MrShorty

The endowment ceremony is, at best, ambiguous on the point.  Within the ceremony, Adam and Eve are portrayed as both distinct individuals alone on the earth, as well as a collective being assaulted by the teachings of men. 
Beyond that, there's a very plausible argument to be made that Moses himself didn't consider Adam to be a single individual, as the word Adam translates to the collective mankind. 
That there existed a man and a woman that had reached a phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophets/teachers/whatever is completely believable.  
That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being is less likely, but not completely out of the question (Heck, most human beings are genetic ancestors of Genghis Khan).
That there existed a man and a woman that are genetic ancestors to every human being and had reached the phase of cognitive function that God was ready to assign them the task of first prophet/teacher/whatever strains credibility (at least for me). And that both of those conditions are met only 6,000 - 7,000 years ago strikes me as, well, NUH-UHHHHH.
(I will concede that "fictional" characters is an overstatement, but will also note that that particular descriptor originated from Rob. I'm perfectly content to write that off as one of his strawmen)

You mean like the temple ceremony does?

What is all that one can do?
In the mind of a Baptist this phrase is more true than many other religions.
In some other religions they merely do rote ceremonies and say that this will assure them salvation, but a Baptist does not believe works can save them.
Thus, ONLY Grace can save someone, and that grace is sufficient to save any who COME UNTO the Lord.  However, this requires that an individual DOES something.  When they have heard the call of the Lord they must respond.
This means that they MUST accept this Grace.  They have a choice, they can accept or they can refuse, and if they refuse than they have not done what they could.
Thus, they MUST believe, and when they believe and have accepted the Lord's sacrifice their heart will be turned and they will be changed into those who truly follow the Lord, for their heart no longer will be set on the things of the world, but on the things the Lord wills.
What the can one do?
They can choose to believe and accept the Grace of the Lord, and in fact, one may say from a Baptist point of view that this is ALL they can do.
They are incapable of anything else...for none can save themselves.  It is ONLY by grace one is saved, by the Mercy of the Lord.
The LDS believe something similar, but where as Baptist believe that one who has had their heart turned to the Lord by grace will have this manifested easily by their actions as they no longer desire to do evil, the LDS believe that it is by works that we manifest our belief instead.
They understand these verses...
As meaning that we show our FAITH through our works, rather than our Faith being manifested because our works show that we have had that change or turn of heart.
Hopefully that makes sense.
In either instance though, depending on how one believes, one MUST do all they can (whether it is simply to merely accept the Lord and his grace by choice, or whether it is seen to be that we must choose to do works and actions of our own accord to show that we have faith) before they can be saved, thus it still stands today as relevant.
One MUST take action of a sort under any of the belief systems...for without at least one action to accept the Grace and Mercy of the Lord, most Christian religions say we cannot be saved (though I think the Unitarian belief has this idea that everyone goes to heaven and no one goes to hell...which ascribes no effort for anyone).
In fact the Lord himself states...
Which to me indicates that we MUST follow the LORD to be saved.

This is absolutely not obsolete; it is just as pertinent now as it ever was.  Perhaps if we flip the two phrases a more appropriate interpretation will become clear:
"after all we can do, it is by grace that we are saved"
As should be more apparent, this passage indicates that even after all we can do it is still by grace that we are saved.  Now let us put this understanding back into the full context of the verse from which it comes:
So why do we labor so diligently to persuade our children and our brethren to believe in Christ?  Because at the end of the day, after everything we can do, it is still by the grace of God that we are saved.  In context, this passage is actually indicative that Nephi was far ahead of his time in the sense that he saw beyond the law of Moses and looked forward to Christ.

This whole chapter is wonderful.   Joseph Smith’s translation of John 5:19 is one of my favorite all time scriptures.
 
Anyway Jesus is teaching and chastizing the Jews beacuse they claimed that salvation is in and through the scriptures.  When in reality the Jews didn’t even understand the word of God.  Because of their corrupt interpretation of the Old Trstament they couldn’t even recognize the son of God.
Eternal life does not come from a book.  It comes from living according to the correct intrepretation of the word of God.  By following Christ’s example, partaking of ordinances, and enduring to the end.  
 
