Anddenex

I'm a big fan of the American Heritage dictionary, and I find these definitions with regards to estate to be helpful to your question:
In relation to #4, we have our first estate. If we keep our first estate it then gives way to our second estate, and if we continue with this one might say the second estate gives way to the final estate meaning a kingdom of glory and increase.
In relation to #5, this seems fitting also because of the wording here, "and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."
If we keep our social position/rank, then we receive a higher position or rank. If we think about scripture, those with bodies have power over those without bodies. Let's take Joseph Smith's teaching for this one:
“All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 181). (emphasis mine)
Our social rank/position increases if we keep our first and second estate. If we keep not our first estate than our social rank and position decreases as we have no glory and no increase.
In my opinion, this fits well with why estate may have been used rather than another word.
     

@zil2 I like to use this earlier dictionary as well: A compendious dictionary of the English language : Noah Webster : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive, which includes property and rank.
But your 1828 Webster's also has this reference to "rank": 
So, the first estate can be read as the "spirit" order or class of God's children living in His presence, and the second estate the class that receives bodies that are in mortality, not in His presence. "Estate" of course also entails a responsibility or a stewardship as a God-given possession.
The idea of "keeping" your class I think has to do with keeping the associated covenants. For example, Satan is still a spirit, but not in the presence of God and without light and covenants. And keeping your possession means you can also add to it, such as being "added upon" between the first and second, and the immortal glory added to the next (third) state, which is post-resurrection.
And then there's the home-run!  

I'm a big fan of the American Heritage dictionary, and I find these definitions with regards to estate to be helpful to your question:
In relation to #4, we have our first estate. If we keep our first estate it then gives way to our second estate, and if we continue with this one might say the second estate gives way to the final estate meaning a kingdom of glory and increase.
In relation to #5, this seems fitting also because of the wording here, "and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."
If we keep our social position/rank, then we receive a higher position or rank. If we think about scripture, those with bodies have power over those without bodies. Let's take Joseph Smith's teaching for this one:
“All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 181). (emphasis mine)
Our social rank/position increases if we keep our first and second estate. If we keep not our first estate than our social rank and position decreases as we have no glory and no increase.
In my opinion, this fits well with why estate may have been used rather than another word.
     

I'm a big fan of the American Heritage dictionary, and I find these definitions with regards to estate to be helpful to your question:
In relation to #4, we have our first estate. If we keep our first estate it then gives way to our second estate, and if we continue with this one might say the second estate gives way to the final estate meaning a kingdom of glory and increase.
In relation to #5, this seems fitting also because of the wording here, "and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."
If we keep our social position/rank, then we receive a higher position or rank. If we think about scripture, those with bodies have power over those without bodies. Let's take Joseph Smith's teaching for this one:
“All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 181). (emphasis mine)
Our social rank/position increases if we keep our first and second estate. If we keep not our first estate than our social rank and position decreases as we have no glory and no increase.
In my opinion, this fits well with why estate may have been used rather than another word.
     

OK, I take that back.  "They who kept their first estate" are those of us who came to earth.  If Satan, et al, didn't keep their first estate - the state or condition in the pre-mortal realm, that would make a good starting point to argue that one day they will devolve and cease to be spirits.  And perhaps those who "keep not their second estate" (the body) will also devolve.  It seems contradictory (with all being resurrected and that being a permanent state), but then, it wouldn't be the first time God has kept the exceptions from his children.  Alternately, these estates may not be "keeping one's spirit" or "keeping one's body" - perhaps they are "keeping one's place among the redeemed" or some such...  Heaven knows.

This is a worthwhile question.
My response would be take up personal concerns with leadership but do so in private. Publicly questioning Church policy only causes doubt in those who faith is weak and emboldens the enemies of the Church.

Martin freaking Harris…
I’m sure that the answer is within the lost 116 pages.
Some day.

As I understand it... (this means that I am not an expert in this area, but I've read a few things).
Samuel was also an Ephraimite.  He was chosen as God's prophet of that era.  He even wore priestly robes (as evidenced by Saul tearing them).  And the sacrifices were to be offered by Samuel, not Saul. David was of the tribe of Judah and he offered sacrifices in the temple.  He was considered a prophet-king. So, it appears that prophets (at least) were allowed to offer sacrifices just like the Levites. Likewise, Lehi was clearly called as a prophet.  So, that means that he held the priesthood authority to do so. The common understanding is (and I don't know what the scriptural basis is, but it makes sense):
While the Melchizedek priesthood was not common, it was still present.  And those holding it could also offer sacrifice.  And it was that authority that Lehi brought to his sons and the Nephite nation.

