MrShorty

Well, and my understanding is that initially early Christian house churches celebrated the Sacrament/ Eucharist/ Lord’s supper in the context of a full meal.
God teaches a lot through symbol/ allegory/ analogy; but every symbol/ allegory/ analogy breaks down at a certain level.  I don’t think the primary point of the Mosaic sacrifices was to emphasize the pain that Jesus would go through (though I imagine that for a lamb, having its throat slit until it bleeds to death is no picnic); the point was something pure and blameless being killed prematurely through no fault of its own and offering relatively little resistance in the process.
Now, I *do* think that the penal substitution paradigm of atonement has more limitations than we in the Church might be used to pointing out.  The way we talk about it often leaves the impression that even if a person repented, and even if they had truly had their heart changed and through Christ’s grace had developed not only an determination to serve Him eternally, but the actual capacity to do so perfectly, and even if God in His omnipotence knew that the penitence was sincere and in his parental love stood ready to receive the sinner back into His arms—even for all of that, our rhetoric often suggests that we *still* could not be saved because there’s some third-party entity called “JUSTICE” (or:  the “justice” attribute of God the Father) to whom/ which somebody, even if not the sinner, needs to “pay the price” by feeling the full pain of the sinner’s misdeeds so that some cosmic account of moral debits and credits can be brought back into balance.  Maybe I just need to reread Alma’s sermon to Corianton; but at the moment I’m not quite convinced that’s exactly how the process actually works.  Maybe it’s more that our understanding of Christ’s suffering seals our devotion to Him, and binds us to the people we have wronged (and vice-versus) so that, if we will, we can forgive past outraged and enjoy Heaven together.  

I was recently reading a non-LDS book about Holy Week. One of the points raised in the book was a critique of the Substitution Theory of the Atonement or the idea that Christ's suffering and death was a substitution for our own suffering owed through sin. Their basis for this critique comes from the fact that animal sacrifices, such as ones at Passover or Yom Kippur, were not sacrifices where pain or suffering was meant to be inflicted on the sacrifice. Instead, it was to be a quick and efficient process.
Once sacrificed, the offering was often part of a family and community feast, a celebration. The New Testament is full of imagery of wedding feasts, of feeding the 5000, being called to gather and feast on Christ's flesh and blood, the last supper, and other examples of festive meals.
As an incredibly introverted person, I like to think about the Atonement as my personal path with the Savior toward forgiveness and salvation. I like to think grace and my work can get my family and me along, and going to church each Sunday is just a part of that.
This idea of sacrifice and atonement bringing us together for feasting is one i have not thought much about before, and I don't really know if I have even properly articulated what my thoughts are. Have you had any thoughts around this idea, or are there any church talks or articles I could be pointed to about a communal and festive aspect of the Atonement?

I sort of get that; and I don’t want to be unsupportive or unduly critical.
On the other hand, I would want to be careful not to create a sort of “Potemkin ward”, where what is presented to the visiting authority is seriously disconnected with the reality of life in your congregation  
And the idea that your area office has been ignoring your physical facilities requests for years and is only just granting them now that an apostle is en route, frankly horrifies me.  That’s not how things are supposed to work; and I hope Elder Christofferson is made aware of the situation.  (I revere the apostles and try to sustain the seventies and area presidencies; but I give no deference whatsoever to the Church bureaucracy, who in my experience contains an unpredictable mix of amazingly good human beings as well as a disproportionate share of obsequious and superficial snots.)

I'm full of surprises. At least, my high school compatriots told me that I was full of something, and I assumed that was surprises.

I do all my apostasy naked.

If God the Father is Omnipotent/Sovereign/All knowing God then how is it that our prayers have any effect or affect on the outcome of Earthly matters? If the outcome is already known, why make prayers of intercession or requests? Praying prayers of praise and thanksgiving make sense, but what of other types of prayers?

I consider this to be a great question, and a gateway to understanding more about our relationship to God and what he expects of us.

I didn’t bring up temple ordinances. I probably could have talked with them for 5 more hours, but the 1 hour we did share was well spent. 
 
As far as the Doctrine and Covenants, there’s a lot of good passages there, and I like reading about the unique doctrine you can’t find anywhere else, although I have to be careful going forward that I don’t let what I don’t understand consume me to the point it inhibits my spirituality such as the three kingdoms of glory and polygamy. 

This is the right approach.  Do as much as you can and let God magnify it - loaves & fishes - in the end, you'll have not only more than you started with, but more than enough.

