BobMaster

On this, in regards to Wilford Woodruff, my thoughts are that you are right and you are wrong.
I agree, Wilford Woodruff had a choice to make, and the choice was HIS to MAKE.  The reason he made the choice was because of a vision he was given, at least from what I understand.  He saw that if they continued to follow Polygamy the saints would lose their lands and even their freedoms.  They would be brought to chains (as it were) and dire things would occur.  (The vision, was more detailed than that, but that sums it up).  Thus, if they continued to practice polygamy, many terrible things would occur. 
As he was also the President of the Church, he had the mantle of leadership to decide the course of which direction the Church was to go, and based upon the knowledge which the Lord gave him, made the decision on which direction the Church would take.
In this, the Prophet received revelation and prophesy of what could happen in the future and then relied upon inspiration on how to avoid such a fate. 
You are also correct  (in my opinion) on what Wilford Woodruff was also stating.  It was a direct reflection on what Brigham Young also had stated.  In essence, that if one follows the majority of the body of the Church, as they are led in the Spirit, they will not be led astray.  The only way the collective body of the Saints can allow the church to fall is if they themselves fall away from the Spirit and being led by it.
But, in the instance of polygamy, Wilford Woodruff WAS making the decision by seeing a Vision.  It is interesting to note that the Church vocally said it enforced the manifesto, but in act, still had polygamy in practice among it for many years afterwards.  It wasn't until Joseph F. Smith that the enforcement on the ban of polygamy started to truly become a very strict standard.
It may be that today many of the things still occur in a similar manner where the Lord reveals what may happen if we continue on a course of action, but the choice of what decision to make is still left up to the individual in charge.  I think there are also occasions where the Lord gives an answer and instead of accepting that, those in charge continue to plead for a different answer.  Eventually the Lord let's them go the way they want because it is obvious they don't want to listen to what the Lord told them in the first place.
I wonder, at times, considering the wording that the Prophet gave in relation to LGBT, if that is the case in the reversal of the policy.  He stated that they had plead and asked about it for a while, which obviously shows that they wanted to change the original 'revelation' given by the Lord previously.  AS I am NOT the prophet or in any position close to it, I have no idea, but the wording they utilized was curious in relation to what had already be stated was revelation previously vs. what was revealed to them a few years later.  In this, as many members, I am not in a position to really question what or why in my following in the church, but to do as they say.
However, I do feel the church is still led by the Prophet and we still possess the Priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation.  As such, there is no other place to go right now for those saving ordinances.  if not the church, as Uchtdorf (I think it was him) has said, where else would you go?  Only the church has the power to bring people to exaltation, and if we do not have that, there is no other place with that power on the Earth.

Thank you for sharing.  I haven't had that type of an experience with the Book of Mormon but I have had other very direct experiences.
I agree very much with your second paragraph.  I do not have a complete understanding-it is why I study the scriptures.  If you read carefully the Manifesto (which is purported to be the Revelation), it's actually not a Revelation so much as a question. Which is the wisest course?
In other words, God gave WW and the Saints a choice.  God did not command WW to do away with polygamy, He allowed WW to choose.  The same as he allowed Joseph Smith to make the choice to give the 118 pages to Martin Harris.  God had already told Joseph Smith, just like he had already told WW (see the 1889 Revelation) what to do, the Prophet/President came asking to God again-God states, okay what's the wisest choice?  Essentially that is what God said to Joseph Smith-I've already commanded you, clearly you are asking me again because you believe it is a good course of action to do so, so if you believe it is a wise choice to make-go for it.
Ultimately, the Saints in 1890 (just like Joseph Smith did with Martin Harris) choose to fear man more than God. Just like we are choosing today to fear man and his laws and to put ourselves under bondage because we fear man more than God.
In the end God's designs cannot and will not be frustrated, yet there are lessons to learn from the past, which is the only way we will have a people worthy and ready to receive Christ at His Second Coming is to understand that we cannot fear man more than God. 
What God commands, we do.
 

