Lindy

Meh.  Not interesting in calling people names.  "Bigot" is about as useful as "homophobe".
I grew up with a kid, who is now one of my favorite Facebook arguing buddies.  He married a woman who now goes by the name George, apparently there is some surgery involved too.  He certainly has no love for the restored Church, and made a public post about resigning within hours of hearing about how we won't baptize his kids.  He posts occasionally about the (perceived) harm he sees coming from my church, but I wouldn't call him a religious bigot.  
He adopted a noble internet practice.  When arguing a point that will tend to ruffle feathers, he will then post a cute fuzzy animal baby.  Sometimes when he's really working himself up for a good rant, he'll start with a bunch of them.  The effort to preserve the relationship while arguing strenuously?  That's admirable.

I don't understand your last sentence, but I agree with your first two.  They are bound together by love, but I'm not sure you've pegged why.  But I don't have an quick alternative to voice.
 
Here's where we start disagreeing.   Someone can accumulate wealth and power, and continue to grow in honesty, courage, justice, temperance, integrity, generosity, humility, prudence, empathy, fortitude.  Absolutely there are people who set these traits aside and grab at other traits for the purposes of gaining more wealth and power.  But these traits, and the accumulation of wealth/power, are hardly mutually exclusive.  They can exist in harmony, blessing and enhancing each other.  
I see this at my work.  In this global corporation, I've watched good people climb the ladder from being engineers, to managers, to vice presidents, to executive officers.  I say they're good people because when I was closely working with them, I saw them valuing many of the traits you mention, and I saw them openly encouraging those traits in others.  Now, separated by three levels of management and distance, when they issue this or that corporate communication on how we stand for this or that trait, I know it's not just spin and hot air, because I personally witnessed them practicing what they're preaching, even when it hurt.  They now have stock options and golden parachutes and executive-level compensation in the millions, and whereas before I went to the soup kitchen for team building with them, now they're managing programs that enable and reward individual giving and service.   The worldly secular world that rewards only success, have rewarded these people for succeeding, and they haven't had to abandon their noble traits, and in fact, continue to espouse them, and even demand them from others.
 
Agreed.  Skepticism is healthy and good.  I worked for this guy, while he was doing the things that eventually landed him in prison. 

@Vort my dear fellow, I thought I had let enough time elapse for our previous differences to lie fallow for good. And I have tried to be more respectful. So, I'm willing to let byegones be byegones, if you are.
Best wishes, 2RM.
 

My thoughts are that most likely those who the Lord went to in his mortal ministry are those who will be with him in heaven, and those types that he condemned during that period are the same types that are going to have problems.  In this, if one is rich, a powerful religious leader who follows tradition or their own morals more than him, or the powerful a little worry on their part probably would not hurt. 
Those that are blatantly wicked and in the above categories should probably be very worried.
Those who are wicked but are among the poor should probably repent.  He never gave any of those that were involved with grievous sin a free pass, but did not condemn them while in this life and basically told them to repent or to cease sinning.
Those who we tend to ignore in this life, the disabled, the sick, the poor and others who follow the Lord, these are those that appeared to be the ones that the Lord went to in his mortal ministry.  A lot of it seems to be that they were more willing to listen to him and heed what he said.  They were more willing to love him.  In addition, as he was going around teaching for 3 years it is POSSIBLE (but not necessarily correct, it is pure conjecture) that he himself did not earn much money during that time and lived more as a wanderer and teacher.  Thus, it is possible he too was among those that were poor.
It is very plausible that those who are first in this world, those at the forefront of things who are the leaders, the rich, and the powerful will be last, while those who no one knows about but are righteous will be those who are first.  We will see them and be awed by how they were truly the best and most righteous among us, and if not held down by the adversary would have truly been the leaders we were seeking to lead us.
I do not know.  It is merely my thoughts.
But we do know what he said about the rich and powerful, the way he lived his life in his mortal ministry and many of his words and works during that time period.
Many today though would think his first will be last and his last will be first at least is a reference to how the gospel went first to the Jew and than the Gentile, while today it has gone to the Gentile and will eventually go to the Jew after the Gentiles have rejected it (which seems to be being fulfilled in front of our eyes).
But I do think that many of his teachings were against the Rich and powerful among all the various groups of men and that when among those groups we should have a LOT of introspection and analyze whether we truly are following the Lord and put him first, or whether we are following more the desires of the natural man in our hearts.  It is a tough thing to do that type of introspection. 
I am not among the VERY rich and powerful of my nation, but I AM in the US where we are very blessed with riches (whether we realize it or not).  In the very least those citizens in the US among the middle class would be seen as very well off by many in other nations.  When I do it I have some fear of my own for in that light I am probably far too worldly and materialistic and have far too many treasures of men rather than treasures that the Lord values.  I should put the Lord first more than I do and focus more on his thoughts and desires than what I do.

