KScience

This is VERY geography defined.  Living in a small ward or branch (i.e. less than 20 members) the reality is that even without all callings filled e.g. half a bishopric, that to fulfill the basics some of us need to have more than one calling to accommodate those who are not in a position to do so.  Then The stake has roles which need filling too - and when 5 out 8 wards/branches have an average of 20 adult attendees its not hard to see why.
 

This is VERY geography defined.  Living in a small ward or branch (i.e. less than 20 members) the reality is that even without all callings filled e.g. half a bishopric, that to fulfill the basics some of us need to have more than one calling to accommodate those who are not in a position to do so.  Then The stake has roles which need filling too - and when 5 out 8 wards/branches have an average of 20 adult attendees its not hard to see why.
 

Asking for a friend.

Here are Vort's Steps to Finding a Girlfriend.
1. Date lots of girls.
There are other steps, but this seems to be the key element, and the step most often skipped by those born in the last 30 years.

It's a tough thing as a parent to see it. 
For myself, I deal with being high risk but also risking getting the virus daily via the university.  It's a wierd mix there where we have many of the students that have chosen to take classes via an online university program this year (which I also have to utilize in trying to educate students in that fashion for our department) while at the same time having a few on campus as well.
In that way, I figure I am already exposed somewhat, though I'd feel a LOT more comfortable (at least while weather has still been nice) if they would be doing meetings outside rather than inside (they have singing, which was shown as a key way to spread the virus).  We've had an uptick of cases in our area recently as well.
I hope I do not get it.  I wear a mask, I try to social distance (and there are many at the ward that want to shake hands and such), but it is a personal risk.  Thus far, (as I said, I hope and pray I do not get it, we have had at least one ward member that possibly got it at church as it was the only place they were going...die recently from Covid) I have been blessed and hope to stay that way, but it is MY choice to do so.  My ward also has other options (thus far) if I choose to take them at a later time (for example, think it is too risky to go to the ward meetings with the spike in Covid cases)...but it is MY choice currently.  One that I am grateful is available and that I am allowed to make.
However, as a Father, I have other feelings.  I understand my daughter's reasons for wanting to avoid going to church currently.  As a parent, I want to go off to Utah and wring her Bishop's neck (not very Christlike of me, which is a sin).  NO ONE should have that type of power and the ability to hurt others in such a way as I understand it (at least as it was portrayed by my daughter, but I will admit that is a one sided view as I have only heard her and her husband's side of the story).
I know our ward still has zoom for their meetings for those who choose not to attend, and have extended the invitation that they can view our zoom meetings if they wish (I'm not sure on the legality in the church on that, though I know anyone can go to any meeting, they technically are not in our ward or ward boundaries...and thus the Bishop could not authorize them to take the sacrament currently).  I'm not sure how or if that will help.  She was incredibly frustrated.  As a parent, I feel...so helpless.
If anything, I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hope and pray that the prophet will help those in her situation.  As a parent, I feel very unchristlike towards her ward leadership (mine is great thus far) the more I think about it, but I know that's not the proper way to think or do things.  However, without some greater authority to help my daughter and people in her situation right now, I don't know where help will come or what can be done.  As I said, nothing stinks so much as being a parent and seeing your child in a situation which you can't help and feeling absolutely helpless.

Not really. I answered your question as to why I wear a mask. You want to argue about it. I could dive into google, throw out a whole bunch of research that supports my viewpoint. You'd do the same. 100 posts and 2 hours later neither of us will have succeeded in convincing the other one of anything. We will pat ourselves on the back and brag to our friends about how we totally owned this random person online. I'm not interested in having a pointless argument today. I'm sure you can find 100 million other people ready to throw down with you about this on any site you care to visit. I'm just not one of them.

No, you clearly comandeered the ship and sailed off in a different direction. My question was not about whether the  youth of the church are stalwart or about crying at the pulpit.

