Midwest LDS

But the difference here is they were wrong

... ahem... why do you think I started this thread?

Sectarians call us "a cult."  Ravi Zacharias tries to soften it a bit by explaining they are using a specific definition -- one that isn't used anywhere else by anyone else about anyone else except for "Mormons."  If we cry foul and logically explain why it's inaccurate, they simply respond,"Well, it's nuanced.  Our definitions are different. You're just so brainwashed that you don't know any better."
Gee, where have I heard that before?
The BLM side will say "All white people are racist. But it's nuanced.  Our definitions are different.  You're just too indoctrinated by the system to know any better."
And, yes, when some (and by "some" I mean many) Black people say "Black lives matter" they truly mean "Black lives are better than white lives."  That's why we see videos of black people kicking white people in the head while saying "Black Lives Matter!"   They apparently don't believe white lives matter.

I'm surprised that this isn't considered inherent in the Constitution.

Wow.  Some folks will never learn until they get hurt, some folks won't even learn after they get hurt.
I try to teach my kids - just assume that everything you say online is seen by security, the news media, your malevolent stalker, and your worst enemy.

That was the popular view of abolitionists in the South. There were definitely individuals and groups that 100% agreed with that viewpoint, but like any group of people, abolitionists varied in their opinions. There were also those who believed in compensated emancipation, and in sending the former slaves back to Africa, or just freeing the slaves but not extending their rights beyond that. Some religious abolitionists wanted to make former slaves full citizens upon the ending of slavery, but this view was pretty uncommon before and during the early part of the Civil War. Actually it was hundreds of thousands of blacks being willing to pick up the rifle and help fight against the South that brought the majority over to believing they deserved the rights of citizens. Of course a whole bunch of stuff went wrong right afterwards during Reconstruction, but that's another discussion.

You have no idea the level of my arrogance.  I may have told this story before..
When working in Afghanistan, they didn't have much in the way of "niceties" in the office.  They said that we won't have any nameplates.  But we need to be able to identify you when visitors or new people come around.  So print up your name and position and tape it to your desk.
I didn't know what "position" I held.  The told me to just put whatever I wanted.  (teh hee hee).
 
(CARBORENDUM)
...ENGINEERING GOD
EMPEROR OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.
 
One very nice fundamental Christian lady (bless her heart) told me that I shouldn't have capitalized "GOD".  She failed to realize that the entire sign was ALL CAPS.

Well, you've made a good effort.  But that misses the point.  I'm well aware that there are nuances.  But when you cut it down to the most fundamental assumptions of the entire, complex, nuanced arguments, you cannot deny that if "all white people are racist" is a false statement, then the argument (as currently framed) falls apart.
Try making the same arguments without that assumption and you'll get a LOT more traction.  A lot of points these very links made were perfectly valid.  But when you use "all white people are racist" as the premise to generate all these, then that just makes me want to ignore the good points of the message that may or may not be valid.

I thought this was a veiled reference to being Romulan.  I was way off

That was the popular view of abolitionists in the South. There were definitely individuals and groups that 100% agreed with that viewpoint, but like any group of people, abolitionists varied in their opinions. There were also those who believed in compensated emancipation, and in sending the former slaves back to Africa, or just freeing the slaves but not extending their rights beyond that. Some religious abolitionists wanted to make former slaves full citizens upon the ending of slavery, but this view was pretty uncommon before and during the early part of the Civil War. Actually it was hundreds of thousands of blacks being willing to pick up the rifle and help fight against the South that brought the majority over to believing they deserved the rights of citizens. Of course a whole bunch of stuff went wrong right afterwards during Reconstruction, but that's another discussion.

That was the popular view of abolitionists in the South. There were definitely individuals and groups that 100% agreed with that viewpoint, but like any group of people, abolitionists varied in their opinions. There were also those who believed in compensated emancipation, and in sending the former slaves back to Africa, or just freeing the slaves but not extending their rights beyond that. Some religious abolitionists wanted to make former slaves full citizens upon the ending of slavery, but this view was pretty uncommon before and during the early part of the Civil War. Actually it was hundreds of thousands of blacks being willing to pick up the rifle and help fight against the South that brought the majority over to believing they deserved the rights of citizens. Of course a whole bunch of stuff went wrong right afterwards during Reconstruction, but that's another discussion.

As I understand it, “Abolitionist” was kind of a term of art in the antebellum period that applied specifically to the policy of compelling (by force if necessary) slaveowners in their home states to immediately emancipate their slaves with no thought of compensation.  That seems natural to us now; but under this definition, Joseph Smith (by advancing a sort of buy-back program) wasn't really an “abolitionist” as Americans of the period would have understood the term.  Many, many early Americans disagreed with slavery and wanted to end it, but preferred using other means and thus wouldn’t have fit the 1830 (or even 1855) description of “abolitionist”.
This may seem like gnat-straining, but it’s important to keep in mind when you see early Church literature and sermons that often virulently condemn “abolitionism”.  In general, early Saints had no problem with the idea of living in a slave-free society; they just weren’t willing to use violence to attain that goal.

