mordorbund

Apparently my previous posts came off as defensive and perhaps even insecure. Hopefully this and future correspondence will be more avuncular.
I would encourage you to take some time to really consider JAG's questions here. Just how precise is the wording of a dictated revelation? If the same revelation was given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would the wording be the same? If a revelation comes through the still small voice, can this be recorded as a "thus saith the Lord" dictation or does it need to be and audible voice with spoken words? Or are both acceptable but one is "weightier" or "weaker" than the other?
The purpose of this exercise is to really address your assumptions. You've been given a lot of answers in this thread but none seem to satisfy you. Let's clarify exactly what you believe and understand and state aloud the unspoken assumptions.
Zil raises a really good point here, and your follow-up questions would be good for you to ponder at different levels. If President Nelson says "the Lord instructed me..." can we trust that the Lord instructed him? And if we're questioning that, then why will we trust him if he instead says "the Lord said to me, 'call Dallin Oaks and give him a fountain pen'"? Is the claim that the leaders of the Church may pretend to revelations that they haven't had, but they're god-fearing enough not to put words directly into the Lord's mouth? 
 

Also, folks in Florida be like:

Actually, all you have is some man saying the words, "thus saith the Lord".  Whether he speaks those words or any other words, it would still be up to you to go to the Spirit and gain a testimony regarding whether the words are of the Lord.
I mean, I could quite easily say, "Thus saith the Lord, fountain pens are sacred writing implements and all others are an abomination before me."  Doesn't mean the Lord actually said that.  (Though He might have... )
If you know that light and truth have been taken from the Church, then you must also know what that light and truth are.  So please give an example of one of these truths or deeper doctrines that has been taken away.
What then, is this:

As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients?  Dream?  Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being?  Audible voice?  Trance?  Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind?  A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words?  Something else?
Were *all* the “thus-saith-the-Lord” revelations in our canon transmitted through the same method?
Are you sure?
How do you know?
Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent:  what do you think of Denver Snuffer and John Pontius/Thom Harrison?