Several thoughts, which are completely different so perhaps different posts by me.
On this, historically speaking, there could be different views.
From a secular viewpoint, which is NOT really faith promoting, a historian would probably consider that the church is about to make the same mistakes other Mormon (not LDS necessarily, but those who are in the Mormon umbrella of religions as the world would see it) sects have made in the past few decades which then had disastrous results.  They have not learned from what occurred with the other sects and those who do not learn from history, are bound to repeat it.  The RLDS already went down the path of trying to rewrite their history and teachings to fit more in line with modern thinking.  The had a push to focus more on Christ to the point that they even changed their name to the Community of Christ.  They wanted people to know they were "Christians" who focused on Christ more than Joseph Smith.  This led eventually to what I would consider a devaluation of the Book of Mormon to the point that now it is not really scripture to them, and it is seen as perhaps inspired, but not the foundation of their faith it once was.  They also gave women the priesthood and allowed various other modern ideologies to enter into their religion.  The result, they claim 250,000 members at least...but in general the idea is that they have less then 40K currently.
Rewriting and adopting anti-Mormon views into their religion was disastrous.  Was it inspired by the Lord, or was it not?
"Wait!"  The faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, "Their prophet wasn't actually the REAL prophet...while ours is!"
Good point.  But as this is from a secular point...then why is the Church trodding in the same footsteps and looking to be trying to make the same mistakes as those that fell before it?  It's not a faithful viewpoint from a secular history, but one of simply noticing patterns.
Rebranding and rewriting your history can work...and HAS worked at times, but the percentage of failure is HIGH.  It's like people who start new businesses, it can work, but the failure of a new business starting is high (90%??).  Rebranding is similarly high.  Normally a business does not rewrite and rebrand UNLESS it is on the verge of annihilation already.  You only do that as a last effort as it is a GOOD way to destroy what you already have for nothing in return.  It CAN work, but there is a much higher revival rate of reinvesting on what you already have in new ways of spreading advertising than a rewrite or rebrand.
I currently would view the Church as trying to rebrand itself and rewrite it's history, at least from a secular viewpoint.  All the things they've done seems to provide evidence that this is underway.  Risky move.  It could be successful, but normally it is a more disastrous event.  They haven't done a full rebranding yet, nor a full rewrite...but it appears to be the direction they are taking if we look at the steps they have taken over the past few years.  In which case, the secular historian probably will predict that eventually the Church will have women who have the priesthood and do priesthood ordinances as the men, and eventually perhaps even allows Gay Marriage within it's walls as an ordinance some of their Churches perform.  How long off?  Probably closer than some would feel comfortable with.
When it comes to it, the church would probably lose over half it's active membership or more.  They may be successful, but the odds are that they will have just as much failure as the RLDS or other groups have had with it.
Afterall, in secular history, patterns normally repeat and the pattern on this is pretty clear.  It seems, right now, to be the path they are headed down.
So...that's a secular view...how about a view more from a faithful viewpoint?
That's a good question. 
The answer is I don't know what is going on or where it is going.  Is it revelation that is guiding this?
Well, that's the real trick...isn't it.  They aren't explicit on what is or is not revelation currently.  They are VERY Cautious about saying whether it is or is not.  Instead, they have policies which are changing and items that are coming out, but they are not really stating that they are revelations or not in most cases.
Perhaps they are also being cognizant of other items which were claimed to be revelations, but which they now claim might not have been.  A prime example are Blacks and the Priesthood. 
In today's world, people would see those who feel Joseph Smith's statements and writings on this (and he had them) as well as Brigham Young's declarations and an actual official statement on it declaring it as doctrine in the past as pure racism on the church's part.  Instead of validating the prophetic callings of the men that made these statements and trying to work it into how this could have been and how their statements and prophecies have been fulfilled, the Church today has changed direction.  Instead, it says they do not know (anyone who read history actually knows, it was declared doctrine as from revelation...that's why) why they made these statements and policies came about.  The revelation has become unpopular.  If prior items that were stated as being revealed from God (and it was blatantly declared so) can be tossed aside and inferred (if not directly stated, legally speaking) as NON-Revelation and possibly the prophets only speaking as men...what does that say about our current state of declaring such items?
It makes it a VERY TRICKY preposition.
So, instead of making declarations as such, I see them stating and changing things but avoiding directly stating where some of these items are coming from.  Instead, they let us ASSUME in many instances that they are getting revelations on such, but avoid stating it directly.  It is all done with inferences and allusions to let us think what we will, but avoiding actual wording that can be taken as authoritative statements.
In otherwords, I (emphasis on I) think and believe we are being led by revelation.  In many instances, they are not telling us what is or is not from revelation, and which ideas are from their own thoughts.  This is why it is important for each of us to have the spirit with us to give us testimony of what is going on and what we are doing in the church today.
How do I take this, how do any of us take this?
I know that there are those that see this and have turned to the web in search of information.  Some find things that lead them astray.  They started by reading the gospel essays and it weakened their testimonies (if what they said was revelation in the past is now discounted, how can they know if anything is revelation today?  It seems that what was revelation yesterday is only them speaking as men, what is to say that isn't the same today, or what is thought to be revelation today won't be overturned tomorrow as people speaking as men?).  They fall away from the church.  Some to simply be anti-Mormon, others who retain their faith, but cannot understand how the church can turn against it's former prophets and teachings turn to others like Denver Snuffer or those who seem to be appealing to a more conservative belief.
I know that there are those that decide to ignore the past and toss out anything that seems contradictory to what is being taught today.  If it isn't from the modern church, and it doesn't agree with what WE THINK (and that is important, what we THINK it may be teaching is not necessarily what IS being taught), they toss it out.  The past is not important, only the present.
These two groups seem to be in opposite of each other.  One for the more conservative slant, the other a more liberal slant.
There are many other groups and people fall into many different spectrums on this.
Where do I fall though?  It can be a difficult thing.  I am a historian at heart and in work.  I do NOT believe in tossing out the past.  I believe we build upon the past, not toss it out or rewrite it.  On the otherhand, I believe in the modern prophet and the leaders of the Church.  I believe the Church is led by the Lord and it is his vehicle for giving the saving ordinances and teachings to the world.  How can I correlate some of the things that have come out recently that are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the past?  That...right there, is the nail that is the crux of the difficulties I see those few in my position having.
The answer...I don't currently.  I avoid it.  I avoid it by attributing it to a bureaucracy of the church.  The Church has the Prophet leading it, but a VAST MAJORITY of those things written do not come from his hand, it comes from the employees of the Church administration departments.  Some of them may be led by the spirit.  Some of them are malicious and in it just for a job. And some of them are trying to do what is right...but...they are not the prophet.  Mistakes are bound to be made or come in.  With the influences of today's society, it is easy to me to see how such mistakes can be made in many of the materials that are coming out.  Thus, my favoritism in this is to blame the bureaucracy for the mistakes being made, and continue to believe that most of the General Authorities and the leaders of the Church (Both General and local) are being led by the Lord.
I may be mistaken, but that's currently the path that I, as trying to be a faithful member, have chosen to follow.

