Anddenex

I don't see how these "flow chats" are mutually exclusive. Maybe reconciling the idea that both can, essentially, be correct...

I’m a bit confused by your logic.
What do you think is God’s fullness of Glory.  That He is a paragon of light, knowledge and power.
As LDS we believe that God’s true glory lies in more than just power and knowledge.  His glory is love, mercy, justice, family, and the bounties of life.  All good things that bring joy to life and existence.
Without spouse, children and family we believe that you cannot experience a fullness of joy.
When Jesus and we follow God and become more like Him, His glory is added upon, and the universe becomes more ordered.  
Also, his children create wonderful things like soy sauce, rocky road ice cream, sushi, beautiful architecture, Star Wars, inspiring music etc.

Welcome, Fiddle.
That is quite a long post.  Forgive me if I only address a few items.
Is a marraige transactional?  It certainly can be.  But how can you tell the difference? 
How many of us would look at a happy couple and determine that their marriage is just a legal transaction wherein shared property is utilized for better economy in the siring of offspring so they can be raised into adulthood to take care of us in our old age?
Do I work 50 to 60 hr/wk so my wife will have sex with me and clean my house?  That would be transactional.  It would be cheaper if I just went around clubbing. Do I sire and raise children and care for them because I'm hoping they will take care of me in my old age?  I have an iRA and an HSA.  That's a whole lot cheape While we certainly "do" things for each other, marriage is about a relationship.  All these things we do in a healthy marraige are motivated by love, cooperation, a sense of teamwork, and a sincere desire to adhere to correct principles.  We do this out of a sense of love and a desire to be happy.
On the flip side, what can be said of a couple who are always fighting?  What about a couple who is ok with simply living together so they can get government benefits for fatherless homes?
So, if you think of commandments as "jumping through hoops" you completely misunderstand the purpose of commandments (or ordinances, for that matter).
I've been pondering this for a while -- whether I agreed or disagreed.  And while I get the point you're "trying" to make (at least I've made an honest effort at it) I disagree with your assessment here.  It has some incorrect assumptions. 
it is not "grace that drives the relationship."  We form an initial relationship.  And that relationship grows.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:
You seem to say that the Restored Gospel tells us that we "earn heaven" by our obedience.  No.  There is no way we can "earn" our way to heaven.  It is not about paying a certain debt.  Only Christ can do that.  And He has.
So, what is left for us?  For most of the protestant world, it is just about "believing in Christ."
Yes and no.  What exactly do we mean by believing in Christ?  Or the more common wording I hear from evanglicals "accept Christ into your heart."
That sounds great and all.  But if you were to try to define that, what does it entail? 
It is not about jumping through hoops.  It is not about checking off the boxes.  It is about "becoming." 
When my children were young, I raised and taught them to do some things "because it's good for you." One cannot teach a 6 year old about vitamins, minerals , polyphenos, flavinoids, etc.  You just tell them it's good for you.  Only after they've matured sufficient to understand, do I explain the principles behind it all. 
The idea is that we obey commandments at first because we want to be obedient.  We want to be obedient because we love God. And eventually, we understand the principle and internalize it.  Then we begin to see the wisdom in the commandments.  It was the obedience that changed us.  When we obey commandments becuase they are commandments, we eventually become the people who can now understand the reasons for the commandments.  And when we understand, we are happy we obeyed our of our love and respect for the Lord.
So, the proper sequence is:
Hope helps us recognize the goodness and wisdom of God. Faith & Charity provide the motivating force to obey commandments. When we obey, we receive the Holy Ghost and wisdom to understand why commandments are so important. Then we go through another cycle with full understanding.  This is called growth.  IOW, we become the children the Lord is raising us to be. It is not the act that saves us.  We tend to emphasize obedience to commandments because in our childhood we do not obey because of understanding.  It is our love of Christ that provides the desire to obey.
The thing that most protestants will accuse us of is simply checking the boxes.  No.
And action without faith is vain.  It has no meaning. Faith without works is dead.  It's just words with no meaning. Faith-based obedience allows us to grow. Many believe we are a religion that believes works (ordinances) will save us.  That's completely antithetical to our core doctrines.
Others believe that we receive grace in our ignorance.  No.  Salvation comes from choosing Christ.  And we cannot faithfully choose something we know nothing about.
Infinity is a difficult concept.
In mathematics: ∞ + 1 = ∞. 
Also: ∞ + ∞ = ∞. 
That is a basic law of mathematics. 
Does it increase?  If we said it grows or doesn't grow, we'd be right either way.  