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I'll state again that I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". I think the fact that Joseph's revelations needed editing before publication shows that there's a level of wiggle room even for "thus saith the Lord" revelations. And baptisms for the dead seemed to progress as they were practiced. I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is.
No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen. The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation. The canonized record is the conclusion of such a meeting and not the revelation itself. That does not discount that a revelation was had. I do believe, and am suggesting that properly run council meetings become conduits of revelation and meeting minutes should reflect that. Joseph seemed to think the Lord sustained the high council's decisions enough to warrant including them in the Doctrine and Covenants. And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants. I've seen saints stare in confusion when they read D&C 16 after reading D&C 15. What percentage of the D&C should we devote to the thousands of mission calls extended every year? Should we plan on adding a fresh revelation every time the First Presidency is reorganized? You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I think that's debatable.
Let me see if I can make my point clearer. President Nelson, in his inaugural talk as prophet, says
The word of the Lord came unto me and said, My servant Russell, I have heard thy petitions and thou hast found favor in my sight this day. Inasmuch as you have sought my will concerning who should serve as your counsellors, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt appoint from thy fellow-servants Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring; This is my word and will for the First Presidency. And now, as for thy concern over who shall sit among thy brethren the apostles, thus saith the Lord, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses S. Soares have I called for this work; And they shall serve as special witnesses to my name and testify of me. I will be with them and with thee in thy councils with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If ye will gather in my name, esteeming thy brother as thyself, then I will pour my power upon thee that thou shalt speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.
President Nelson would either have to speak like this his entire talk, or find a way to smoothly transition to it. This style seems to have fallen out of the common tongue early in the 20th century. Instead he said the following:
I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.
In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service.
When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.
In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!
President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I'll state again that I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". I think the fact that Joseph's revelations needed editing before publication shows that there's a level of wiggle room even for "thus saith the Lord" revelations. And baptisms for the dead seemed to progress as they were practiced. I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is.
No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen. The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation. The canonized record is the conclusion of such a meeting and not the revelation itself. That does not discount that a revelation was had. I do believe, and am suggesting that properly run council meetings become conduits of revelation and meeting minutes should reflect that. Joseph seemed to think the Lord sustained the high council's decisions enough to warrant including them in the Doctrine and Covenants. And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants. I've seen saints stare in confusion when they read D&C 16 after reading D&C 15. What percentage of the D&C should we devote to the thousands of mission calls extended every year? Should we plan on adding a fresh revelation every time the First Presidency is reorganized? You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I think that's debatable.
Let me see if I can make my point clearer. President Nelson, in his inaugural talk as prophet, says
The word of the Lord came unto me and said, My servant Russell, I have heard thy petitions and thou hast found favor in my sight this day. Inasmuch as you have sought my will concerning who should serve as your counsellors, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt appoint from thy fellow-servants Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring; This is my word and will for the First Presidency. And now, as for thy concern over who shall sit among thy brethren the apostles, thus saith the Lord, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses S. Soares have I called for this work; And they shall serve as special witnesses to my name and testify of me. I will be with them and with thee in thy councils with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If ye will gather in my name, esteeming thy brother as thyself, then I will pour my power upon thee that thou shalt speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.
President Nelson would either have to speak like this his entire talk, or find a way to smoothly transition to it. This style seems to have fallen out of the common tongue early in the 20th century. Instead he said the following:
I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.
In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service.
When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.
In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!
President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I'll state again that I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". I think the fact that Joseph's revelations needed editing before publication shows that there's a level of wiggle room even for "thus saith the Lord" revelations. And baptisms for the dead seemed to progress as they were practiced. I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is.
No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen. The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation. The canonized record is the conclusion of such a meeting and not the revelation itself. That does not discount that a revelation was had. I do believe, and am suggesting that properly run council meetings become conduits of revelation and meeting minutes should reflect that. Joseph seemed to think the Lord sustained the high council's decisions enough to warrant including them in the Doctrine and Covenants. And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants. I've seen saints stare in confusion when they read D&C 16 after reading D&C 15. What percentage of the D&C should we devote to the thousands of mission calls extended every year? Should we plan on adding a fresh revelation every time the First Presidency is reorganized? You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I think that's debatable.
Let me see if I can make my point clearer. President Nelson, in his inaugural talk as prophet, says
The word of the Lord came unto me and said, My servant Russell, I have heard thy petitions and thou hast found favor in my sight this day. Inasmuch as you have sought my will concerning who should serve as your counsellors, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt appoint from thy fellow-servants Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring; This is my word and will for the First Presidency. And now, as for thy concern over who shall sit among thy brethren the apostles, thus saith the Lord, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses S. Soares have I called for this work; And they shall serve as special witnesses to my name and testify of me. I will be with them and with thee in thy councils with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If ye will gather in my name, esteeming thy brother as thyself, then I will pour my power upon thee that thou shalt speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.
President Nelson would either have to speak like this his entire talk, or find a way to smoothly transition to it. This style seems to have fallen out of the common tongue early in the 20th century. Instead he said the following:
I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.
In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service.
When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.
In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!
President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary:
1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort
2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".
3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.
4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person.
Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.
I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:
 