It was a great visit. The GA and a member of the Stake Presidency came to visit me. We strongly felt the Holy Spirit, and it's been a long time since I felt it that powerfully. They shared a lot of love with me and it was moving. I feel grateful they selflessly took time out of their lives to visit me.
I believe the visit was meant to be. It even worked out to where we had the house to ourselves since I didn't have my 6-year old daughter with me like I usually would since she was at her friend's birthday party with her Mom.
Personal experiences, stories and advice were shared in response to my doubts about the Book of Mormon, and as the point was stressed to keep trying, I brought up how I was concerned I might talk myself into a testimony of the Book of Mormon versus accepting it based on truth. 
The Holy Spirit most strongly manifested itself to me when the GA shared how he had been praying earlier this morning to help even just one person today, and how this meeting was meant to be, and how his assignment to visit my area had been assigned by Elder Ballard. I received a distinct impression as he was sharing all this that it was true and had been orchestrated by God and the Holy Spirit.
I plan to stay in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I will continue trying to develop within it. I can't deny how powerfully the Holy Spirit manifested itself to me. 
I still have many questions and maybe some will remain a mystery to me till after this mortal existence, but the important thing is I feel like God blessed me today to get over my hurdle of uneasiness about the Church with all the mounting questions and skepticism I had about it.
I know I have a lot to learn, and even though I'm a slow learner, I'm hopeful to bring others unto Jesus Christ by sharing the kind of love that was shared with me today. 
I'm taking a new approach starting today. When it comes to the Church, I'm not going to fixate on the things I don't understand. I will focus on the things I do understand and allow God to fill in the rest in due course.

Hi @clbent04,
Thanks for sharing where you're at in your journey.  Speaking as a mod, I wanted to make sure you understood that as long as you're not off breaking site rules, you're just as welcome here as anyone else.  
Speaking as a guy who likes coming here, I'm hoping you'll stick around.  I really want to hear about this upcoming dinner!

I appreciate the time and everything you put into this post @askandanswer as well as everything @Carborendum said in his earlier post. Thank you both.
I have put in a lot of effort in my endeavor to draw closer to God. I can proudly say I'm closer to Him at this point in my life than I ever have been. I see Him working with me and molding me into a better version of myself maybe not everyday, but in an overall positive trajectory as I reflect on my years.
I've wrestled with the Book of Mormon my entire life starting back when I was a teenager. Now I'm 36, and I've realized that for many years I was overly consumed in trying to receive an answer of the truthfulness of Book of Mormon to the point it inhibited my spiritual growth.
I became bogged down in trying to get an answer to where it partially made me lose focus on what really matters: my relationship with God. I think everyone has the potential to get overly consumed with the religious side of things to the point spiritual matters lose focus. At least it did in my experience.
My opinion now is if the Book of Mormon draws you closer to Christ, that's wonderful. Eat it up. But if it doesn't, if you're someone like me who has better luck centering themselves on our Redeemer with the Bible, then read the Bible. Do what works for you.
Even if I decide to stay in the Church for the many reasons I like it, the Church's own position agrees with my belief that I don't have to accept the Book of Mormon to be saved. I only have to accept Jesus Christ as is the condition for all of us. But there's problems with someone like me in my position. I wouldn't feel it would be appropriate to accept a Church calling where I was expected to share beliefs about the Book of Mormon, and my skepticism of temple ordinances also puts a roadblock in my potential growth within the Church.
I could be happy being the Building Security guy the rest of my life, but I'm just not sure if that's the position I want to take when I might be able to flourish more so in a non-denominal or Protestant Christian church. But then again, I have a soft spot for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. It's a good organization.
The good news is, we are all brothers and sisters, and God is mindful of each and every one of us. He knows our hearts. He knows my heart. He knows I'm doing the best I can, just like most people are with the limited information we have. We're still brothers and sisters regardless of who does and doesn't embrace the Book of Mormon, and Jesus' grace is great enough for all of us. 
Am I concerned about having to look up and wave to all you guys from second deck (the Terrestrial Kingdom)? I used to be. It used to consume me with how intently I focused on getting to the Celestial Kingdom. But that doesn't consume me anymore as my beliefs have evolved to a more healthy, comprehensive and inclusive view of all mankind. I find peace in thinking about the nature of God and observing how He loves all His children.
There's no one on this Earth inside or outside of the Church who has been able to completely shed all of their assumptions and judgments since no one has all the answers and no one is perfect. We are imperfect humans trying to figure things out on planet Earth orbiting the Sun as the galaxy simultaneously orbits a black hole. In the scheme of things, I don't see how us disagreeing on something like the Book of Mormon even matters. If it is true, great, I was wrong, our Savior has already forgiven me for my short-sidedness. If it's false, the same applies to those who were misguided. 
I believe the true test in the end, what will matter most, are the two greatest commandments, and there's many different routes leading us to be developed in relation to those two commandments.