Prescient, or helping to cast the very chains which put us into bondage and an inability to practice religion how one sees fit?
You do realize that now that homosexuality and transgenderism is a protected class legally the downstream effects are going to be enormous. The ability as a business owner to practice one's religion is now superseded by political ideology.
The pressure on the Church will increase 10 fold.
The Church tried to have it both ways by endorsing the "Equality for All" act and instead of fighting straight up, they ended up losing everything.  They wanted carve-outs specifically for the Church, i.e. it's administration offices, it's schools, etc.  The Equality Act was an act which protected big religious institutions from the law, but let others suffer under it.  
Instead of fighting for all-the Church only fought for itself and in the end lost everything-God is allowing this to happen because as a people and as a religion we are weak and do not care to lay it all on the line in defense of Him.  And thus we have cast the very chains which will be used to put us in bondage.
Any organization which previously was subject to the CRA will now be subject to this new interpretation.  BYU, COB, etc. if it's not a direct religious entity (i.e. a ward/branch/stake, etc.) it is now in the US subject to the CRA with homosexuality and transgenderism as a protected class.
Let the lawsuits start flying!

At the risk of breaking that commandment...  I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't give you a yacht just because you begged and pleaded for it.

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.

That's a great point! I fully recognize that He did not and I don't expect Him to do so today (speak every week, etc.). 
Personally, I would like to at least hear His Voice as dictated by a Prophet to an entire people once in my lifetime.  A once a generation thing would be nice-keep the fires of Faith burning for another generation.  As it is right now, it's been 102 years.

Perspective.
You talk of yesteryears as if God spoke every week or every year or something.  It's easy to think this when you are reading 4,000 years of history in 4 hours.

No, no, no.  This is the thing most people don't understand and can't seem to grasp.  The very definition of racism has changed.
Racism according to critical justice theory (which is taught in all the universities and then put into HR departments) is that racism can ONLY be a combination of power and race.  In other words, when one race has build the institutions of power in a country, that is the ONLY race that can be racist.
The Church, because it was build by white men and maintained by white man, is by very definition racist.  The United States government (Constitution, Declaration, etc.) are be definition racist because they were created by white men.  The theory claims that blacks (or other minority groups) CANNOT be racist because they didn't create the power structures.  They (the minorities) have the full ability to call names, discriminate, say hateful things targeted to a specific race (whites) and it's not racists b/c they didn't create the power structures.
It's a head I win, tails you lose ideology . . .all designed to overthrow the Western World.
And it is working just like a charm, so when you and I say the Church isn't racist-we think well we do our best to treat everyone the same and therefore we are not racist.  But that's not what the critical theory states.  Whites can only not be racists by a) admitting that they are and that they created institutions of power and b) implementing policies whereby other minorities get in line first over them. 
The only thing that would make the Church NOT racist would be to ensure that that blacks and other minorities are given priority in things like callings and positions of power.

Yes, except I for one would love to hear the Voice of God like in Joseph Smith's day or as spoken in the scriptures . . .but considering no one else in the Church really desires for it to happen-it won't happen.  Something about ask and ye shall receive-the body of the Church isn't asking God for it, so He's not going to give it.
So unless they are going to start actually revealing the Word of God . . .well let's just say, I don't particularly care to hear the latest and greatest tortured rational about fitting God's Word (i.e. scripture) into modern social justice warrior theory, like some blathering about how we need to listen to those who are steeped in sin and give ear to them or somehow taking the entirety of Scripture and boiling it down to one verse plucked out of context and then hammered to death as if that one verse is the only thing that matters.

No, no, no.  This is the thing most people don't understand and can't seem to grasp.  The very definition of racism has changed.
Racism according to critical justice theory (which is taught in all the universities and then put into HR departments) is that racism can ONLY be a combination of power and race.  In other words, when one race has build the institutions of power in a country, that is the ONLY race that can be racist.
The Church, because it was build by white men and maintained by white man, is by very definition racist.  The United States government (Constitution, Declaration, etc.) are be definition racist because they were created by white men.  The theory claims that blacks (or other minority groups) CANNOT be racist because they didn't create the power structures.  They (the minorities) have the full ability to call names, discriminate, say hateful things targeted to a specific race (whites) and it's not racists b/c they didn't create the power structures.
It's a head I win, tails you lose ideology . . .all designed to overthrow the Western World.
And it is working just like a charm, so when you and I say the Church isn't racist-we think well we do our best to treat everyone the same and therefore we are not racist.  But that's not what the critical theory states.  Whites can only not be racists by a) admitting that they are and that they created institutions of power and b) implementing policies whereby other minorities get in line first over them. 
The only thing that would make the Church NOT racist would be to ensure that that blacks and other minorities are given priority in things like callings and positions of power.