Your entire post is based on the assumption that the righteous will have something to do with wealth, color, and social standing.
Here is what I think. This verse has everything to do with our decision to choose God over man.
”First”: people who put all their time and wealth into raising their personal and social standing.
”Last”: Thise who choose God first in all things even to the sacrifice to worldly blessings.
Someone’s color, wealth, and social standing have nothing to do with this.

I find this so interesting, the lyrics for Joy to the World were written in 1719 by Isaac Watts and while some of the original song is in this version of it, it is quite different, so I guess you'd have to look to the LDS church to find out what they meant when they changed the lyrics and if they intended those changes to change the meaning of the original song, which was about the birth of Christ. I've sung this song so many times it really took me aback for a second trying to work out what was going on.
For anyone who would like to see the differences the original lyrics are below with the original words that have been changed bolded.  
Joy To The World
Joy to the World , the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven, and Heaven, and nature sing.

Joy to the World, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.
 

"Praise to the Man" should stay in the hymn book. We should honor the mortal man named Joseph Smith who was instrumental in bringing the Church of Jesus Christ back to the earth. 
There are songs of honor.... not worship..... honor.

"Praise to the Man" should stay in the hymn book. We should honor the mortal man named Joseph Smith who was instrumental in bringing the Church of Jesus Christ back to the earth. 
There are songs of honor.... not worship..... honor.

A couple of thoughts.
You say the SP says he loves the young people.  Any reason to doubt that? Wouldn’t the greatest manifestation of that love be to do all in his power to help those young people to come to know their Heavenly Father and the Savior (which by definition is “life eternal”)? Wouldn’t an invitation to youth leaders to have youth activities be Christ centered be a demonstration of that love? Is it possible that in interviewing and counseling with youth the SP has noticed some youth don’t have a strong testimony of God and Jesus Christ? In your interactions with the youth, do you feel that a greater love of God and His Son would help the youth better meet the challenges in their lives? If you see value in Christ centered activities, is you reluctance to have more of them based on uncertainty about how effective those activities have been in achieving their purposes? I’m grateful for your service, and that of the SP, with the youth and wish you both Godspeed in helping them remember their divine heritage and realize their divine potential.
 

This occurred back in the 1980's, so take it for what you will. 
 
And just as stated, the man could have fought the issue even then. Instead, he chose to sustain his stake president in his calling. I guess I would ask the question, which choice results in the greater blessings? 

Years ago there was a very faithful and loving man in our ward who had a really large beard. When it came time to renew his temple recommend, the new stake president stated that he would not sign the recommend unless he was clean shaven. 
 
This man showed up at church with a clean shaven face and told us the story. One of the members mentioned that he didn't have to do that and that the stake president had no right to demand such a thing as there was no church policy against facial hair. Several nodded and agreed with that assessment. 
 
This man rebuked them and said, "Hey, I raised my hand to sustain this man as the stake president and thought that you all did the same." 
 