I often wonder if a coincidence is really a coincidence.  To @carlimac's initial question - I would ask; is it a coincidence that we are studying the Book of Mormon this year?  Is it a coincidence that we are studying Alma at this point of our countries turmoils?   It is easy to become distracted.  
I wonder about so many things.  So many things in commotion.   I have wondered what to post - my personal opinion as to where we stand at the end of time?  I never thought we would worship our Sabbath in our own homes and leave our callings and churches empty.  When we started - I did not think it would be as long as it has.  I do not know if I have any words of comfort for those that feel downtrodden.  I have no idea what is coming next on the horizon.  
As to the riots - I am hearing that some blacks do not trust the "whites" protesting with them.  Somewhere I am thinking or remembering that Joseph Smith talked about a 2nd uprising of blacks.  I have heard that in the last days there will be a great deal of violence and the only peace will be in Zion.  In my youth I obtained a patriarchal blessing to seemed to speak of war and rebellion.  I thought to join the army to get it over with in my youth.  But after completing my obligation it did not see so - and so I thought maybe it was a reference to our next state beyond death.  I wonder now if we are hearing only faint thunders of what is coming.  This year started out not so different from other years - it seems that more and greater storm clouds keep gathering. 
My plan is to double my repentance efforts and hope more to trust G-d and his appointed servants.  If someone wants to start a thread about repentance - I am full of ideas and things that I have never considered before about repentance.  For sure - it would seem that things are going to get quite exciting.  I often wondered when I was serving in the army - who would I like by my side in combat.  I would like to say I would want all of the forum with me - but I would not be telling the truth - but a few of you - I hope to have with me as this year progresses.  I also hope of assist some of you.
 