Yep.  And folks are quick to jump on language Joseph and Brigham and others used during the time, and some of the ideas they proposed.  Folks don't get that slavery was a hot topic since the founding of our nation, and everyone and their dog had an opinion on what to do about it.  The young nation would have to change, and there were many ideas about what to do with slaves.  Keep them?  Free them?  Send them to reservations?  Send them back to Africa?  Educate them?  
Joseph was suggesting the Americans should end slavery, transport the slaves back to from where they (or their ancestors) were stolen and sold, set them up with some money and supplies, and an apology.  (I'm not sure if the word 'reparations' had been invented yet, but the notion was there.)  America went with another solution - civil war and half a million dead to free the slaves, then 150 years of racial tension and strife and struggle still happening today.

Critics are so quick to point out the supposedly racist words used in the Book of Mormon.  But no one points out something that is glaringly egalitarian about it.
People tend to simply gloss over it because of presentism, just as they tend to claim racism based on presentism.  It is pretty interesting whether you look at it from being authored by Joseph Smith or if you look at it as an ancient document.
In the 1820s slavery was still a big thing.  The northern states had just outlawed it about 10 years before Joseph's birth.  But the southern states were chugging along with the institution.
As an ancient document, people certainly could have pointed to provisions in the Law of Moses regarding slavery as a justification to continue the practice.  But both King Benjamin and King Mosiah outlawed it.

"Abolitionists" were not monolithic.

It had a Holy of Holies, which like modern celestial rooms represented coming back into the presence of the very throne of God.

It may not budge the needle in Seattle proper, but I have some hope that the less densely populated areas of the state will be, well, less dense.

My point exactly.  When was it ever peaceful.  It seemed violent at the start.

I believe (don't quote me) that the US government deals with multiple citizenships by simply not caring in most cases whether someone holds a passport from another nation. In effect, the US government recognizes the US citizenship of its passport-holders but does not recognize other citizenships for those people in any official way. So the concept of "dual citizen" seems not really to exist in the US government, at least not when applied to American citizens.
Here is a government site that seems both to bolster and to call into question this opinion:
U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. However, persons who acquire a foreign nationality after age 18 by applying for it may relinquish their U.S. nationality if they wish to do so. In order to relinquish U.S. nationality by virtue of naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality. Intent may be shown by the person’s statements and conduct.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality.

Seattle's mayor finally decided that SPAZ was just not healthy...  for her.  So, she has given the order for police to dismantle it.
She was quoted as saying;
I guess the families and children who were at risk inside the Zone were "acceptable losses."  It was only when she became a target that it was unacceptable.
All this stuff is only serving to move more people to the right.

????

No, Bishops and Stake Presidents were asked by area authorities to begin prayerfully developing plans on how to hold meetings again. Stake presidents were then asked to have those meeting plans (created with Bishops) approved by their Area Seventy, and be incorporated into the area plan. The practices vary between church area and stake, but all of their plans are approved by church headquarters. Again, local leaders were told to start holding meetings again. They are not doing this on their own, but are given the freedom to develop some parts of their plan. Some aspects of plans have been approved, some rejected, and other aspects are requirements from the First presidency. The individual stake and area plans may be different, but all are approved by the General Authorities. We have one Bishop in our Stake who is very much opposed to meeting again, but he is following the guidance of his leaders to meet, and his ward has been greatly blessed.
Other in-person Sunday meetings outside of Sacrament Meeting, such as Relief Society and Priesthood meetings, are not approved by the First Presidency at this time. Other church functions, such as Baptisms and Weddings, can be held if the maximum number of participants in less than 20, and weekly youth meetings/activities can be held if the number is also under 20, and if social distancing is practiced throughout the activity...this has not yet happened in our stake as we cannot trust the kids to practice social distancing yet.
Wards here are not going rogue. Church leadership is fully aware of all meetings taking place. If you want to know why the church would open wards in certain areas, or want to comment on how legally stupid you think our leaders are, I recommend you write to church headquarters and share your feelings. Be sure to let them know how you know better than them, and how people in Utah want to do anything and everything to risk others.

This question entirely misses the point. Skin color is irrelevant. Any indication in the scriptures that it is may be attributed to either cultural factors (such as dark being paired with filthy, white is paired with purity), or the flaws of man.

Of course it's possible.  The fact is -- WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE.  And we don't know what Mary looked like.
https://askgramps.org/artists-portray-christ-white-skinned/
Why don't people ask about depictions of Mary as an adult instead of a 13 year old girl (which was entirely possible given the social norms of the time)?  Why don't they give the Catholics a hard time for depicting her as the reverend mother type rather than the little girl?  Why don't they give all of Christianity a hard time for depicting Mary as white?
No, it's just the Mormons for DARING to simply make and distribute a painting that make people think of the Savior.
Now, given the very common figurative language of the Book of Mormon when talking about "white" and "filthy" and such, I would ask, does the Spirit tell you that the Savior was the source of all that is good?  And denying him is what is considered "filthy"?  If so, the authors of the Book of Mormon did their jobs.

I cancelled a trip in March, and we're waiting to give High School graduate daughter some sort of fun vacation trip thing, because of COVID-19.  Mamma and I are not old, but we both have nasty preexisting health conditions.