Welcome to the forum, these are just some thoughts of mine:

As most Non-LDS Christians are trinitarians, I'll make an assumption you probably are too (please correct me if I'm wrong), a God with no passions, no substance, no beginning or end who exists outside of time, outside of the physical reality, there is no way we could possibly comprehend his personal glory. But the glory we 100% can comprehend is the role of God in saving us, and giving us eternal life. In that way I don't think Moses 1:39 is contradictory to a trinitarian world view in any way, because if the trinity is truly so incomprehensible and the father so difficult to understand, in what other ways can we begin to comprehend his glory, than through his influence in our lives? 

I think likewise with LDS theology, my capacity for eternal life doesn't make Heavenly Father more glorious, his glory comes from the fact that this even possible in the first place. I think if you flip the issue on its head, does the casting out of Satan and the sons of perdition make Heavenly Father 33.3% less glorious because a third of the hosts of heaven were cast out during the grand council, and so will never receive a resurrected body? I think not. The fact he has given us the opportunity, and holds the authority is what makes him glorious. 

My second thought:
I totally and utterly agree. Genesis 1:26, we are made after the likeness of God, in his image, our capacity to receive eternal life, reflects his glory to grant it. 

I am echoing what others have said, but at it's root I think you have a misunderstanding of precisely what God's Glory is, and exactly what it means to increase it. I think part of the issue is the use of "increase" as that word can have 2 different meanings applied here.
Firstly though, I will echo what @zil2 said. The verse you quote do not on my reading suggest that God's glory cannot increase. Now I do not believe any verse of scripture is so obvious in it's meaning that there is zero chance of misunderstanding, but I would not have drawn the conclusions you did from these verses.
Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” - My reading would be that God is making clear that nobody is able to take His place, and idols cannot replace Him. This is to me a testament of the Supremacy of God and not the self sufficiency of His Glory.
Isaiah 6:3 – “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” - This to me reads the the Glory of God reaches every part of the world, not making any comment on it's completeness or impossibility to increase. Only that it is inescapable.
John 17:5 – “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” - This verse emphasises to my eyes the primacy of the Glory of God. It existed before the world was made. Again no comment on it's sufficiency, increase etc
Psalm 115:1-3 – “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” - These to me speaks of some reason to Glorify God. That he is in heaven and not missing or a false idol. It also seems though, in the first section, that our praise of God in some way gives him glory.
From this I feel the rest of your argument fails as I am unconvinced by the first premise.
But back to "increase". Even if one were to believe that God is all sufficient etc as described, it would be impossible to deny that as God creates more beings there will inevitably be more beings that worship Him. His Kingdom becomes greater in size and scope as it includes more people and places. If God makes a world then there is another world in His Kingdom. By that logic His Glory is on a practical sense covering more and so much be greater in size. Each added person increases the scope of the Gory of God.
By similar tokens, if we become Exalted then our acts of Creation (under our Father) must also increase the scale of His domain and thus in some sense His Glory.
But, this is a separate issue to, shall we say, God's "rank" of personal Glory. He is already the Supreme being of our Universe. He cannot scale up or be overtaken. He does not become smarter, more capable, more wise (to our knowledge) or so on. He does not become more perfect and thus in that sense His Glory is unable to be increased. God is not in some sort of contest with other Divine beings so that as His realm increases in scale He gets to be more important than them. God would be perfect in Himself even if He did not create the worlds. But creating Worlds means more beings He can share love with, more places he is God of and so on.
So in short, whilst God is Perfect and thus in that sense His Gory does not increase (He is not becoming better) as more is created and His domains increase then the scale of his Glory spreads further and further rendering him, simply, Glorious over more.

I consider all of the following logic errors:
These may seem perfectly logical to you, but I don't see any inherent logic in them.
And by the same token, I'm not sure your conclusion about Moses 1:39 follows either:
The verse doesn't say this is His increasing glory, nor that it increases or decreases His glory.  It just says it is His glory.  Does it have to increase?  Can this end not already be His glory, and His glory full?
You're basing your entire post on your own assumption that by becoming exalted and glorified yourself, you will thereby increase God's glory.  But the verse doesn't say that - you infer it.  I'm not convinced you're correct.  (I'm not convinced it isn't correct, either - I'm just saying that the verse doesn't make this clear either way, and I can't say I've sat and thought about the expandability of God's glory.)
And what do you do with this:
If God has all glory, how is He glorified by them bearing fruit?  And what if they don't bear fruit? Is God less glorified?  Cuz, it doesn't say, "Herein is my Father's glory reflected..."  It says, "Herein is my Father glorified..."
 