We would do well to remember there is an aspect of "The Lord's timing" as well to all his promises.  We know this, we get taught this, and yet all too often we fall into the trap of "God as a vending machine" and we really should know better.   The Book of Mormon promise is True... God will reveal the Truth of it to everyone who does what it requires.  However we often add our own little expectation/requirement that God would do it right immediately after.  But that is nowhere in the promise.  It does appear to be how it works for most people, which can reinforce this idea, but it is not really in the promise.   I know for me the answer came, but it did not come quickly.  I was in "I choose to believe" mode for nearly a year once I got serious about gaining a witness. Then I got the promised witness, that allowed me to move to "I know"   Why did it take so much longer for me?  I have no idea, it wasn't from lack of faith or willingness to believe or willingness to do the work, because it clearly did happen for me.  Clearly the Lord had his reasons, and one day I hope to understand them.

FWIW, I will say from the perspective of someone on the fence about the Church, it's much more positive to have conversations with members who can sympathize how various viewpoints can exist in this world, and to not feel like someone is touting their sincerity and diligence in finding God's truth over your own.
That can be very frustrating and offensive.  This was one contributing factor that caused me to eventually lash out at @The Folk Prophet in the past and earn my permanent Scarlet Letter on Third Hour!

By the way, is this thing really permanent or does it ever go away?
But TFP and I are good now. After we hugged and made up, I can see the good in people like @The Folk Prophet who want to proudly hold up their banner of truth, and to some extent I see it as commendable even when it comes at the expense of stepping on the toes of those like me who have different life experiences and beliefs. 
I will say if the goal is to bring others unto Christ, and you believe the LDS Church to be the answer, a little sympathy and respectful communication goes a long ways. I've always tried to communicate respectfully on this forum with the exception of the few times I've been triggered by someone else's lack of respect for me or others.
I'm not really saying any of us this for my benefit and my intention is not to make anyone feel bad, just some honest perspective for what it's worth.
 

I've encountered too many people in this circumstance who have not yet experienced the fulfilled promise and who keep trying despite this (for various reasons).  I believe the word simply is wrong.  I believe that there are cases of those who just don't understand (yet).  They haven't figured out how to be sincere or how to recognize the answer or some other how.  To their credit, they recognize that it's worth continuing the struggle.  For some, it just isn't simple.  They aren't intentionally being blind, but the usual lessons on how to see aren't working for them.
In high school, I had a friend in most of my classes (she was very smart, a fellow honors student).  In our trig and pre-calc class, she could not understand a significant percent of what the teacher was trying to teach.  But if I re-explained it, she could understand my way of putting it.  Fortunately, the teacher accepted this and didn't mind me turning around and repeating the lesson to my friend.  I think this is the case with many who struggle with The Sunday School Promises - whoever is explaining things to them isn't speaking their language.  They need to hear it in some other terms or experience some other insight, or something different from the norm.  I trust that eventually, everyone can experience the promised results, but for some of us, for whatever reason, it's harder, and I no longer believe that it's because they are willfully doing something wrong.  Maybe they're doing something wrong, but if so, it's in ignorance or confusion.
In such cases, I try to encourage them not to give up, that the struggle is worth it, that even without all the promised experiences, life is better continuing to try than giving up.  I also encourage trying to look at things from different angles, considering all the variables involved, asking what's missing, etc. etc.  Anything to keep them trying and help them to find whatever it is they specifically need to come to Christ.  But I don't tell them they're clearly not doing it right - just doesn't help.