The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure, at least to the level that God refused to rescind it as recently (at least) as David O. McKay. We may importune God as we see fit, but God is not required to do anything just because we ask it of him.
If there is a principle of the gospel of which you do not have a testimony. silent loyalty to that principle is your very best option until you gain a spiritual conviction of it.

Please DM the insider scoop.

I reserve the right to be respectfully vocal about whatever I want to be respectfully vocal about.  I think it is a bad move to hire someone who is publicly in support of things that run contrary to Heavenly Father's order.  It makes me really question what is going on over there.   It doesn't affect my faith or obedience and to be honest I don't give it any thought.

A thought I had while reading your post is how, from the beginning, the Lord has involved in His kingdom those who would ultimately fall away if not completely turn against His Church. Whether it's Lucifer, Judas or many of the early brethren who disaffected the Lord does not seem to fear disloyalty. And I think this aspect of building the kingdom is only going to get magnified with time. He will strengthen and use their talents until they decide on whose side they are really on. And I think we may be surprised by which side some choose both bad and good. But what we do know is that all things will be made to work to accomplish the Lord's purposes. That may make it a bit uncomfortable for us but there is purpose to that too.

Time will tell.  My misgivings are that his expressions go beyond standard disagreement; it’s a fundamental loyalty issue.  Plus, it’s frankly a little galling—at the behest of Elder Holland and others, many of us spent a lot of time and effort defending the Church and its teachings from the criticisms of people like Sherinian. Many of those who did so under their own name continue to face stigma, discrimination, and career stagnation; while the buffoons they were defending the Church from wind up getting Church money, Church public recognition, and Church confidence.  It kind of makes some of us apologists wonder what the #%$@! we’ve even been doing this for over the last couple of decades; and feeds into a sneaking suspicion that the Church leadership doesn’t have our backs the way we’ve tried to have their backs.  I hope and trust that I’m wrong, but it’s hard to make those niggling doubts completely go away. 
One of my comforts (other than knowing that the Lord is in charge, yada, yada, yada); is that for professional reasons I’m fairly confident that some things are going to come out in the next 2-3 months that will cause the Church’s PR guys quite a few headaches.  The full facts, if known, would tend to exonerate the Church—but few will be willing or legally able to provide any public statement that might independently collaborate the Church’s response.  (Incidentally:  buckle up, folks.  Take your vitamins, eat your Wheaties, say your prayers and read your scriptures and do all those things the prophet has been telling us to do.  I may well be wrong, but think it’s going to be an interesting year.)  If Sherinian is the snake in the grass that I rather suspect he is, he just won’t hold his job for very long under those circumstances.  He’ll either say something so stupid or off-base that the Q15 will have no choice but to distance itself from him—or the professional need to back the brethren when every fiber of his being revolts against it, will just plain make his head explode.
And a potential silver lining here is that if he is indeed good, he’s probably very good.  I believe his wife Emily was the originator of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign from 10-15 years back, which I thought was extremely well done.  

For me and my house, I've followed the guy on Twitter, and I'm trying not to act like a gossipy Pharisee.  I am withholding judgment, and reminding myself of the principles in this talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging
Right now, I simply don't have enough information upon which to base a righteous judgment.   "There's potential cause for concern" is about as far as I'm going right now.

A good communications director knows how to keep personal opinion out of how they represent their employer. Time will tell if he is good at his job. It sounds like he works pretty close to the brethren. If there were multiple levels of separation, personnel speaking, between he and them I would be more concerned. But regardless I doubt this was an uninspired decision so I'm not worried.

I can only hope that this is about bringing the disaffected back into the fold.  But I have serious misgivings about this guy being in charge of what is published on the official Church Newsroom site.