NOTE: If someone can explain to me what exactly "glory" is, I'd be grateful.   Please don't cite the dictionary or Bible Dictionary at me - I've read all that.  I comprehend the use.  But the more I think about it, the less sure I am what "glory" is.  And here's the most interesting clue I've found thus far:
Suggests the Father is Christ's glory.  Also suggests that whoever is to your left is your glory... 🤯  (Or that you are the glory of the person on your right hand.)  Or it suggests that I'm reading it all wrong.

This really sounds like you're inviting us to leave the faith.  You may want to re-read the site's terms and conditions - they're kinda strict...
Am trying to be welcoming and open to discussion, but please re-read that statement of yours.  You're basically calling us liars, or ignorant of our own beliefs.  Do we think works matter - of course we do: scriptures are overflowing with Jesus Christ commanding His followers to do stuff.  If works don't matter, why does He command them?  Just because we believe works matter, that does not mean we believe works save us.  One can hold both views: Saved by grace and expected to obey.  They're not incompatible.

Welcome, @fiddle tenders!
Where exactly are these Biblical teachings you summarize, so that I can read the verses myself? I expect this will boil down to different interpretations of scripture.
 
 
FWIW, I'm in my 50s, have been an active member of the Church my entire life, and what you describe is not quite what I believe (more like a somewhat misunderstood version of it).  Anywho, if we're going to discuss this, you're going to need to cite the Bible verses so we can go to the source, not to your interpretation or summation of the source.

I think just about the coolest thing I've seen come out of my church, is our temple construction going on in nations living in destitute poverty.   Nigeria, Venezuela, Philippines, Peru, Argentina, Brazil and others - these have GDP per capita of somewhere between $5k/yr and $10k/yr.  Places that couldn't hope to afford a temple on their own.
Temples are, especially in poorer nations, massively expensive undertakings that can have a great permanent economic impact on the surrounding communities.  
Think the parable of the Widow's mite, but we go build the widows their own temple.
 

No monopoly on happiness, perhaps, but comparing the lifestyle of the average believing LDS, it is very difficult to think that billions are doing just fine without it. 
Most of us are not doing fine. 

I agree it can be. Switching religions or political affiliations - that sort of thing can get people kicked out of families and end relationships. Paths of spiritual or moral growth can be smooth or bumpy, or even traumatic. 
I was born into a church I did not believe in, and stopped going as soon as I could get away with it.  It seemed at the time to be an act of being honest with myself and those around me.  Seeking and finding a testimony in my 20's brought with it this sort of "calm fearful panic", as it dawned on me that all that stuff I had walked away from, I must now intentionally walk towards.  There were quite a number of times when I was totally out of my element, walking towards some new experience full of fear, sometimes even experiencing a pounding heart and close to hyperventilating.  Heading to the bishop's office, telling friends and relatives, getting called to teach my first Sunday school lesson, getting asked to give my first blessing.  Near panic, with the only thing on my side was this sense of "well, either the church is true or it isn't, either God is on my side or He isn't - I guess I'm about to find out one way or the other".  
My 180 on politics, however, was a mostly uneventful no-brainer.  Discovering that there were better things to believe and better worldviews to hold than what my agnostic union democrat upbringing had taught me, really didn't involve any fear.  I think a lot of that was because of the high caliber character of my father.  Although he was ticked off to no end that, from his perspective, the smarter I got at college the dumber I got about things, he didn't seem to take it personally like close family often does.   The beer-drinking gambling foul-mouthed WWII sergeant who mocked religion and anyone to the right of him politically - raised what turned out to be a good little conservative mormon boy.  I never got the sense that he was disappointed in me, even though he had to have been at times.  
 
Fun stuff.
 
 

