Phineas

Is it just me or is the word “tolerance” not used as much these days?  The word “inclusion” seems to be thrown around more often. 
 
Tolerance, as I understand it, means that we disagree with each other and have different sets of values but we all strive to get along and live with each other nonetheless.
Inclusion seems to mean that we change our beliefs in order to accommodate others.  When it comes to LGBT issues, it seems the church is no longer being asked to be tolerant.  It would appear we are being asked to change in order be more inclusive.  
 

But a beloved strawman it is, always dragged out and dutifully flogged in such situations.

I just want to make it clear that literally nobody is making the argument that men and boys don’t have responsibility over their own thoughts and actions.  That is a straw man claim that always gets brought up in this discussion.

The church doesn’t hate anybody.  But you’ll still find individual church members that are jerks.  That shouldn’t be a surprise.

I used to buy into the narrative that the church is behind on everything.  But now that I look at how crazy our society is becoming, I have to admit that I stand corrected.

Good point.  He was an apostle of Christ.  But all apostles and prophets are people with different styles and personalities.  Just look at the current 15.  They’re all unique.  They preach the same gospel but do so in different ways.  Just like we have four different  writers of the Gospels.  
Individual church members often gravitate toward some General Authorities  more than others.  I have my favorites.  You probably have yours. 

I really like Mason even though I probably disagree with him politically.  His book Planted was very helpful to me.
I am also a huge fan of Terryl and Fiona.  I wouldn’t call them second prophets but they have  been immensely influential to me.  

I really just wanted to express how pleasantly surprised I am with President Nelson.  It’s just been fascinating watching him do all the things he’s been doing at his age.  The poll was more of a rhetorical question I guess.

We shouldn't confuse the Church becoming more understanding with the Church becoming more accepting. As sin becomes more prevalent Church leaders are definitely more understanding of those who fall into temptation verses those who years ago usually had to seek it out. This does not mean however that sin is any more acceptable than before. Good Ship Zion may be getting covered in a layer of my winter fleece bed sheets which makes it feel more warm and cozy for those who are struggling but anyone who runs headlong into it is still going to come away with just as big a headache and goose egg as before. Maybe that's not a good analogy but my main point still stands. 😉

Just a short anecdote that I heard about Elder McConkie a few hours ago during the Saturday night session of stake conference - it doesnt contribute anything to the question being discussed here but I think its worth sharing. This was shared by a counsellor in the Mission Presidency, recalling an incidence when he was 12 years old attending a stake conference at which Elder McConkie was presiding.
Elder McConkie gets up and says he has a message that the prophet has charged him to deliver to the saints in this city. But while waiting for his turn to talk, he says he felt the spirit prompting him to talk about something completely different. So what to do, he asks the congregation, follow the prophet or follow the spirit? He explains that he will follow the spirit and then report to the Prophet what he has done when he gets back to Salt Lake. 
Later in tonight's conference, the visiting Area Seventy decided to elaborate on that theme by spending several minutes discussing Doctrine and Covenants 46:2
2 But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the aelders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to bconduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Area Seventy went on to carefully explain that the promptings of the Spirit trump whatever it might say in the written material that the church relies on, specifically the scriptures and the Handbook.    

So then, let's be precise. The bee in these people's bonnet is not that McConkie and his father-in-law were "authoritarian". The irritant is that these people don't like how McConkie and Smith said things.
So while admitting that those men were true apostles of the Lord, these people nevertheless insist that their plain, direct, unfuzzified speech was so offensive as to render their teachings of little effect today. In other words, this modern generation will not accept direct, plain-spoken, unfiltered true doctrine, so therefore the Church (and presumably He who stands at its head) are obligated to cater to their tastes in matters of divine instruction.
I disagree.

Interesting poll.  I am surprised to see it on this forum.  I usually only see such polls/questions on sites filled with apostates and wolves in sheep's clothing.
 
No @Phineas I am not accusing you of anything, just making an observation.

The church doesn’t hate anybody.  But you’ll still find individual church members that are jerks.  That shouldn’t be a surprise.

I am some what of the notion that a great deal of what many teach as doctrine concerning what is the true doctrine that flows from G-d is not really doctrine.  At the very foundation of our doctrine is that there will be changes in our doctrine.  Consider from our scripture our 9th Article of Faith:
And there are other problems to revelation - ancient and modern.  That is that G-d reveals teachings (doctrine) according to our language and understanding.  I would use the examples of Abraham Chapter 3 and Doctrine and Covenants section 88.  In essence these two scriptures are talking about the same principles of doctrine.  One is given according to the science and mathematics (integer and rational integer number theory) of ancient Egypt at the time of Abraham (who was in Egypt teaching Pharaoh and his scholars).  The other is given according to Newtonian science (physics and mathematics) that was the understanding at the time of Joseph Smith.  As a student of science - I have studied the science and mathematics of ancient Egypt (including the Egyptian creation - what asserts that all matter was created from a watery abyss).   I studied Newtonian physics and the real number theory.  And I have also studied quantum physics and imaginary number theory.
I am convinced that if the revelation of Abraham Chapter 3 and D&C 88 were to be given today with a backdrop of quantum physics and imaginary number theory that the revelation would look different enough that many might not notice that the central subject was the same.  From the Book of Mormon we learn more about "Types and Shadows" concerning doctrine of things that were, that are now and that are yet to become.
I am also convinced that we need to pay the most close attention of all to our living Apostles, prophets, general authorities and finely our local leaders (including sisters called to leadership positions within the body of the Latter-day Saints).  Let us gather in our solemn assemblies and our counsels (including priesthood, relief societies and young women and Sunday School) to use our spiritual gifts to enlighten one another.  Let us also study, fast and pray for understanding and personal revelation - but let us do so with the keeping of our sacred covenants and laws as manifested to us.  Let us use all that G-d grants us that we come to a unity of the faith that will be finalized with the return of our Messiah and king.
 