Jesus was also cognizant of his expected crucifixation and was effectively developing an antimosity between himself and the political leadership of the Jews. 

Well it seems to be saying that IF you can find eternal life in the scriptures, THEN you must accept the Savior, because they (the scriptures) testify of Him.
I'm not sure it's saying eternal life is or is not found in the scriptures. That's a semantic debate anyhow. I think Christ was simply pointing out how they had such much so-called faith in the scriptures, and yet were denying Him, of whom the scriptures testify.

This is what I mean by semantics. If a book has the complete path described wherein on can obtain eternal life then it is perfectly reasonable to say that eternal life comes from a book. It's also perfectly reasonable to say it doesn't, because it's easy to understand that, for example, that car repair knowledge may have come from a book, but the car doesn't repair itself from having read the book alone. Just depends on what one means by the idea.

I think there's an exponential cumulative beyond-the-practical reality to the gospel when it comes to these things, however. In life you get good at something by doing it. Yes. That is true in the gospel as well. But in life you only get good at what you do. In the gospel the windows of heaven open and pour out blessings, light and knowledge, strength, wisdom, character, and etc., beyond what even the practical experience gives us.
God asks us to climb mountains to prepare us for much greater things than climbing mountains. And he knows, in climbing those mountains, that we will all fall and fail. And yet His grace is sufficient.
This is a similar idea to what we repeatedly learned in the self reliance course. Self reliance, ironically, primarily means relying upon God. Being responsible for our own learning means the same.

The problem with the article is it demands compassion and understanding for those who are "injured", but then doesn't show the same compassion for some other forms of weakness. It seems to inadvertently encourage judgment, misunderstanding, impatience, and bitterness towards those who are  "weak" at sharing in favor of those who are "weak" at hearing.
Some poor soul is struggling to do their best to do as they feel they've been taught and share their testimony and we're being encouraged here to pass down judgment, declaring their testimonies unworthy, insincere, and actually hurtful?
I would propose that it might be wiser to encourage forgiveness, understanding, patience, and compassion for all forms of weakness.

Way to miss the point...Lets give another example.  I am a heterosexual male.  If my "True Self" was heterosexual male (as the world defines it) then I would be trying to have sex with just about every attractive female I meet. The church accepts my heterosexual maleness, but it does proscribe limits on my behavior/deeds.   Since my "True Self" is "Child of God" with a subset of "heterosexual male" and other stuff, in as much as the subsets are in harmony with my "true self" they are allowed, the parts that are not, are not.
And of course I am working on becoming converted to Christ, and putting off the natural man.  To do that effectively I need to know were my weak points are, and the subset of heterosexual male has a big one (and really most people's sexual identity does).  I do not do myself any favors pretending it does not exist.  By acknowledging that it exists I can plan for it, take whatever steps needed to counter it.
Whereas if it listened to people like you and figured it would just go away. I'd be constantly failing, constantly miserable, and be ready to curse God because he simply did not take it away.  God will strengthen and support us be we still have to put in the work. And no work can be done if you fail to acknowledge where the work is needed.
 

If. Exactly.
I am skeptical that there are three degrees therein. I don't deny there are, of course. (I don't believe that it is my place or right to interpret scripture individual of the prophets and apostles like some people do). But it doesn't make sense to me. Since there is very, very little said on the matter, I think's it's acceptable to take an "I'm not so sure" attitude in the matter.
Here's the deal:
To make it to the Celestial Kingdom we must obey the Father in all things, and upon failure in that regard, repent. So who, exactly, obeys the Father in all things but then says, "Nope. I choose disobedience" when it comes to marriage? And if said individual consciously and purposefully chose disobedience, their failure and unwillingness to repent, unwillingness to submit to the will of the Father, unwillingness to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit, etc., would hardly qualify them for Celestial glory, now, would it? And we know that if they cannot get married by choice that the opportunity will be given them. So who, exactly, is it that fits this impossible scenario of being both humble, obedient, willing to submit to the Father in all things, and also prideful, disobedient, and unwilling to submit to the Father in all things?
That's my simple thought on the matter.