In terms of "escape"........ it is an intentionally dramatic term and frankly I think gives the wrong impression. You are not trapped in any physical sense in the Church. If you want to leave on a simple practical level you can just stop going, send 1 letter to the Bishop asking them to not send anyone around (or remove your name if you genuinely want to) and perhaps a follow up and it is done.
On that practical level saying you escaped feels...... well we probably wanted you to stay and some people will have tried to persuade you but you were not truly trapped.
On a cultural level, it can be very hard for a person to completely overhaul or change their life. I have no plan to leave the Church (I am persuaded it is true for one thing) but even on a basic level I would feel..... kind of adrift on a Sunday without church to go to. I would lose some of my social interactions. I would lose a fairly hefty chunk of my identity. Leaving all of that behind may not be physically difficult but emotionally you bet it can be. And if you have close friends or family who are part of the Church then there can be a lot of pressure to stay and conform (whether intended or not) and telling them you no longer believe is going to be hard. I think escape is the wrong term, but it will be true that it can be a tough thing to do.
And on a personal note, I would say 2 things. First, if you have tried and genuinely do not believe it is true, or genuinely believe the Church is fundamentally wrong, then I think you probably should leave. Don't pretend as that will just do you harm. And if you want to explain to people why you disbelieve then of course that is your right. I only genuinely dislike the critics who are dishonest about the Church, such as clipping 2 seconds from a 20 minute talk to make a leader look bad (as one example, I saw a critic post a quote from Elder Scott that tried to imply he blamed people for being abused...... even the worst faith reading of the whole talk shows that is not true as the talk is replete with comments about how the abused has done nothing wrong and should not feel guilt etc). So long as you are honest we can have a productive conversation (I get as frustrated with Evangelical types who try to tell me what I believe, such as someone saying we earn our way into Heaven, as that is again often bad faith).
As a sub item to the above, don't accuse me of being brainwashed or some nonsense. I know why I believe what I do, you don't.
But for the second thing, I dislike the term "cult" or the modern variant "high-demand religion". Both are just code terms for saying "religion I do not like, but also it's bad". It is not a useful term at all. We are a religion like many others. People who use the term cult to describe us usually do so in bad faith. The term cult is just a pejorative without any meaningful content except as a cudgel to say "boooooo" at a religion. 

I never really understood this concept.  That is to say, I know what the technical definition of closure is:
But the idea that we can find certainty in life (much less the spiritual realm) is just not realistic especially in highly esoteric subjects.
We can find closure in what we know with the five senses.  But "belief"?  If anyone claims that there is no other worldly sense, then how can we know that it is or is not?  It's a circular self-defeating view.  All we can do is -- express doubt.  There is no certainty because you can't prove a negative.  At best, one can be agnostic.  Yet all too many atheists will mock those who believe.  For all they know, the theists could be correct.
Similarly, most other belief systems end up being circular.  The Bible tells us there is a God so, we know He exists.  We know the Bible is true because it says it is the word of God.
The one major difference in epistemology that the Restored Gospel offers is personal experience via the Holy Ghost.  My x-mo friend was completely honest about this.  He left because after being raised in the Church and giving it a good chance, he realized that he had never felt the Spirit.  That's why he left. 
Assuming that is true (I have no reason to doubt his own words about his own experience) I don't blame him.  Really living this religion requires a lot.  And if you have no certainty after many years of giving it a good try... How can you justify the effort to stay?
Atheists are perfectly welcome do disagree with others' belief systems.  But to claim that they have either moral or intellectual authority over theists seemingly displays a lack of self-awareness.

I don’t really have an allegiance to the cultural aspect of the Church.  Some of my family’s best church memories were during COVID when we had Sacrament meetings in our home.  
And I didn’t spend a second watching this boy’s hour long declaration of weakness.  Everything I needed to know came from the title and screen shot.
Jesus Christ guides this Church.  Not man.  
“choose you this day whom ye will serve⁠; … but as for me and my house⁠, we will serve the Lord⁠.”

A sizeable percentage of those on the membership rolls of our church are not active. They didn't have to "escape" they simply stopped coming. I agree that leaving behind the cultural aspect of the Church requires significant adjustment but this video is not about closure. He is openly engaging our church but now as an antagonist. This is not escaping but attacking.
Obedience to God's laws is the only thing that brings lasting joy. So to the extent that anyone obeys God's laws they can receive that joy in proportion. Our Church's mission is to teach a fullness of God's laws so people can receive a fullness of joy, if they so choose it. It's up to them. But we seek for those who are not content being just fine. 

The cult accusations always get under my skin. Forgive me Americans, but I'm wondering if Church culture in the land of the free 🦅🇺🇸🦅 can at times be problematic. Because all of these "I escaped a CULT" videos tend to be from America, and the online discourse on whether or not the church is a cult, appears to be discussed between Americans. 
 
In my experience the Church is anything but a cult. My brother in law is homosexual, and inactive. He is loved and respected by his family and not excluded by any measure. On the odd occasion he comes to church to support family by listening to a talk or to witness a calling members of the ward greet him and ask how he is. He was the best man at my wedding. Some cult if you ask me. 
 
I think at worst, the church is a very conservative community with some very unorthodox beliefs when compared to the mainstream, but cult? Sounds like click bait. 

Yes. It's frightening trying to rebuild a worldview from scratch, but it's preferable to trying to force yourself to follow a belief system that you don't actually believe in. I personally don't believe that an exit from the church requires a video manifesto, but people find closure in different ways. The LDS Church is extremely social and communal, much more so than most other churches. That's where the "escape" mindset comes from. You're not just leaving a religion, you're leaving an entire community. And again, it's still preferable to going through life faking it.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
- Douglas Adams
No church or religion has a monopoly on happiness, not even yours. If LDS dogma brings meaning to your life, cool. Billions of people are doing just fine without it. 

