Midwest LDS

In the middle of our domestic troubles, I haven't heard anyone notice the wars that are brewing in Asia.
China & India:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-face-off-live-updates-india-china-hold-major-general-level-talks/liveblog/76415465.cms
North & South Korea.
https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/06/18/north-korea-blows-up-the-souths-de-facto-embassy
https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/after-blowing-de-facto-embassy-north-korea-continues-provocations

Indeed.  I always have to chuckle when people tell me this is some new thing.  My favorite quote from our second president, John Adams, speaking about Alexander Hamilton (the guy on our $10 bills): 
Think about the last ten things you've heard people yell about Trump's relationships with women.  Same stuff, different century.  

Bob will not be answering your post anytime soon.
Characteristically, in his innuendoes about the Church’s supposedly weakening views on transgender folk, he omitted Handbook section 38.6.21; which covers “social transitions” as well as surgical transitions.
 

Bob, I am sincerely confused. You offer the above quotation from the General Handbook in answer to the question, "Who is this disciple that is so confused about gender identity?" Yet the quotation you cite evinces no confusion about gender identity, but only affirms that some people feel such confusion. It maintains that we should be Christlike to all people, including those who call themselves "transgender". It defines what "transgender" means in this context and declares that the Church takes no position on the causes (not on the morality!) of such identification.
Do you disagree with any of the above? I don't see how any Saint can disagree. It's all obviously true. You may feel that the Handbook should take more of an openly moralistic stance against transgenderism. But that is a question of communication style, not one of doctrinal explication.
The last paragraph might be considered problematic. But consider: People are baptized in their imperfections. We have a bar people must meet for baptism, but to be perfectly frank, the bar is not very high (from the perspective of those who are already Saints; from the convert's perspective, the bar is high indeed). We expect people to give themselves over to Christ, to strive to obey him and turn their lives to him. We expect them to cease fornications, lyings, deceivings, and other such unholy activities. In today's Church, we expect them to refrain from certain overt activities that explicitly violate the Word of Wisdom, though this standard is not evenly applied and is relatively recent.
The point is, we do NOT expect proselytes to live in a perfect manner before they are baptized. We do not expect that they will abandon all beliefs or practices contrary to Church teachings. Even you and I, middle-aged men of long standing in the Church, cannot meet that standard. We meet, perhaps, a temple recommend-holding status, which is certainly a higher standard than that of the baptismal bar, but let's face it, still isn't really all that high. God allows us all sorts of foibles and weaknesses without completely denying us communion with him. He does not condemn us in our sins; he saves us from them.
So the last paragraph is the judgment of the leaders of Christ's kingdom that acting in a "transgendered" manner is not per se sufficient to deny people the covenant of baptism, including the gift of the Holy Ghost, which may well be the only way these people can ever hope to overcome the "transgenderism" that afflicts them. Yes, they must cease fornications and open lasciviousness and whoredoms and lyings. But it appears that a boy saying that he feels like he's a girl and likes to wear dresses (or a girl saying she feels and wants to dress like a boy) is not in itself sufficient to disqualify a potential convert.
Is this what you really, fundamentally disagree with? I suspect it is.
If I am correct, then honestly, I'm not completely without sympathy for your point of view. I, too, am bothered by the creeping (so-called) tolerance we see in society, where any and all manner of perversions are to be accepted—except the horrific perversion of actually naming such things to be perversions. I, too, see such attitudes creeping into the membership of the kingdom of God. I hate to witness such things.
But here's the catch: I'm not an apostle. It is not my place to steady the ark. Nor is it yours. We are anointed, but not as the leader's in God's kingdom today. Those who have received that anointing are making such decisions carefully and, I believe, under the guidance of the Lord through the influence of his Spirit.
I have condensed what would have been probably an eight- or ten-post question and response down to the above, in hopes of moving the conversation along. Please let me know if I have understood correctly. The evidence you were trying to offer above boils down to: The apostles say that transgendered people can be baptized, and you don't like that. I think this is a fair summary. Is it? If so, I wonder what your thoughts are on steadying the ark.

You sir, are not a good guesser.