Sure I'd like for a little more fight and vigor, I'd like a little more defense of marriage, or traditional values.  But the leaders have already told us, they aren't going to do that.
"But in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost."
"Time is running out"
You ain't going be able to rely on borrowed light. That's what the leadership is directly telling the members. It's going to get a little bumpy and if you are looking to the Church to save your hide when it is bumpy, you are looking in the wrong place.  The members (especially the traditional conservative ones) have relied upon the leaders of the Church to fight their battles for them, they thought they could sit back and just have the bully pulpit of GC tell people what to do and then all they need to do is tell others "see, see right here see so-and-so GC leader said blah, so you must agree with me and if you don't  . . .gasp . . . .you're an apostate!"
When that's not how it works.  You can't rely upon the leaders of the Church to do the hard work of conversion to Christ.
So like the individual above said:
What exactly do you wish for them to do or say? We have God's Word, we have 5 volumes of Scripture. When you read, study and ponder the Scriptures, it's pretty obvious what is true and what is false . . . and you don't need some slick glossy modern "Come Follow Me" manual to do so. Just read them and study them and when you don't understand something ask God.

Here is an article on the Supreme Court ruling:  
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/15/15lgbt/
Any organization which previously was subject to the Civil Rights Act will now be subject to this new interpretation.  Brigham Young University and other organizations that are not direct religious entities are now in the United States subject to the Civil Rights Act with homosexuality and transgenderism as a protected class.  I agree with you Bob Master.  The lawsuits will start flying sadly.

Prescient, or helping to cast the very chains which put us into bondage and an inability to practice religion how one sees fit?
You do realize that now that homosexuality and transgenderism is a protected class legally the downstream effects are going to be enormous. The ability as a business owner to practice one's religion is now superseded by political ideology.
The pressure on the Church will increase 10 fold.
The Church tried to have it both ways by endorsing the "Equality for All" act and instead of fighting straight up, they ended up losing everything.  They wanted carve-outs specifically for the Church, i.e. it's administration offices, it's schools, etc.  The Equality Act was an act which protected big religious institutions from the law, but let others suffer under it.  
Instead of fighting for all-the Church only fought for itself and in the end lost everything-God is allowing this to happen because as a people and as a religion we are weak and do not care to lay it all on the line in defense of Him.  And thus we have cast the very chains which will be used to put us in bondage.
Any organization which previously was subject to the CRA will now be subject to this new interpretation.  BYU, COB, etc. if it's not a direct religious entity (i.e. a ward/branch/stake, etc.) it is now in the US subject to the CRA with homosexuality and transgenderism as a protected class.
Let the lawsuits start flying!

Sure I'd like for a little more fight and vigor, I'd like a little more defense of marriage, or traditional values.  But the leaders have already told us, they aren't going to do that.
"But in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost."
"Time is running out"
You ain't going be able to rely on borrowed light. That's what the leadership is directly telling the members. It's going to get a little bumpy and if you are looking to the Church to save your hide when it is bumpy, you are looking in the wrong place.  The members (especially the traditional conservative ones) have relied upon the leaders of the Church to fight their battles for them, they thought they could sit back and just have the bully pulpit of GC tell people what to do and then all they need to do is tell others "see, see right here see so-and-so GC leader said blah, so you must agree with me and if you don't  . . .gasp . . . .you're an apostate!"
When that's not how it works.  You can't rely upon the leaders of the Church to do the hard work of conversion to Christ.
So like the individual above said:
What exactly do you wish for them to do or say? We have God's Word, we have 5 volumes of Scripture. When you read, study and ponder the Scriptures, it's pretty obvious what is true and what is false . . . and you don't need some slick glossy modern "Come Follow Me" manual to do so. Just read them and study them and when you don't understand something ask God.