I appreciate those candid with their thoughts and trying to be extremely honest about things. I see a great deal of nuance in matters of belief, but in this case I see this in starkly black-and-white terms.
Pro
The Restored Church of Christ is exactly what it claims to be, the literal restoration of God's own kingdom on the earth through Priesthood power, manifested through the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Con
The so-called Restored Church of Christ is no such thing. The so-called prophet Joseph Smith was a fraud and a conman, a randy ne'er-do-well who seduced foolish young women and convinced a bunch of gullible fools that he spoke for Jesus Christ.
Other than some minor mitigation of adjectives involved, the above two claims represent the only (and clearly mutually exclusive) possibilities. It is A or B, exactly one of the two. Nice sermons and happy lives may possibly be outgrowths of some good vine, but ultimately the above single choice completely covers the bases.
These are all fine. I would point out that many of the listed elements can be found in non-LDS congregations and belief systems.
Yep. That's a problem. From the very beginning, the Prophet Joseph and other leaders in the kingdom have acknowledged the good and Godly among all sects and even non-Christian belief systems. But the uniqueness of the Church's status as the literal kingdom of God on earth is not something that can be minimized or hand-waved away.
I wish I had a convincing answer to give. You are not the first person I have heard give this report, and I don't know how to respond. My personal experiences are certainly far different in this thing than are yours—but  of course, my experiences do nothing for you. Moroni's promise is right there in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon, bold as day. Why some who seem perfectly sincere and strictly honest can seemingly complete the terms of that promise without receiving the promised testimony puzzles me and has for years. Perhaps the visiting General Authority can shed some light on this for you.
As with the Book of Mormon, my experiences are exactly opposite of yours. I find the presentation of the endowment and the covenants therein to be a clear and persuasive representation of what the Bible teaches. But again, my experience helps no one but me.
It is human nature to think that, having named something, we now understand it. "Now I understand why Grandpa was the way he was. He was on the autism spectrum, but no one understood it in his time. But now we do!" "Uncle Billy was considered an abusive jerk. If only they had understood the reality of alcohol addiction back then!" In merely naming a thing, we think that we have identified it. Grandpa was autistic; Billy was addicted to a substance. There we go! Now, having made those assignments, we finally have an understanding of what's going on!
We have not. In many cases, we don't know if the model is even a good, robust one, one that will hold up over years of use and observation. (Witness the previous example of autism, considered for some decades as a convincing explanation for a wide variety of personality traits but now being re-evaluated for its accuracy, a sledge hammer used indiscriminately to label different and perhaps unrelated conditions, and as to whether it is even a useful diagnosis at all.)
What is the nature of our premortal life? What did it look like? What did we do? What were our family relations with each other? What was involved in preparing us for this life? We know exactly none of these things—or if we do, we're under covenant to keep that knowledge to ourselves, because it certainly has not been publicly revealed. And without such knowledge, we are in no situation to judge how or even whether our mortal probation suffices to distinguish our eternal destiny.
To put it another way: Larger Christianity and the other so-called Abrahamic religions (primarily Judaism and Islam) teach of a place called "heaven" and another place called "hell". Our life conduct, or perhaps divine predestination, will relegate us to Heaven or Hell. Compared to that absurdly simplistic idea, the Latter-day Saint "three degrees of glory" sounds downright nuanced. Which was, I believe, the point of Section 76. It's a little bit of knowledge, a line and a precept given us as a morsel of spiritual food to grow with. It was never intended to be a complete explanation, but more like a peek into the future.
You are far from the first, and doubtless far from the last, to make this observation. But in the end, the true/false dichotomy I started this answer with applies. If the Restored Church of Christ is what it claims to be, then any squabbling about plural marriage being restored and then withdrawn becomes irrelevant. And of course, if the Restored Church is not what it claims to be, then the whole issue is irrelevant. In either case, "irrelevant" is the operative term.
Same as the argument above, but times ten thousand. Angel statues on temple spires does not strike me as an issue of any importance. At all.
True enough. And yet here we are. What are we to make of that? Clearly this life, this existence in mortality, matters, else why are we struggling through it? It's easy to dismiss our lives as unimportant and say that when we REALLY see what's going on, it will all make sense. Easy, but useless. Our mortal lives are not unimportant, at least not in the way we might think. And I suggest that whether or not we are ever, in all eternity, able to REALLY see what's going on will be determined precisely by how we develop our own spiritual traits throughout our existence, which obviously would include right now, in mortality.

@clbent04, thanks for sharing.  Please share how the meeting goes!
To echo others' comments, I'll often say that in the end, the only good reason to be LDS, is you figure God wants you to be one.  Absent that, it really doesn't matter how strong the pros, or how weak the cons, it's just like any other secular life choice on how to spend your time and maximize your life on earth.  If you can wrangle a testimony, it doesn't matter how weak the pros, or how strong the cons, you can walk firm in the knowledge that you're doing God's will.
(I obviously have my preferences, but I'm happy to hang out with 'ya either way, btw.)