Whoa whoa..... easy there, tiger.
This is exactly how the Church fell into the Great Apostasy... God called prophets, apostles, bishops... the people - even esteemed ones in the Church decided they can choose which of the prophet's words they can follow or not because... after all, they're just flawed people like everyone else... so the people who claimed they are "enlightened" pushed forth their own philosophies contrary to the prophet's direction.  So God took the keys.
History is repeating itself right here on this discussion.
 

Certainly. When I was a teen, a man named Jim Jones was a false prophet to his deluded followers. They gathered in the jungles of Guyana at a place modestly called Jonestown. After ordering the murder of a US Congressman and a news crew who came to investigate reported abuses, Jones ordered his 900+ followers to join him in glorious death by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid (hence the current morbid expression "drinking the Kool-Aid"). They did, and died horribly. Over a third were children. After their deaths, Jones blew his own head off.
These were people who fully sustained a false prophet beyond all reason or decency. So yes, it's a horrible but very real possibility to sustain as a prophet a man who is not one. Thank God we have a true prophet of Jesus Christ we can sustain, even in his potential weaknesses, rather than a monstrous conman.

Yes, absolutely. As my citation of Moses in Exodus shows, prophets very often need the (in that case literal) sustaining of the people they're leading. If a flock won't follow its leader and help him be successful, he often will not succeed.
But the failure of a people to sustain their leader doesn't mean the leader has failed, or wasn't truly called. This has been your claim, and I do not understand why you keep hammering home the obvious truth that a prophet can be called of God even when the people don't sustain him. The people's lack of sustaining doesn't mean the man is not divinely called. It means only that the people have rejected the Lord by rejecting the leadership and counsel of his prophets, as the people of Ammonihah or king Noah and his priests (other than Alma).

She was a lost cause in the womb.  You try being given memories and personalities of tens of thousands of people before you're even born, and see how stable and healthy you turn out.  Indeed she was an abomination, but she didn't have any choice in the matter.   
One of the saddest parts of any book of fiction I've read: Alia's water was poured on the sand.  
 

In the notes at the end of Dune, we learn Ornithopters operated on the same principles dragonflies use.  

No, Heretics of Dune was Book 5 of the series.
The sci-fi series tried to stick much closer to the book than the movie did.  And I think it did a good job of it. But it really didn't make as much sense if you hadn't read the book.
It was funny that they basically skipped over the second book in about 5 minutes and went straight into Book 3.  But as I though about it, Book 2 was very short on enduring plot items (items that directly affected the following books).
And, YES, Alia certainly did do something wrong.  She allowed herself to be possessed by (in the book) the man who represented the devil incarnate.  She completely destroyed the legacy that Paul had created. The B.G. were right in declaring her an abomination.
Yes, she was.  And, yes, she was.

Remind me: Was Alia Paul's sister? She was certainly a tragic figure.