Sex, drugs, and rock & roll?
ETA: And in the case of the dude in the post, earrings, a necklace, and a new hairdo?

How I Escaped???
I wonder if these people ever really stop to consider every unique doctrine of our church that they must turn their back on in the process of "escaping." If the promises of the gospel aren't true, what in the world do they think they'll find that will bring contentment?

This is a talk I remember reading at some point with regards to "thus saith the Lord" from prophets. 
Marion G. Romney, who said in the April 1945 General Conference:
"So I repeat again, what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other scriptures. Those who follow this course will not interpret what they say as being inspired by political bias or selfishness; neither will they say that the brethren are uninformed as to the circumstances of those affected by their counsel; or that their counsels cannot be accepted because they are not prefaced by the quotation, "Thus saith the Lord."
Those ... who will through mighty prayer and earnest study inform themselves as to what these living prophets say, and act upon it, will be visited by the spirit of the Lord and know by the spirit of revelation that they speak the mind and will of the Father.”
I'm having a hard time finding a different talk that addressed this same question. It encompassed the notion that when a prophet is acting as a prophet he doesn't need to say, "Thus saith the Lord," because he is "acting" as his voice -- in his office and role.
EDIT: Haha, I think @laronius found the talk!

This is a talk I remember reading at some point with regards to "thus saith the Lord" from prophets. 
Marion G. Romney, who said in the April 1945 General Conference:
"So I repeat again, what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other scriptures. Those who follow this course will not interpret what they say as being inspired by political bias or selfishness; neither will they say that the brethren are uninformed as to the circumstances of those affected by their counsel; or that their counsels cannot be accepted because they are not prefaced by the quotation, "Thus saith the Lord."
Those ... who will through mighty prayer and earnest study inform themselves as to what these living prophets say, and act upon it, will be visited by the spirit of the Lord and know by the spirit of revelation that they speak the mind and will of the Father.”
I'm having a hard time finding a different talk that addressed this same question. It encompassed the notion that when a prophet is acting as a prophet he doesn't need to say, "Thus saith the Lord," because he is "acting" as his voice -- in his office and role.
EDIT: Haha, I think @laronius found the talk!

I don't know if this fully answers your question but perhaps we can infer some things from it. Brigham Young, "Light of the Spirit—Laws of Health—Joy in the Gospel, &c.," August 5, 1860, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: George Q. Cannon, 1861), 8:138
"No man ever preached a Gospel sermon, except by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Without this power, there is no light in the preaching. Brother Bywater remarked that he did not desire a man of God, when he arose to speak to the people, to say, "Thus saith the Lord God Almighty," or "Thus saith Jesus Christ." People who require this, or who constantly require written revelation, have not a correct conception of revelation and its Spirit. What do the present professing Christian world know about the words of the Lord that came to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other ancient Prophets? They read and hear without understanding much; they have not a true conception of the truth or principle of what they are reading. Is this the case with the Latter-day Saints? It is more or less the case with those who are continually desiring to have "Thus saith the Lord," and more written revelations. Those who possess the Spirit of revelation know the voice of the Good Shepherd when they hear it, and a stranger they will not follow. They discern the difference between the spirit and power of the Gospel and the precepts of men. When they hear truth poured upon the people, in comparison like the cataract of Niagara, they do not want "Thus saith the Lord," for it carries with it its own evidence, and is revelation to the believer. They understand, and the fountain within them springs up to everlasting life; they are happy partakers of the peace of God through the administration of his servants, and of the truths the Lord dispenses; and they receive truth upon truth, light upon light, which cheers and comforts their hearts day by day. If you wish to understand the true principles of revelation, live for it: there is no other way of obtaining eternal life."
These are BY's sentiments but I'm guessing other Church leaders simply followed suit until it became the norm to not state "thus sayeth the Lord." To me, he is saying that there is an expectation for the members of the Church to receive a direct confirmation from the Lord on prophetic teachings and so there is no need to constantly identify the source of revelation because the Source will reveal it's truthfulness to us directly. The Lord must have felt it was needed in the earliest days of the Church because many members were still largely inexperienced with how revelation worked both personal and authoritatively. That all changed with time. Now, as BY states, we don't need the Good Shepherd to preface everything he says with "I am your Shepherd," if we are His sheep we will automatically recognize His voice.

Welcome, Moroni60!
I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings:  there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could.
As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself.  (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.)  The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong.
President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong.  I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time.  But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization.  And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.