Last Sunday I met up with one of the counselors in my home ward bishopric. He's a good person and I enjoy his company. We talked about some of our life interests and questions I had about Church doctrine and practices and theology in general.
For transparency purposes, I told him at the beginning of our visit that at this point in my life I consider myself to be a non-denominational Christian who practices his faith within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do this because I grew up in the Church, I'm familiar with it, and there's a lot of things in the Church I agree with.
I also told him I'm on the fence about whether I should stay in the Church or find another that aligns more closely to how I believe such as a non-denominational or Protestant Christian church.
We had a good discussion, and as we were headed out he mentioned how they were looking for members who might be interested in receiving a visit from a General Authority this Saturday. I was excited about the prospect and readily agreed.
The Stake Presidency reached out to me this morning and we got the visit scheduled. I want to make the most of this upcoming visit so I wanted to vet some of my thoughts here to get to the crux of why I haven't been able to fully embrace LDS beliefs.
Here's my personal list of pros / cons regarding on why I'm on the fence about whether I should stay in the Church:
Pros
Centered on Jesus Christ and the two greatest commandments I'm familiar with the Church and know what to expect The Church helps produce good people. Some of the people I respect most in this life are members I've had some wonderful spiritual experiences within the Church Observing the integrity and morality of current Church leadership suggests to me that the vine from the inception of the Restored Church must have been good No proven systematic corruption in the Church strongly supports my belief that good, inspired leaders are at the helm The organization of the Church from its leadership to how it manages its affairs Efforts within the Church are almost exclusively volunteer based; no paid clergy Most Church members are given opportunities to not just spectate but participate The Church's living, breathing nature and how its continuously being fine tuned Cons
The statement of "the one and only true Church" is not comprehensive enough to be compatible with my life observations of how God works within the world. Not only do I believe God and the Holy Spirit are present among other faiths, I believe many to be equally inspired by God as is the LDS Church I've read the Book of Mormon several times and Moroni's promise has never worked for me. When I read the Book of Mormon I often get a feeling it was fabricated. I get a different feeling when I read the Bible. I accept the Bible as containing true accounts that actually transpired Temple ordinances don't make sense to me in relation to what the Bible teaches us The three Kingdoms of Glory don't make sense to me and how an 80-year mortal existence would eternally slot any of us into one of the three Polygamy being introduced for a temporary period only to be retracted and put on hold until after this life doesn't make sense to me. Apologists explain the Church had to stop practicing polygamy because the US government would have shut it down otherwise. Since when is a government more powerful than God? And where in the Bible has God ever retracted an eternal principle of truth? And no, comparing this to the Law of Moses is not apples to apples THE TEMPLE STATUES OF THE ANGEL MORONI!! Lol. All caps added more for levity than me being that serious about it mattering that much to me, although I do stand behind my thoughts with what I posted in my other thread about the angel Moroni statues In the end, when we are all asleep [dead] waiting for the resurrection/judgment, when we finally see for ourselves how God and the Heavens are, I think we will all be amazed by His majesty, glory, mercy, understanding and love towards us. Whereas some of us were overly focused on getting to the Celestial Kingdom by participating in regular temple attendance, my belief is God will thoroughly look into our hearts and uncover what truly matters for our salvation, our love and faith for Him and His son Jesus Christ. It will be a wonderful reunion with all our brothers and sisters from all walks of life where many of our assumptions and judgments in this life will be melted away by God's love for us, and we will all see each other for who we are, and forgive as we are forgiven.

The original post is about deconstructing the gospel.
You may not be aware of the controversial book Mormon Doctrine written by Bruce R. McConkie and published back in 1958.
Don’t get me wrong.  I love many of Elder McConkie’s work (hymns, final testimony, conference talks, Official Declaration 2, etc. )
The book was written and published without the first presidency’s knowledge or consent.  The text essentially deconstructs the gospel and is written in a topical format from A to Z.
see below links for detailed information.
https://askgramps.org/church-allow-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine-published/
https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_15137409
Despite the fact that the text is 65 years old, completely out of date, and contains questionable material.  It still remains widely quoted in church meetings.  
Carl Sagan has lots of good scientific insight, but he is an atheist.  Probably shouldn’t write a Sacrament talk based on his insight…
I love the focus on scriptures and most recent general conference talks.
If members would spend time reviewing the scriptures or recent General Conference talks instead of going back through their comfortable Mormon Doctrine book.  I think we would all be better off.
 