You have honestly and thoroughly answered my question. Let me try to return the favor.
Yes, I believe that the First Presidency's and Quorum of Twelve's teachings are in fact the word of God to us.
I am fully aware that our leaders are mortal men, with the ignorance and carnal passions that come with that state. God is aware of this, too. Yet he keeps just such men in positions of authority. I'm thinking there is a reason for that.
When I served a mission, I was called for a period of 18 months. My older brother served for 24 months, so I felt mildly cheated about my 18-month mission. The time period had changed within a year or two of my leaving. But I didn't whine or complain, or even request an extension. I just served my mission.
Within a couple of years after my return, the First Presidency changed the term of full-time missionary service for elders back to 24 months. AHA! So Spencer Kimball just MADE THAT UP! That was no revelation!
Baloney.
President Kimball saw a need, and he and his counselors found a possible solution to that need. Unlike Oliver Cowdery, who was given the gift of translation but was too naive to understand how to ask in faith and so never fulfilled his potential, Presidents Kimball, Tanner, Romney, and Hinckley knew they needed to make plans and present them to God. Thus they did, and God gave the okay.
Obviously, you know all this. Obviously, you have already thought about all this. You note that Joseph Smith kept asking God to do something that God had already told him not to do (116 pages stuff), so finally God said okay, and disaster followed. Your line of reasoning seems to be that this is a type and shadow of inferior yet still true revelation; we are too faithless to do what God would have us do, so instead God allows us to do what we want.
Do you see any possible bitter irony in this? Because I do.
You appear to have suggested—and I welcome correction if I have misunderstood—that President Kimball's 1978 revelation on extending the Priesthood to all men, including those of black African descent, was exactly one of these ersatz revelations given to the faithless who didn't have the grit or backbone to follow God's real (or at least preferred) commandments. In fact, it appears that you believe that all the prophets since Joseph Smith or maybe Brigham Young have been exactly this sort of mealy-mouthed, milquetoast sort who choose convenience over God's Own Truth.
I am at a bit of a loss even to know how to respond to such apparent Snufferism. The fact is that I have agreed with a lot of what you have written. I get tired of people dancing around historical fact or doctrinal exposition. Yet the idea that the kingdom of God today is led by men who are frankly out of harmony with the Lord's will and are leading us along a subpar path goes against all I have learned, all I understand from scripture, and much of what I have received from the Spirit in testimony. I have no illusions that the apostles are Jesus Christ or that every word spoken or decision taken by the First Presidency represents exactly what God would say or do in that situation. But by definition, the voice of the First Presidency is the very voice of Jesus Christ, because they are his mouthpiece.
And if we decide, as with President Kimball's 18-month mission experiment, that some First Presidency decision or other was less than perfect, so be it. What does it mean to "sustain" our leaders, if not that we unite behind them and help them to be successful in their callings, despite their human weaknesses? Given that, I cannot believe that sustaining my leaders includes publicly pointing out their flaws or encouraging my fellow Saints to disbelieve them.

Indeed. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." Unity is absolutely vital. But it appears that unity is not supposed to be achieved by creating a list of necessary beliefs, a list of acceptable beliefs, and a list of unacceptable beliefs, and then policing our fellow Saints such that everyone accepts all items in List A and no items in List C, with List B being optional. My intuition suggests that this unity must be based around pure charity and real caring for each other, rather than around making sure we all have the correct beliefs about everything. It seems to be more of a family thing.
I share your concerns about racial divisiveness. I share your concerns about homosexuality becoming acceptable and sometimes popular, even within the very kingdom of God. I do not have the answers to such questions, nor do I pretend to. I agree with Paul's heartfelt words: "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" I long for the certainty of hearing a prophet tell us exactly what to do in this and that situation.
But I think that version of reality never actually existed, not like we sometimes think it did. And I think if it became our present reality, we would find it objectionable, not merely restrictive and confining, but almost a religious Goodthink.
Perhaps the time will come when our leaders will speak in bold terms and primary colors, when our courage must not flag lest our hearts fail us. Perhaps at that time we will have the privilege of standing up to the bullying and hatred of the world and of demonstrating our contempt for the good opinions of evil men. For the present time, that appears not to be what is required of us. We are to seek the establishment of Zion by becoming one, not through standardized opinions, but through Christlike love. I'm a blind man groping against the wall to find my way, so I don't preach from an elevated perspective. But whatever my weakness, I want to do what is required of me. I want to live in Zion. I want to do my part. I need to spend more time improving my ability to do my own part and less time worrying about how badly others seem to be doing theirs.
I do not look forward to a time when the Church divides. I hope that time never comes. Many will fall away; that's the way of the world. But I hope there is not some grand division in our future, similar to or even worse than what happened after 1844.

Exactly. Except for the "plausible" part.

When they make a statue of this guy, it should be doing the breast stroke.  So when they throw it in the river 100 years later it'll make sense. 

How dare you question the keeper of the BattlePug!  So impressive, I made it my avatar.

