Race and Nationality, but most of the time they are not relevant and the related -ism is based on Pride, Hate or Fear.  The simple fact is that the Lord has always condemn Pride, Hate, and Fear (With very few Godly exceptions.)
So lets break this down on the Churches actions and responses.  When the church had the priesthood ban it was based on what was at the time a legitimate understanding of the differences of the Races.  It was by racist in the sense that it made a difference based on race.  However the priesthood ban did not give anyone a free pass to act based on Pride, or Hate or Fear toward different races which is racism in the most commonly understood sense.  Although being flawed mortals some do anyways.
When the church leaders talk about being subject to laws, and being actively engaged in the political, and social activities of the nation the members are in.  It of course is going to mean different things in different countries. It is nationalist in the sense that it is different based on nations . The USA is not the same and England, which is not the same as New Zealand, which is not the same a Brazil, which is not the same as Canada, etc..  The church wants the saints in those countries (and all the others) to be active in the political life of their nation.  But that does not give the members ad free pass to act based on Pride, or Hate or Fear toward different nationalities which is nationalism in the most commonly understood sense. Although being flawed mortals some do anyways.
When the church talks about men and women (say the proclamation of the Family or other things) they acknowledge different roles and functions based on sex. This is sexism in the sense that they are differences based on sex.  Men and Women have different Roles in the church.  But this does not give its members a free passed to act based on Pride, or Hate or Fear toward members of the different sex which is sexism in its most commonly understood sense. Although being flawed mortals some do anyways.
When Elder Ballard condemned sexism, racism, nationalism, etc. a member could either see the harmony of the message that the Church has always had regarding acting on Pride, Hate and Fear no matter what -ism they might hide behind.  Or they can accept the lie the world is trying to shove down our throats that there is no difference, and demand that Elder Ballard is wrong or that the rest of the church is wrong.  I am sure everyone here can judge between those two options and decide which one is based on and strengthens faith and which one can weaken faith and can lead to a falling away.
 

I don't have a problem with legitimate questions about what an apostle means when he says something. Questions are the beginning of wisdom after all, and I didn't have a problem with that statement. My issue has to do with your statements that the church is talking out of both sides its mouth and that Elder Ballard is being disingenuous. Both of those statements imply that you believe the Church and Elder Ballard are lying to us. I reject that idea. Our leaders are imperfect, but God would never allow them to lead the church astray, as you are implying by your previous comments quoted above. If you didn't mean to imply that the church is lying to us or trying to mislead us, than I am sorry for misreading your quote, but that is the impression I got from your statements.