 
The truth of your situation is that your stake president was called of God to preside over your stake at this time. You will either sustain him in this calling or you will not. 

People, people, PEOPLE! 
Upon reading so many posts of anger, aggravation, and intolerance of others opinions........ let me just say...... We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
There are members of our Church who are suffering with various afflictions in their lives...... and who is it that wants other members to bicker and tear apart? Hint..... it isn't God.
Chill.

Carlimac- my heart goes out to you and your son, thank you for sharing your story- it may help others who are living through the same thing. 
Addictions are so hard to understand for those who have not had to deal with an addiction themselves or have not had to deal with a loved one who is dealing with an addiction.
My son-in-law found faith in God because of his addiction (drugs)- but it took 4 or 5 stints in rehab for him to be able to learn to deal. He knows how lucky he is- knowing that there are those who are not able to kick it.
I have learned through life experiences how hard it is to deal with an addict, with addiction, and how hard it is on the family.  I pray your son can regain his testimony.

Carlimac- my heart goes out to you and your son, thank you for sharing your story- it may help others who are living through the same thing. 
Addictions are so hard to understand for those who have not had to deal with an addiction themselves or have not had to deal with a loved one who is dealing with an addiction.
My son-in-law found faith in God because of his addiction (drugs)- but it took 4 or 5 stints in rehab for him to be able to learn to deal. He knows how lucky he is- knowing that there are those who are not able to kick it.
I have learned through life experiences how hard it is to deal with an addict, with addiction, and how hard it is on the family.  I pray your son can regain his testimony.

Carlimac- my heart goes out to you and your son, thank you for sharing your story- it may help others who are living through the same thing. 
Addictions are so hard to understand for those who have not had to deal with an addiction themselves or have not had to deal with a loved one who is dealing with an addiction.
My son-in-law found faith in God because of his addiction (drugs)- but it took 4 or 5 stints in rehab for him to be able to learn to deal. He knows how lucky he is- knowing that there are those who are not able to kick it.
I have learned through life experiences how hard it is to deal with an addict, with addiction, and how hard it is on the family.  I pray your son can regain his testimony.

People, people, PEOPLE! 
Upon reading so many posts of anger, aggravation, and intolerance of others opinions........ let me just say...... We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
There are members of our Church who are suffering with various afflictions in their lives...... and who is it that wants other members to bicker and tear apart? Hint..... it isn't God.
Chill.

Three month of food in your home and 72 hours kits should not be a versus thing..
They are both designed to address different types of emergencies and thus have difference goals..
72 hour kits are for when you can't go/stay home.  While they say you should have "Everything" you need for three days.  The focus should be on "need" not everything...  Focus on what will keep you alive for three days away from home.  Then add would be nices up to what you can carry (if you have room)
The three month of Food in the home is more about sheltering in the comfort of your home if for some reason you don't have access to outside resources like you normally do.
 

We live out in the middle of nowhere, and it makes sense to have car kits, especially in winter time.  I've been stuck in town and had to get a hotel room twice, the whole family twice too.  If we had been stuck in a snowdrift overnight though, yeah, that may actually happen sometime.  Or two or three nights.  By definition, we have "once in a century" storms about, well, once every hundred years or so.  People die in those.
We've also been evacuated due to forest fire, even though we're out of the trees.  It can still rain burning ash if the wind is right.  So it makes sense to have bug-out kits we can grab in an instant.  Again, in case the hotels are full and services get overloaded.  
Food storage is good for pandemics, civil unrest, or any other major disaster that overloads help, or makes it wise for us to be on our own for any lengthy period of time.  

I've always thought to myself that having one active convert is enough to make a mission worthwhile. 