This is some country that I don't believe will be conquered:
 
 

What?  Freud is a Modern Feminist?  You don't have to diminish men to reason gender roles.   And it really bugs me that men still think this is how to make women happy - make them feel better about themselves by reducing their menfolk to bumbling idiots. 
Women historically did domesticated roles because they have the mammary glands that produce milk.

In other words:  the words of a prophet are ultimately authoritative not because of the fact that a prophet happened to say them; but because of the power of the Holy Ghost which acts on the hearer as well as the speaker.  
Where we don’t have the confirmation for ourselves, it certainly behooves us to trust the priesthood authority while we make efforts gain that confirmation; and the priesthood authorities may rightfully impose discipline for our failure to toe the line as they deem appropriate for the greater good of the flock.  But when it comes to learning and doing what God expects of us individually, I think there are probably limits to how far God expects us to jump in the absence of a spiritual confirmation; and there is a point beyond which “the prophet said it, therefore, God wants it” probably isn’t terribly useful.  

My biggest sadness about all this is that Pumba was wrong
 

Well,,,,,, I have been thinking lately of coming out of retirement. 

You know, if we still had the Danites, we wouldn’t have to put up with crap like this.
Just sayin’ . . .

My answer:  I do not believe that a just and loving God would condemn a person to eternal darkness who is diligently, honestly, and humbly following his understanding of what God desires in the service of God and his fellowmen.
That goes for myself and the person asking the question.

The impact will start by forcing They Might Be Giants to fix their song yet again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Does_the_Sun_Shine%3F_(The_Sun_Is_a_Mass_of_Incandescent_Gas)

The impact will start by forcing They Might Be Giants to fix their song yet again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Does_the_Sun_Shine%3F_(The_Sun_Is_a_Mass_of_Incandescent_Gas)

So let's take the key of C for ease's sake:
A dominant V7 chord has the notes G, B, D, F in it. The B to the F is a tri-tone.
A tri-tone is the one interval in the 12 options that is exactly half way. That means it's exactly the same upside-down as it is right side up. In other words, a 4th upside down becomes a 5th. A 3rd becomes a 6th, etc., but a tri-tone becomes a tri-tone. It's the same interval either way.
The tri-tone causes strong dissonance that the ear likes to hear resolved. The dominant chord is enhanced by that addition of a flated 7, which, among other things, creates a tri-tone between the 3rd and the flat 7.
In a dominant chord it resolves inward (in 1st inversion). So in our chord - G, B, D, F - the B goes a half step up to the C and then F goes a half step down to the E - resolving to the Tonic - C, E, G.
The Augmented 6th chord is the exact same structure (with variation, depending on type) as a dominant 7 chord. Aug 6 is the same as Flat 7, if you follow. What makes an Aug 6 chord an Aug 6 chord instead of a Flated 7 (Dominant 7) chord is the way the tri-tone is resolved. Because you can turn it upside down and it's the same notes, but then you still resolve it inward by a half step -- but now it goes to different notes: The F goes up a half step to the F# and the B goes down a half step to a Bb.
In practice, that means that the reverse resolution goes to a chord a half-step below where the Aug 6th was, and instead of acting like a Dominant chord it acts like a alternative to a Sub-Dominant* chord.
Explaining the "feel" of Dominant vs. Sub-Dominant is a bit like explaining how Salt tastes though.
*Edit: Wikipedia used the term "predominant"