 
 
Also, let's hope they get the outfights right in 2020:

I have been wondering about that avatar ever since I came back here.  Cropping it out removed all chance of me recognizing that image.

https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Ornithopter
Apparently, it was jet powered.  But the wings were used for maneuverability.
While many images are online that look more hawk-like, I always invisioned something like:
 (as shown on the Dune wiki)
I didn't get that from the books.   Paul knew he, himself, could not any longer since he was blind.
I also got the impression that Paul believed NO one should go down that path.  I don't believe he knew that Leto (II) would be able to go down the golden path at all.  He was surprised to learn that Leto had indeed done so.
Part of being the K.H. was that you had to have the balance of both aggression and compassion (both male and female).  But the golden path would require that he detach himself from humanity entirely to the point where he simply couldn't relate to them anymore.  Without that empathy, he would have neither compassion nor aggression.  He would simply be "above all that."  There is no aggression in stepping on an ant.
Leto was indeed above all that for many centuries until the Tleilaxu created that girl.  I forget her name.  But that was the first time he felt human in a very long time.  He actually felt vulnerable.
But anyway.  I liked the Sci-Fi series as a TV series.  I liked the movie as a theatrical film.  I liked the books as books.  But I couldn't get through Heretics.

It has been many decades since I read Dune, but I see to remember various descriptions of ornithopter flight detailing how the wing motion went from normal flight to short, cupped motions. Or something like that. Based on such descriptions, I always presumed the ornithopters were wing-flapping airplanes.

Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Pryddain has been on my to-read list for about 30 years, and for most of that time I refused to watch the movie till I'd read the books. I've since been led to understand that the books and the movie have little in common. Lloyd Alexander himself claimed that he enjoyed the Disney movie, but he saw no connection between it and anything he had written.
I always liked David Lynch's Dune, though there's a kind of heresy in saying that. It's not 100% true to the book I grant you, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.
I also liked The Postman with Kevin Costner. People sneer at it, saying it's "Waterworld without the water" - and then go on to pan Waterworld too.
I quite liked Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings. My main complaint is that it was cheaply finished off with rotoscoping instead of proper animation. If Bakshi had had the budget to make the entire movie to the same standards as the best scenes in it it would have been fantastic. (BTW I think Annette Crosby was way better as Galadriel than Cate Blanchett was. As for Treebeard though...*shudder*.) 
 

1.  Suburban now, rural two years ago.  But I do child welfare law; my warrants have to do with safety inspections of houses/forensic interviews of kids/removing children from parental custody; and I imagine that it’s mostly social workers doing that wherever you go since our agency is funded by the state and not the city or county.
2.  Maybe.  From what little I hear of this Brooks case, things happened so fast that there was no time for a social worker to do any sort of de-escalation; everything was fine until Brooks decided he just didn’t want to go to jail and suddenly there was a scuffle.  It would be an interesting tactical puzzle to figure out how to have cops and social workers working in tandem productively and safely.

I personally think what President Nelson said on June 1st was sufficient regarding all hate, prejudice, and racists action:
The Church group you are speaking of will one day have to realize the following verse of scripture, "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds...," as they kick against the pricks.
I would agree, I find membership complaints about "how racist the Church is" to be disappointing. I wouldn't be surprised if there is "racism" in the Church, but the Church is not racist. Reminds me of the Book of Mormon and how we were informed that the Church began to act in the pride and then the author corrects himself saying (paraphrazed), "Better said, it is not the Church but those who profess to belong to the Church that are exercising pride."
As long as their is "pride" we will continue to experience some form of disunity, which will create scenarios as described from Church related groups. Even here on Third Hour the Church can never satisfy their prejudice (which I suppose is a little ironic). Religious hobbies or political hobbies will result in what you have described with people, "looking for racism."
I would agree pertaining to the Church, sadly I am sure there are members who have experienced racism in the Church, or what they would consider racist. We can't ignore that also.
 
 

For once an age comment not directed at me.

That’s a fair question in a lot of cases, but in my line of work I send out social workers to execute warrants, fairly routinely.
They almost always want the cops to go with them, because they are acutely aware that what they do is not mind control.  If the client/perp tells them “no”—they’re not only pretty well stuck, but in many cases they’re dealing with someone who hates *all* authority (cop or otherwise) and they may be about to be assaulted or raped.  “Women who aren’t trained to use swords can still die upon them”, as Tolkien would say.
And if you make social workers do law-enforcement-type work, they’re going to insist on having backup from an armed cop.  And as long as a cop is there you have a risk of him shooting someone—maybe an amplified risk, since he sees himself as protection for the pretty young social worker six months out of college, and he may well be even more vigilant in protecting her than he would be for himself.
Every law is backed up by the threat of force, and if we aren’t willing to use force, then we’d better not pass the law.