One of my sons was exposed to it at his friend's house- the home of youth pastor from another church, at age 11. We were just so naive, thinking that "our family doesn't do those kinds of things", that his addiction went on for 6 years before his brother discovered it on the family computer and told us. He's 26 now and we don't talk to him about it anymore. I don't know if he still deals with it or not. But when we first found out he had counseling. We didn't punish him- just tried to get him the right kind of help. When he confessed to our bishop he was essentially dis-fellowshipped. Couldn't take or pass the sacrament for months even though he wasn't viewing porn at the time. He tried so hard to quit and would for awhile- months at a time, but he always found ways to access it again.   He wasn't defiant- just addicted. We moved to a different state. Son went to BYU but wasn't perfect during that time. The new stake president was less hard on him and helped him get ready for a mission. He went, served honorably although struggled with masturbation during his mission- he'd wake up at night in the middle of it. It was really frustrating for him. After his mission he returned to porn off and on. His BYU bishops tried to help but there was a limit to what they could do. This was all during the time when the addicting nature of porn was less stressed than the sin of viewing it. So my son felt really lousy about himself most of the time. 
Ultimately he left the Church.   I think it may have been too hard to keep feeling so bad about himself because of the external pressure. He also lost his testimony of God- at BYU of all places. But he remains a very good-hearted person who tries his hardest to help those in need and is studying medicine. He keeps the Word of Wisdom and doesn't sleep around- hasn't even had a girlfriend for 4 years. 
It all makes me so sad. But even if he didn't see it in the home of this particular friend, he would have encountered it somewhere else- teenage boy parties were notorious for viewing it and he would probably have had this problem anyway.  

My oldest daughter and son completed honourable missions and my second son is currently serving. My second daughter has no plans and no desire to serve a mission. I grieve for her because of the amazing amount of blessings and growth she will miss out on if she does not serve a mission. I believe that there are blessings and growth that come from a mission that cannot be received in any other way, and I am greatly saddened by the thought that she is turning down the opportunity to receive these blessings. My desire for her to serve a mission is not driven by the fact that it is a commandment/teaching/objective/encouragement for young people to serve a mission, or by the thought of all the people she might help to bring to Christ, but by what I expect she will miss out on if she doesn't' serve. I acknowledge that my motivation has selfish elements to it inasmuch as it is driven by what I believe is best for her, rather than what the prophets have counselled, or the blessings that she could help to bring to others..

As I learned from my father - I encouraged (pushed) my kids to do good things and a mission I considered a good thing.  Some of my kids did not serve a mission - and though I was disappointed - I still love them - and my one son that did not serve a mission has married in the temple.  I believe that there are blessings lost from not serving but life goes on and there are other blessings.
 
The Traveler

I raised my boys with the "when you serve a mission" attitude rather than "if you serve a mission". It was as much a natural expectation as graduating high school or starting to shave. As they enter young adulthood, I make it clear to them that serving the Lord, whether on a mission or in other ways, is their choice. They pick their path. So far, all have opted to serve missions.
I try not to brag about my children, because that's tacky and because my children are not perfect. But I do take a whole lot of pride in them, in celebration of their good decisions and in spite of their bad ones.

I never pushed my kids either.  My husband and I simply lived our lives dedicated to God.  Our children followed.  

This is the crux of the argument.  We have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT views of a firearm.  You think firearm you think "death tool".  It's the exact same as thinking "car" you think "Death tool".  I don't know the statistics but cars have killed a lot of people - a lot of them children.  So, why do you still have a car?
My 15-year-old looks at his firearm, he thinks "Olympics".
My husband looks at his firearm, he thinks "Food, Defense".  And by the way, defense does not have to mean Death.
Now, criminals - yeah, they'll kill you with anything - guns, bombs, pressure cookers, fertilizers, trucks...  so, why should my son's Olympics and my husband's Food, Defense have to be sacrificed because a criminal (a very small minority of gun owners) use their guns to kill people?  Do you want pressure cookers, fertilizers, and trucks thrown out too?  Why not?
And I'm going to go back to snakes... because this is the exact same phobic view.  People think snakes and they think "KILL IT!".  My kids think snakes, they think... pet!  Or... lovely creatures important to our ecosystem.