The Traveler

I might give Brigham Young a lower grade for that blasted priesthood ban.

Supposedly, our position with regard to LGBT issues has been considered "intolerant."  That seems very strange considering an experience I just recently had in the temple.
I need to point out that I didn't think anything negative about this person.  It was just a curiosity for me.  Nothing more.
I was in the endowment session and noticed the young lady (I'd estimate college years) seated in the front -- an ordinance worker.
She had blue hair, in a stereotypically lesbian haircut -- I'd call it "butch" style.  Other portions of her demeanor led me to believe that she was in fact a lesbian.  100% sure, no.  No such thing.  But for 99% sure, there certainly appeared to be a lesbian who was an ordinance worker at the temple.  Not only that, but she was a fully OUT lesbian who was proudly advertising her lesbian "identity."
She was an ordinance worker at the temple.
Upon seeing this, I don't see how on earth people can justifiably say that the Church HATES people with SSA.

Right.  And as I suggest above—it causes real pain and suffering (as did the one instituted by President Young).
But that doesn’t mean that either ban is unwarranted, or could not have been divinely instituted/sanctioned.  The modern policy is a reaction to particularized needs and social conditions; and the net effect is that a policy that puts the needs of the few on the back burner for a while, winds up serving the needs of the greater whole and allowing the Gospel work to move forward. 
We need to be really, really careful about overlaying modern motives, mores, and situational needs onto actions of individuals (and deities) that happened decades or centuries ago.  As has been said, “the past is a different country; they do things differently there.”

I suppose not.  

@Phineas, I don't mean to come down on you. I doubt anyone here does. Let me try to respond more specifically to your post.
Let me say in sincerity and brotherly kindness that I think this was your first mistake. I am no fan of "Faith Matters", though I concede the group name's gently clever pun. Many, including some on this site, seem to consider Terryl Givens and his wife Fiona as Second Prophets. They are no such thing. The group is seriously off-kilter. They seem to me to be, to some extent at least, wolves in somewhat shabby sheepskins. I do not completely doubt their sincerity in all things—but I could say the same for any anti-Mormon or anti-Christian group. For just one example, consider the first seven of their so-called Big Questions:
BIG QUESTION #1: Does our faith have a unique story to tell about creation, human origins and humanity’s relationship with the earth?
BIG QUESTION #2: In the past, church leaders have made some significant mistakes. How much should I rely on pronouncements and teachings of our leaders today?
BIG QUESTION #3: Is there something really unique or revolutionary about our understanding of Christ’s atonement?
BIG QUESTION #4: I’m going through a period of serious doubt. Does doubt ever lead to greater faith, or is this likely my new normal?
BIG QUESTION #5: Why do people leave the church and how should we engage with friends or family members who leave?
BIG QUESTION #6: What about our LGBT brothers and sisters?
BIG QUESTION #7: I’m really put off by patriarchy. Isn’t it a big problem for a modern church?
Aside from the first "Big Question", which is pretty much an obvious and generic question about any religious organization, this is a laundry list of relatively trivial issues that gall at the woke and the politically correct. What kind of people put such questions as their "Big Questions"? Small, shallow, trivial-minded people without testimonies, that's who.
Is there anyone who could come up with a better set of seven Big Questions? A better question might be, Is there anyone who couldn't? off the top of my head, here are seven far better Big Questions:
BIG QUESTION #1: Who and what is God?
BIG QUESTION #2: What is the nature of our true relationship with God?
BIG QUESTION #3: What (if anything) is our duty before God?
BIG QUESTION #4: What (if any) promises has God made to us, and what (if any) are the conditions of the fulfillment of those promises?
BIG QUESTION #5: What does our duty to God look like regarding our duty to and treatment of our fellow man?
BIG QUESTION #6: What is the nature of the family? If it is important, then why is that the case?
BIG QUESTION #7: Can I insure my own happiness and that of my family now and in the life/lives to come? If so, how?
"But those are not questions that concern me!" reply the so-called Faith Matters group. And that is exactly the point. They are concerned about fringe topics that are all the rage with the woke and the politically correct, but miss or ignore the actual, central questions upon which the Restored Church has important answers. Instead, they concern themselves with such stupid questions as "What about our LGBT brothers and sisters?" (Yes, what about them? They are children of God, just like the rest of us. They are subjects of salvation, just like the rest of us. They are expected to abandon the natural man and embrace the Good News, just like the rest of us. And if they turn away from God and follow after their lusts, they will be destroyed, just like the rest of us.) "I'm really put off by patriarchy." (And therefore...? Lots of people were "really put off" by Christ, but he was still The Way, even to them.)
I have zero confidence in the sincerity of intent of these people. To me, they look like agitators, not humble, truth-seeking Saints.
Can he provide some examples of a non-black-and-white style of gospel teaching? "Jesus was sort of born the Son of God, and might have atoned for our sins, depending on how you look at it"? Do we have gospel truths or gospel, you know, sort of truish things that change as we become more woke?
What examples did this man give of how McConkie's so-called black-and-white style of teaching eternal truth "backfired"?
For the record: We do not have "theologians" in the Restored Church, certainly not in the traditional Catholic sense of the word. Our so-called theology is nothing less than revealed truth.  It does not come from scholarly development based on ponderous academic research. It comes from the revealed word of God, no theology involved. Any part of our current doctrine that may have been determined by "theology" is suspect.
This is because you have allowed yourself to be deceived by people like those involved in Faith Matters.
It is true that rhetorical and teaching styles change. For example, the Lectures on Faith were written in a question-and-answer format common in the early 19th-century United States. That style fell out of favor and has looked decidedly old-fashioned for many generations. Today, with FAQs being common, the Q&A format doesn't look as strange or as dated. Such styles wax and wane.
But the truths taught by the prophets you mention are not up for vote. And if the direct "tell-it-like-it-is" style is frowned on today as entirely too rigid and bossy, just wait another generation.
The fact that you "feel that's a good thing" is evidence that your mind has been poisoned to some degree by the raw sewage such sites and podcasts have been pumping into your brain. I urge you to rethink your position, and to cut off the source of pollution from your brain.
There's my take, for whatever it's worth to you.