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I'll state again that I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". I think the fact that Joseph's revelations needed editing before publication shows that there's a level of wiggle room even for "thus saith the Lord" revelations. And baptisms for the dead seemed to progress as they were practiced. I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is.
No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen. The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation. The canonized record is the conclusion of such a meeting and not the revelation itself. That does not discount that a revelation was had. I do believe, and am suggesting that properly run council meetings become conduits of revelation and meeting minutes should reflect that. Joseph seemed to think the Lord sustained the high council's decisions enough to warrant including them in the Doctrine and Covenants. And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants. I've seen saints stare in confusion when they read D&C 16 after reading D&C 15. What percentage of the D&C should we devote to the thousands of mission calls extended every year? Should we plan on adding a fresh revelation every time the First Presidency is reorganized? You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.
I think that's debatable.
Let me see if I can make my point clearer. President Nelson, in his inaugural talk as prophet, says
The word of the Lord came unto me and said, My servant Russell, I have heard thy petitions and thou hast found favor in my sight this day. Inasmuch as you have sought my will concerning who should serve as your counsellors, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt appoint from thy fellow-servants Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring; This is my word and will for the First Presidency. And now, as for thy concern over who shall sit among thy brethren the apostles, thus saith the Lord, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses S. Soares have I called for this work; And they shall serve as special witnesses to my name and testify of me. I will be with them and with thee in thy councils with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If ye will gather in my name, esteeming thy brother as thyself, then I will pour my power upon thee that thou shalt speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.
President Nelson would either have to speak like this his entire talk, or find a way to smoothly transition to it. This style seems to have fallen out of the common tongue early in the 20th century. Instead he said the following:
I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.
In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service.
When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.
In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!
President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

Do you think that is what is happening?

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary:
1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort
2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".
3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.
4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person.
Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.
I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:
 

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary:
1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort
2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".
3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.
4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person.
Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.
I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:
 

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary:
1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort
2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".
3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.
4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person.
Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.
I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:
 

I hadn't thought of it directly prior to now, but this could be yet another casualty of Satan's attack on the family.  Those who have experience in loving families naturally and deeply desire for those relationships to continue throughout eternity.  But those who have no such experience (whether it's just absent or it's replaced by negative family experiences) may think, "why in the world would I want to spend eternity with my (or a) family (since all my mortal family experience is negative)?"  For them, Satan's successes in destroying the basic family unit make the idea of "eternal families" a hurdle to overcome rather than a desired end...

Indeed, including statements from our leaders during the last fifty or so years that unanimously affirm that this life is the time to prepare to meet God, We have been warned against the philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry...and it shall be well with us; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." Jacob goes on to call these "false and vain and foolish doctrines".
Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance. Don't say, "Oh, celestial is too hard. I'll just live a telestial/terrestrial life. That's good enough, because eventually I'll get there." The truth of the matter is that celestial living is not merely far more rewarding than terrestrial/telestial living; it is EASIER. Show some faith. Believe the prophets and the scriptures. Think celestial.

No idea if you sing this hymn, but...
I vow to thee, my country
All earthly things above
Entire and whole and perfect
The service of my love The love that asks no questions
The love that stands the test
That lays upon the altar
The dearest and the best The love that never falters
The love that pays the price
The love that makes undaunted
The final sacrifice   And there's another country
I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her
Most great to them that know We may not count her armies
We may not see her King
Her fortress is a faithful heart
Her pride is suffering And soul by soul and silently
Her shining bounds increase
And her ways are ways of gentleness
And all her paths are peace   (Sung to the tune of Jupiter from Holst's The Planets)  

My family is the holder of the best known copy of the Rules of the United Order.  For your fun and enjoyment I have printed out a copy (on my compurter not a photo copy) of the rules of the United Order.
 
The Traveler

I am to both , although studying on my own for the most part. 

Just how eternal is Jesus as Father?
Gotcha. What is that in aleph notation?

You’ll be asked the following:
 

What do people* not understand about “a world of pure imagination”?
 
*apply to as many different parties as you’d like

What do people* not understand about “a world of pure imagination”?
 
*apply to as many different parties as you’d like

Am I doing this right?

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
These verses have always struck a cord with me. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden into the lone and dreary world, they longed to return home again, back into God's presence. In the scriptures we read of this longing for a home (promised land) over and over again. But receiving a land of inheritance is only the beginning. It's not truly home until God resides there as well, in other words, Zion. We see the perfect example of this with Enoch. He helped create a true Home on earth and then were taken up into God's bosom.
It makes me wonder what that process was like. Surely they experienced many of the same struggles that modern families and communities deal with. And yet they were able to endure and eventually overcome them. 

Alternate title for Trib article:
Bay Area Relief Society Finally Deemed Reverent Enough to Rejoin Congregation