 

I am not offended.  I did not feel judged.  I felt that others (lurkers, future readers) might need to read what I had to say, partly in counter to your perspective - because there are many perspectives and they are easily misunderstood.  If you also came away with an expanded perspective of the things you dislike, so much the better, but it's not that important.
I also felt that if what I perceived as mockery really is habitual mockery, that you needed someone to point out that it is unbecoming a disciple of Christ to mock God's children, not for their sake (they don't even know you're doing it), but for your own.

This is a good topic and excellent discussion, but had to take issue with the way this is phrased.  While I'm open to continuing revelation, I'm of the opinion that correct principles are eternal, no matter when they're uttered or learned.
I'm LDS as a result of a checklist written many centuries ago.  My sense of self was completely reworked for the better by two other checklists I was received 20 years ago, even though they were old by the time I learned them.  I try to base all my interactions with my fellow humans on another checklist I read 25 years ago.  I've quoted from all these sources for decades when offering advice, and continually receive feedback about the lifechanging healing and comfort it brought, from people who hadn't heard any of it before.  Last month, I actually made a dent in an atheist friend by quoting from them.
Imma stick with these takes on what superceedes what:
 

Just to let yall know, sometimes I teach EQ or Sunday School and I bounce ideas off yall before I share them with real humans.  
 
Anyways, in the EQ lesson we were talking about the last GC talk by Ryan K. OIsen, The Answer is Jesus.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/52olsen?lang=eng
And during the lesson I was impressed with the idea that sometimes we over-think things.  And over the years we may have unintentionally deconstructed the gospel.
For example.
1) Kubler-Ross stages of Grief.  Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.  I really got a laugh watching Woody from Cheers go through the entire process in 30 seconds.
2) The hot new trend of Michelin star chefs to present deconstructed meals at outrageous prices.  

The above is a deconstructed BLT Sandwich & Strawberry Cheesecake
3) The seven steps of repentence.  Recognition, Remorse, Relating (confessing), Restitution, Resolution, Reformation, Realization
https://latterdaysaintmag.com/latter-day-myth-the-rs-of-repentance/#:~:text=In the church it seems,%2C April 28%2C 1964).
In the above article H. Wallace Goddard expands the list to 67 check off boxes all starting with the letter R.  I'll spare you the paragraph. 
Other pet peves of mine: Making our own favorite titles up for Jesus (Elder Brother, Only begotten in the flesh, Firstborn in the Spirit), Calling the Church the Mormon Church, the sacrament renews all covenants, etc.
 
As for me, I like my food the old fashioned way: properly constructed, reasonably priced, and made by my wife.
I'm happy to make things simple.  The answer is Jesus
If we must use the steps of repentence.  Please don't forget the most important (R).  Redeemer. 
 

Many revelations in the D&C represent Joseph Smith’s attempt to frame the will of God into a Voice of God, first-person declaratory statement,  but they are still “after the manner of [his] language” (D&C 1:24) and Joseph always considered them subject to further refinement/editing.
D&C 138 doesn’t even presume to use God’s direct voice; rather, President Joseph F. Smith is using his own perspective to try to interpret for the reader the vision that he was able to experience.  His account is naturally going to be filtered at minimum by his vocabulary, and probably to some degree by his worldview.  I think most Saints in any age would recognize that humankind is incapable of paying for their own sins to any degree; that salvation and redemption from sin comes only in and through the merits of Jesus Christ as part of a covenant relationship in which we consecrate ourselves to Him.  At the same time, early LDS discourse (and indeed, scripture generally) is full of statements about punishment, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, the wrath of God suffered by the impenitent in the spirit world until they are purged of their sins, etc. That was just the rhetorical/linguistic water President Smith swam in; and we don’t need to be too worried if it shows up in his written accounts of the revelations he received.
The scriptures are canon, but they are not a legal code in which one word always means the same single thing and in which a particular concept is always conveyed through one (and only one) specific word or phrase.

I have two thoughts on this. 1. I guess it depends on how much one thinks "grooming" is a thing. 2. I wonder how difficult it is for people to leave Uganda.
On 1., I think a law such as this is meant to curb that, but also to suppress the expressions of homosexuality. It will, inevitably, force it underground. On 2., and per the second half of your post, I would think having a path that helps people exit the country if they dislike the law would be a good idea.

Nowhere does that article say this is the goal.