I would also give President Nelson an “A”; especially for his careful husbanding of Chirch resources in the face of grabby post-millennials who want to spend it all now on the latest fashionable secularist cause du jour, his continuing the construction of temples fit for the worship of our God, his refusal to be browbeaten by the OrdainWomen gang, and his sending Elder Johnson to restore order at BYU last year after the reprobates at the Honor Code Office tried to legitimize homosexual conduct.
I also appreciated his ministry as an apostle; especially his warning that God’s love is to some degree conditional on our own love for Him, and his fearless affirmation that the policy re children of same-sex couples was indeed borne of revelation that was appropriate to its time and place.
But of course, the material point isn’t the grade that we would give the prophet; it’s the grade that God would give the prophet.

Not exactly.  But in that same direction, yes.
Well that makes it all better, now, doesn't it?
Phineas, first let me apologize if that sounded too harsh to you.  But it seems that you are very young in age as well as in the gospel.  You may have been raised as a member of the Church. But what exactly were you taught by your parents?  Did they teach you that this was acceptable?
Consider for a moment that this poll is essentially asking us to judge our prophet on how good a job he's doing.  That's not our place.  The Lord has called him.  And the Lord will judge him.

Why would we not give him an A?

@Phineas, you should let President Nelson know that he misspoke. For that matter, you should let God know that His words were incorrect. I'm sure both will thank you kindly for your correction.

I recently listened to a Faith Matters podcast with Patrick Mason as the interviewee.  He talked about Bruce R. McConkie’s rigid black-and-white style of teaching the gospel.  He said that the McConkie way of doing things served a purpose for a time but that it has since backfired.  (These are my words as I’m recollecting the conversation so I might be butchering it.)
Don’t get me wrong. I like Elder McConkie.  I spent a lot of time reading Mormon Doctrine as a kid.  He was a very influential guy.  Possibly the last theologian General Authority.   But I get the sense that the church is in a transition phase right now.  We are slowly moving away from the more rigid rhetoric of McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith,  Packer, etc.  And I feel that’s a good thing. 
 
Am I right in my assessment?  If so, is it good?
 
 

I hope I’m not being too blasphemous by posting this poll.  I apologize if I am. I give him an A.
 
I just want to say how impressed I have been with President Nelson so far.  To be honest he was never one of my favorite apostles.  I never paid much attention to his talks.  But ever since the mantle of President of the Church fell upon him, he’s transformed before my eyes.  Here’s some things about his presidency I’ve loved:
Two-hour church
Home-centered church (providentially not long before COVID).
Emphasis on seeking out our own personal revelation.
Undoing the controversial policy concerning children of same-sex  couples.
His social media statement responding to the George Floyd killing and subsequent riots.  I liked how he condemned both racism as well as the rioting.
His call for a world-wide fast for relief from the pandemic.
His social media message on gratitude and his prayer for all of us.
Setting an example by wearing a mask during conference.
Getting the COVID vaccine and promoting it as a medical miracle.  I believe the quick production of the vaccine was part of the answer to the world-wide fast.
His talk on letting God prevail was great.  
 
 
There’s more I could probably think of but that should suffice for now.