The Traveler

@BobMaster, before we proceed, please answer this question: Do you believe that the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without divine revelation to do so?

This sentence highlights my concerns about this thread (or this thread tangent). What "leaders" are you talking about? If you mean various local leaders, such as Young Women leaders, Aaronic Priesthood quorum advisors, or even the occasional out-there (or outright rogue) bishop or stake president, then I agree. But if you mean that our General Authorities, and specifically the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of Twelve, are acting to change basic Church structures and doctrines without revelation to do so, then I disagree most strongly and consider such things fully out of bounds.
If there is a danger that our members, especially the younger and less experienced, risk being lured to their destruction through apostate teachings of the world and the worldly, there is also an equally real danger that our members, perhaps especially the more mature who consider themselves more deeply grounded in doctrine and practice, might apostatize by deciding that the leading apostles have left the true path. I don't know that both extremes are equally prevalent, but I am sure that both extremes are equally destructive to those who follow them.

True, I agree, that is not how they usually operate and its probably a good thing that they don't normally operate like that because I suspect that if they did, the faith of some might be tested beyond breaking point. I believe that  there is some truth in the saying that information informs inspiration. But if they choose to operate in that way - and perhaps calling today's youth the most valiant ever in spite of the appearance of evidence to the contrary - then we should choose to accept and follow them.

The best, the most reliable evidence, is that prophets of God have said this is so. This, to me, counts for more than all the empirical evidence that anyone might care to provide. If the teachings of God’s prophets and apostles appears to be contrary to all the empirical evidence, it does not mean that the prophets and apostles are wrong – it just means that we may have some difficulty in seeing how they are right, so we need to rely on faith rather than logic. At the very least, we should be willing to suspend our own judgement and take into account the possibility that what the prophets are saying is indeed true and correct rather than actively disagreeing with what they have said.  If God’s prophet points to a stone that appears to be black, and says in the name of the Lord that it is white, then clearly it is white, even if we can’t understand how or in what way it is white. It’s a matter of faith, not evidence. We might say to ourselves the stone to me looks black, but God’s prophets say it is white, it still looks black to me but I’m going to exercise faith and treat that stone as if it really is white. If we follow this path for long enough, eventually we will come to see that stone as God sees it.