Hi @ConfusedCath!  Welcome! 
I am an LDS lady married to an non-denominational / Evangelical dude.  We have a wonderful marriage and beautiful daughter, whom I'm raising LDS.  I'm also a nerd who loves to understand different faiths, so I've studied Catholicism pretty intensely (which of course involves attending many Catholic services).  Daughter has also visited a variety of churches with me (just last Friday we were at a Episcopalian church for Christmas hymn singing).   
A HUGE foundational part of marriage is respecting your other spouse, even when you disagree on matters.  I love my husband and respect him fully, even if he's very "whatever" about Joseph Smith, and I think Joseph Smith is a prophet.  He in turn totally respects me and my beliefs as well.  Neither of us need to be silent or otherwise hide our beliefs from our daughter.  She's still young, but starting to understand that some people have different beliefs and how we respectfully talk about that.  
For us, we also have the common core of important things like Christ, His atonement, prayer, etc.  That is the foundation of the Gospel, and I'm sure what drew you to both Catholicism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I will be honest and say that I mind more of His Truth and His priesthood in the LDS church than I do Catholicism or Evangelical, but I readily acknowledge that Catholicism and Evangelical do still teach many important Truths.  I do still love modern-day revelation, pre-mortal life, and other doctrines not taught elsewhere.
Ask God for peace and guidance.   He will give it to you, His beloved daughter. 
 
Re coffee & beer: the Word of Wisdom is a promise we make with God, to avoid these foods, just as the ancient Israelites avoided pork.  If I were to drink a coffee, then that would be bad because first and foremost because I would be breaking my promise with God.  Whether or not the coffee is actually unhealthy isn't the point -- it's that I promised God I would pass on the coffee.     My non-member husband has made no such promise with the Lord, and hence is not violating that promise if he drinks a cup, so he's not doing anything "bad" that way.  
Then you guys will talk about it then and cross that bridge then.   Until then, it's not really productive to run each possible "what if" scenario.
(I've mega been there freaking out and running "what if" scenarios)
Not remotely ostracized.  Nor would your husband be ostracized if he's Catholic or atheist.  We welcome everyone.  Heck, we had the ward Christmas party last weekend and I think people asked "how's your husband?"....4 different times?  And they laughed when I was "Mr Grinch is hiding at home with ear plugs in because he hates Christmas music" (and then I got more serious). 

The solution is to increase your obedience. If following the prophet means shaving an hour off church, how much more obedient will you be when you remove 2 or 2 1/2 hours?