Thank you, yes you did a great job of explaining it-probably better than I did! Thank you!

Thank you for pointing out something very important regarding emotional state and the Spirit. I do not remember where I read it but it was from a church leader who said something to this nature, "Tears are not evidence of the spirit; although, tears can represent a strong emotional bond to an experience that was given by the Spirit. It is not the Spirit." The message continued with learning to control our emotions so that our message can be clear and understood.

I had a friend in college who believed "emotion" and the "Spirit" were tied together, emotion and Spirit were one. That is dangerous. We were discussing four states: mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual. He said there are only three states, "mental, physical, and spiritual." I would say this is what you are referencing when people combine emotion and Spirit as interchangeable truths (one in the same).
Our scriptures though create a conundrum as we find in Doctrine and Covenants 9: 8-9. As to my experience, this is where my friend and others combine spirit and emotion = burning in the bosom (an emotion). This is why I prefer Doctrine and Covenants 8: 2-3 because I have never felt the burning in the bosom but I have definitely experienced communication -- pure intelligence -- speaking directly to my mind and heart.

The direction we are receiving from Church headquarters has been done very well and has been sufficient.
True, there is a lot of angst between church members regarding specific recommendations. I would say "fear" is a lot of the reason behind it. Even locally where I live, I am amazed at how different people respond and how quick people are to judge. This I feel will happen the majority of the time when events are more fuliginous leaving it open to subjective interpretation.
I personally find masks to be unhelpful. How often do I see a person touching their mask (even myself)? I have also no problem following the given counsel.
What type of reassurance are you thinking?

Emotional "manipulation" was probably too harsh of a word. I don't doubt their sincerity; I just mean that culturally we have become emotionally incontinent.  
Just like those who get up and bear their testimonies who can't talk without blubbering all over the place, I have no doubt of their sincerity, as a culture we have come to accept such emotional incontinence as acceptable-this was not the case 50-60 years ago.  People were expected to keep it together, they trained themselves to do so and thus when they gave talks on very weighty matters for the most part they did not blubber all over the place.
I term it emotional manipulation because we have become convinced as a people that "truth" is a matter of conviction of emotion.  The more "emotional" a talk makes you feel, the more true it is, because that's "the Spirit", i.e. we have confused the Spirit for emotion and that will lead to emotional manipulation. And this is unfortunate, because it is one incorrect teaching which leads people away from the Church-they have been taught that to feel emotional about something is to feel the Spirit and then they say things like, "well I was watching a really great movie and the Spirit was there", or we use soaring music to evoke emotion rather than just letting the words and truth speak for themselves. Emotion != the Holy Spirit.

The difference being the leaders of the Church came down VERY hard in previous generations on the evils of the day. Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith, Kimbal, Benson-they all trounced the evils of the day. Yesterday I was listening to a talk in the 70s by Benson and he was raking the coals of the immorality of music.  When was the last time you ever heard a very detailed talk given from the leaders about immoral music-and I don't mean the glossed over blather of "listen to good music", no Benson was slamming clubs, he was slamming suggestive dance moves, he was slamming the lyrics, he was slamming it all.
How many LDS kids listen to rap these days? When was the last time you heard a leader slam rap (and it is almost all absolutely despicable music)?  We all know no leader dares to slam rap today because "that's racist"!!!
If you want hard-hitting no-nonsense talks, look to the talks about 40 years ago.
sidenote: another REAL interesting thing I've noticed with the talks of yesteryear, they don't get all emotional. Every once in a while they start to choke-but barely.  No, they just tell it like it is and hit it with no emotional manipulation.

Yes, sometimes we can do all we can and things don't turn out right.  Parenting is an influence-the largest one out there when they are young, but a parent can't force their kids to be good or believe, it has to come from within.

Yes, sometimes we can do all we can and things don't turn out right.  Parenting is an influence-the largest one out there when they are young, but a parent can't force their kids to be good or believe, it has to come from within.