I do understand where you're coming from.  And I share the same feelings.  But that's all they are -- feelings.  Here are some facts from my life:
I will gladly present my children as evidence.  I will gladly present the children of my extended family as evidence.  Valiant-to-the-core.  Over 40 of them who have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  Strong gospel knowledge.  All raised on the scriptures. 
All the males are mission-bound (several already returned missionaries).  The oldest one just got engaged and will be marrying in the temple to another returned missionary.  Most of the girls are also mission-bound.  Two already returned.
All of the girls old enough have earned their young women's medallion (before they ended it).  The oldest boys received their eagle (before they ended it).  I don't know what other fruits you'd be looking for to verify my claim.
"Need"?  No, they get the privilege.  But who says all the missionaries in the field "need" to?  And if the prophet approved it, why do you condemn it?
Results are not necessarily indicative of the pre-mortal spiritual preparation.  We are also in an era where the temptations and pitfalls are greater.  We could very well have 10x greater preparation and valiance.  But if the temptations are 20x greater, well...  You do the math.
I was just talking with my daughter who is preparing for a mission about getting a job while she's waiting for the temple to open up.  We talked about how many places require you to work on Sundays.  I remembered that back when I was a kid, not only was it easier to find places that would allow you to not work on Sundays, but it was more common for many businesses to be closed on Sundays.  But today, you're now considered a "Jesus Freak" if you insist on having Sundays off for religious reasons.
How easy was it for people to get work before?  How easy was it to pay for a mission because of that?  Today?  Not so much.
Pornography is a HUGE problem.  Back then, you could find it easy enough, but you'd have to look for it.  Today?  You practically trip over it everywhere you go.
Examples abound that it is simply tougher to be righteous in today's world.  Can you imagine if they were NOT as well prepared?  The attrition rates would be near 100%.
So, essentially, when you look at only one side of the equation, it is easy to jump to easy, simple, conclusions.  But without the whole equation, you may not be correct.

I still hear occasional references to the idea that the young people of today are among the strongest, most valiant, best prepared youth that have ever existed since the world began. Given who these references come from, I'm inclined to believe them. 

Depending on how "woke" they are, do you really think more pulpit pounding is going to change their minds?
The problem I see today is that people are more married to a political party or belief rather than a religious one.  Therefore, they worship their graven idols of political ideology rather than the Lord above.  As it is with their parents, so it is with the children.
In that light, many of the youth that are posting these things probably would put their political beliefs above that of religious ones, and when confronted with conflicts between the two, choose the political belief over that of religion.
We see it in the generation before them and the generation before that (mine had drugs, immorality, and rock & roll, and very little could be done to sway kids of my generation from that mindset when they decided to follow it.  There were others like me who would have been seen as straight laced at the time, but those who were patriotic and love the flag at times were the mocking posts for those who did not, and those who held to religion as a bastion were at times seen as fanatical rather than moral).  I'm not sure if the church turning up the volume would do much to change many of these individual's minds.

Ask to meet with him. Tell him you need to talk with him. Then let him take the lead in how you talk. I assume he will not want to talk via email or text. I suppose it's possible he will want to Zoom or Skype or Google Hangout with you. Or maybe he'll want to mask up and meet with you. I don't know, but trust him to take the lead and figure out how to meet with you.

When you speak to your Bishop on a personal private matter like this, it is between you and him only.
He is interested in helping you, not running off and telling your parents.

Have faith that he is on your side.

Bishops tend to be tremendously more understanding than most people realize. If your Bishop is like most, he will have already heard from multiple youth, both female & male, in similar situations. You won't be sharing something with him that he hasn't already worked on with others. Congratulations on trying to address this sooner than later.
 
Then start with him first.
He will mostly likely encourage you to share it with your parents, simply to seek addition support. However, the choice to share it with your parents is up to you. He will not share it with them.

When my own teenagers speak to their Bishop, I do not pry. I'm grateful they are seeking assistance and trying to correct some issue even I don't know what the issue is.

He will be loving and kind.  He cares about your spiritual welfare.  While it seems scary, especially as a young girl, it's the best thing to do.  Just do it and get it over with.  

Nicole I seriously wish you the best.  We all have our trials in life.  It's how we overcome them that is important.  You can do it!!

This is because your brain has been conditioned to respond to the pornographic images. It is a form of brain conditioning, or if you prefer, brain damage. It is reversible, though. You need to talk with your parents and your bishop immediately and break this addiction while it—and you—are still young.

Because of your age I feel like the person you need to talk to is your parents and your bishop.  Providing advice to a teenager on such a sensitive subject from random people on the internet probably isn't the most appropriate of things.

Since I don't have to be anywhere, why bother doing my hair?