My thoughts....though not particular to or about @lostinwater as his ideas could be very different or any number of ideas on this otherwise...
Of course, it is going to be very longwinded...
Stuff I posted above in slight reference to.  Anti-Mormons take things out of context and without evidence to state certain things about polygamy and how it was practiced during the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  The ideas of polyandry (a woman with more than one husband) relate in these instance, especially towards Joseph Smith on instances where he was probably sealed to someone (and many of these seaings are now seen as him being a proxy rather than actual, as there were literally hundreds of sealings to him from what I understand, but most are now not registered as that, it having been reduced to a couple dozen) but not necessarily married in the  temporal life is what they refer to.  We do not know how defined these sealings were in most cases, whether they were both temporal and eternal or just sealings for the next life.  There is a big question mark in some areas.  However, as far as PHYSICAL evidence goes to support the idea that he was actually married in this life to these woman and did certain acts with them is notably ABSENT today.  There is no physical evidence of it [CURRENTLY, there may pop up some in the future, but CURRENTLY we lack any that I am aware of].
Unfortunately, rather than look to see when and how these resources were stated (some of the most popular came from support of a trial several decades after Joseph Smith's death) they take them as settled, absolute, and defined.  They do not look at context, reliability, or even whether they exist in some cases.  They take it on faith that the short snippets they read or find are being relayed to them exactly as they were meant to.
Others will simply believe what others tell them (so much for actually doing research or looking it up themselves), and believe it (so much for thinking critically, or finding out for oneself).
And finally you do have a FEW that will do their research, see possibilities of one way or the other, realize what is true, what may or may not be true, and what is not true, and decide that they really do not agree with the idea or ideas.  I find that those Anti-Mormons who do this normally are less argumentative than those that are defined above.  Typically, I think this is because it is based on what they themselves have looked into, thought about, and decided for themselves.
The others, or former two mentioned, on the otherhand, are acting MORE about a matter of what they believe than anything based on fact.  Thus, it has become more like their new religion rather than something they study.  They are defending a new religion rather than any real facts on or research on the matter.  This differs from the latter who normally are not as aggressive.
What it boils down for with the latter is normally they do not agree with the doctrine or idea of Polygamy in any way that it is practiced.  They will disagree with the doctrinal assertions based upon our views regarding the Old Testament, and see it differently in interpretation.  Thus, regardless of how it was revealed or practiced, they feel it is wrong.  This is not an unusual feeling and is common among many, especially those who are not Mormon (or LDS, or the Saints).
Ironically, no one is called to live polygamy today.  It was done away as a doctrine people were commanded to follow in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  As we are not commanded to live polygamy (and one can see this via the manifesto at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, though there were other manifesto's supporting it later issued as well) anymore, overall, for most I think it is a moot issue. 
To me, in some ways it is similar to animal sacrifice.  After the Lord came to earth and his death and resurrection the Saints were no longer told to practice animal sacrifice.  It was no longer a commandment for them to follow.  This applies to us today.  We no longer do animal sacrifice and are not under a commandment to follow it.  It was done in the Church a LONG time ago (and we are talking...a LONG time ago) in the days of the Old Testament but for us today, most of us will never see, participate, or even agree with the idea of animal sacrifice.
The other viewpoint that can be hard for people to swallow is a distinct change in how the Church did things.  Some would view it as a change in doctrine and many that do not, would agree that it is at least a change in policy.  It used to be that a woman could ONLY be sealed to one husband.  It was, as prophets stated, due to how the Patriarchal order was supposed to work and because there was order in all things.  This normally was not a problem.  However there were some cases where a woman was sealed to her husband but had divorced that husband and married another.  Some individuals had problems with the idea that she was now sealed to the one that she got divorced from rather than the one that she ended up married to.
Because of this and some other justifications (for example, they sealed some of those who were dead because relatives felt that they were going to be married and hence should be sealed together anyways) they changed how we did things.  Thus, after a woman dies, she is sealed to any and every man she was ever married to.  This can be seen in a way as polyandry, but in the form of it being done for the dead.  There are various explanations about this (that she thus now has a choice of who she will be with to the eternities and other ideas).
I do not think there is a problem bringing this up to discuss with the Saints.  It is not a problem here on these forums (I have mentioned at least the latter on these forums before) and I do not think people are going to crucify anyone who brings it up at church.  I CANNOT speak for how Relief Society would handle it, I am normally not in Relief Society or participating in their discussions. 
On a whole, my thought is, The KEY is HOW one brings it up and pursues it.  How respectful one is of others in church and their ideas and conversations.  The other item to consider is what the actual lesson is on.  If it is not an open forum and the lesson is not on this subject, derailing the lesson and focusing on this could be seen as a tad disruptive (or more disruptive, depending on the group).
I've caused disruptions in church before, or at least derailments of the lesson.  The worst was probably when I started talking about College Football one time and got the entire quorum discussing how their favored teams were doing.  That football conversation lasted the entire time and we never got back to what the lesson was (and I don't even recall what the lesson was about that day, but I recall the conversations on football).  Not my best or most shining moment and very rude on my part.  However, I was not excommunicated from the church or shunned on that, and even given leadership positions (not that I actually wanted them, sometimes to my great sorrow in having to do my duty with whatever position or calling I was in).
Those are just some of the things that can cause people to have difficulty with the ideas (more so dealing with polygamy itself rather than other items) of past church practices and sometimes practices done today.  It may not affect everyone in the same way.  Some may have no problems with these things, others have a great deal of difficulty with it.
Polygamy is one of those items where MANY have problems with it in Church history or talking about it or discussing it.  In instances such as that, @lostinwater is probably correct.  The polite thing is to simply not bring it up or force such a discussion on those who want to avoid the subject or feel uncomfortable discussing it.  I think I could see this being a situation that affects several (or many) members in the Church today.  However, if we keep our conversation relevant to the lesson and it is discussing this topic, and we keep it respectful and respect others views on it, I think it is not necessarily going to be something that makes others feel unnecessarily angry or upset with you if you discuss it.
Just MY thoughts on the matter.

I, for one, believe this to be an example being set by the Savior of obedience.  I don't believe for a second that Jesus had any desire to skip out on the atonement and leave us all doomed. This wasn't "counselling". This was Christ setting an example of obedience.
Do you believe that God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son, but that His only begotten son didn't so love the world quite as much?