Incorrect Revelation is very direct-see D&C. 
It's when Joseph Smith said things himself, people would disagree.  They would tell him-look if it's from God, please get a Revelation and show me it.  The Revelation would be in different verbiage and direct from God.  It's the same pattern in the Scriptures, you see the prophets in the BoM, OT, etc. use the same pattern.
I can witness myself to the difference because I know it personally. I have had the Voice of the Lord speak to me directly-it has only happened a few times (2-3). But when it happened, it was a direct conduit to God, no ifs ands or buts.  Now the danger with hearing the the Lord is also understanding that there are also evil spirits and evil voices---not fun.
Most of the time, it's inspiration (general thoughts and feelings), and a few times it has been what is termed as "the Spirit compelled" me.

Come Follow Me. It's in black in white.  Look at Come Follow Me in Ephesians 5.  It is in 100% contradiction to my Institute manuals from 10 years ago going back 50 years.
It plainly states when Paul is saying wives should submit to their husbands that this instruction was a "cultural" thing. My Institute and seminary manuals state no such thing-they confirm that Paul's teaching is accurate and true.
We also have the Church's reversal on Come Follow me for the BoM.  Elder Stevenson had to issue a retraction and they retracted the on-line Come Follow Me.  The original teaching is what I've had in Institute/Seminary manuals for years.

Sort of.  
You posted: "The reason I ask is because the millennial generation continues to post bleeding heart devotion to BLM, we’re all shameful racists with our White privilege,  and “cops are corrupt“ kinds of things on social media.  “Good” LDS kids posting avalanches of this stuff"
If it is true that this is the most valiant generation ever then we shouldn't worry about this or even try to correct it.  A proper understanding of the underlying problem is requisite in order to fix the problems of today.
The underlying problem is that the rising generation is in general an unbelieving generation that sets political ideology above scripture truth.  It's a generation which seeks to reinterpret scriptures based on modernity.  We have leaders that are reversing what has been taught as doctrine for many, many years-without any corresponding revelation.  Paul in Ephesians about marriage is now just something he said due to his culture. The BoM really didn't have a cursing and a mark-it was "symbolic". These reinterpretations are simply that, fitting the scriptures to modern thinking rather than discovering truth.  So either the rising generation is the most valiant, best ever (in which case this new replacement ideology is just great) or they got problems (in which case this new replacement ideology is cause for great concern).

As I have read through this thread, I find myself largely in agreement with the points @BobMaster has raised. I don't think anyone has really addressed his questions and observations head-on, except perhaps a&a when he said in effect that the word of God's prophets trumps any observation on our part, however obvious it might seem.
But I don't know that God's prophets have said in any sort of official manner that today's youth are The Best Evar. I know when I was young, we were told the same thing. I believed it until I went on my mission. As I read histories and look at my peers in age, I disbelieve more and more that my generation was somehow composed of unusually valiant men and women. I think the same thing of the present rising generation. Certainly God has spared some or even many of his valiant children for this day. He also spared some or many of them for other historical periods.
I am proud of my children. There is nothing in the world that I value more than them. They make my life beautiful. They are the fulfillment of my marriage with my wife. Yet on sober reflection and comparison, I don't see that they are necessarily any more virtuous than my own siblings and me. I think they were educated better than we were, and in some ways disciplined better than we were. But that's hardly a virtue on their parts. I dearly hope that my children will excel me in all things, especially in righteousness, and that that will be continued in following generations. But that's only a hope. I look at my nieces and nephews, and as a whole I don't see the rising generation as being fundamentally more virtuous than mine. When I look at the youth in the Church as a whole, that impression is very much strengthened; if anything, my generation as a whole looks possibly more truth-seeking, not less. If I look at the world as a whole, that impression is greatly increased. And I have a pretty low opinion of my own generation.
But the fact is that, if my generation is the present, the rising generation is undoubtedly the future. The past no longer exists. The future is the only living reality. The present—well, as Hootie says, 
Time, the past has come and gone
The future's far away
And now only lasts for one second, one second
The future is the hope of us all. So whether the rising generation is "more valiant" than we were is ultimately irrelevant. The rising generation is the hope of things to come. So we must do whatever we can, at whatever cost, to nurture the rising generation. For only through the Hope of Israel will our (and their) hopes be realized.