Every time I read this verse, I have interpreted it the same way @mikbone that its referencing Cain's proclivity in the pre-mortal life.
The connection is Satan being the father of lies and Cain being the father of "his" lies (I understand his to be Satan's lies). We know from scripture that Satan was a liar from the beginning (pre-mortal).
I see the dual meaning:
1. You were just like all of us existing before this world
2. Like Satan, you were a liar in the beginning and his proclivity lead him to be Perdition (which could also mean he always had the heart of Perdition if the right circumstance resulted).
"was also" what? "before the world." The verse is speaking about lies (a liar) and Perdition, so the "what" for "was also" makes sense it is referring to our pre-mortal life and Cain's tendency toward lying and Perdition.
I'm good with either interpretation or both, because it isn't fully clear, but someone will say, "Oh its perfectly clear," and give their justification and that is fine also. I'm just more saying he isn't the only person to interpret it this way. I have heard this interpretation given by multiple people also.

Yup, I think ChatGPT needs some re-programming. 
I assume that it has been printed enough that ('fear not' is found 365x in the bible) - that the programming just assumed that it was correct.
When I had it actually send back the accounts per book - in the KJV - it didn't add up.  And even in those accounts it counted every instance wherein the word fear itself was used.  
ChatGPT reminds me of Cheese.

NOT READY YET

You should tell them that it hurts your feelings that they do not respect your commitments to sacred covenants.   I am most amazed with LDS that are offended with my Sabbath covenants - especially in-laws that want to have a family and friends get together (for mission farewells and other things) and skip (undesirable? – to them) church meetings on the Sabbath.
 
The Traveler

Jesus' response to the Canaanite woman is the stuff of some controversy. A simple Google search of, "Was Jesus racist towards the Canaanite woman?" brought loads of response. Thankfully, most defended Jesus' answer. Several points bear remembering:
1. Matthew was written to the Jews. The encounter Messiah had highlighted a theme that replays in the early church--Gentiles, non-Jews, often expressed greater faith than Jesus' fellow Jews. 
2. When Jesus says that the food is for Jews, not for dogs, He is not speaking in the Asian sense (most cuss words include the word "dog"). Instead, he's referring to the family pet. The woman's response is that yes, the children get food from the table. However, these children share with the family pet--the dog--whether by accidentally or intentionally dropping food for the dogs to lap up. 
3. Jesus is so impressed with the woman's faith that he grants her everything she asked for--total healing!
The OP is correct. Jesus did not go after Gentiles to offend them. However, He often riled up his fellow Jews for their lack of faith. 
I would argue that in my setting Jesus would be far blunter with the chaplain than he would with the incarcerated sisters. 

If we are strict with interpretation, the Canaanite (not considered a member) woman was not a member and most people would be offended at being likened to a dog at a master's table.
But she took no offense, accepted the metaphor, continued with the metaphor, and her daughter was made hole. I'm thinking, most people would be offended at this type of straight forward analogy.
 

Every time I read this verse, I have interpreted it the same way @mikbone that its referencing Cain's proclivity in the pre-mortal life.
The connection is Satan being the father of lies and Cain being the father of "his" lies (I understand his to be Satan's lies). We know from scripture that Satan was a liar from the beginning (pre-mortal).
I see the dual meaning:
1. You were just like all of us existing before this world
2. Like Satan, you were a liar in the beginning and his proclivity lead him to be Perdition (which could also mean he always had the heart of Perdition if the right circumstance resulted).
"was also" what? "before the world." The verse is speaking about lies (a liar) and Perdition, so the "what" for "was also" makes sense it is referring to our pre-mortal life and Cain's tendency toward lying and Perdition.
I'm good with either interpretation or both, because it isn't fully clear, but someone will say, "Oh its perfectly clear," and give their justification and that is fine also. I'm just more saying he isn't the only person to interpret it this way. I have heard this interpretation given by multiple people also.

I can envisage a scenario where mortality was the default outcome for all who did not choose Lucifer. Perhaps an active choice for God was not needed for an opportunity in mortality, maybe the only requirement was to not choose Lucifer. This approach would be consistent with a merciful and loving God who wanted the best for His children, and might not violate the laws of justice. 
I've sometimes thought that if there were fence sitters back then, they might be those in mortality who live in a time and place and regime where organised religion is not allowed. They didn't choose "religion" back then so they don't have it now. Purely speculative.

Having been alive for possibly eons of time before coming to earth I don't think people just suddenly change when coming to earth. So if a person is perdition here those seeds were likely planted long before now. When God presented his plan to His children it was for all of them, not just those who met some righteousness threshold. Even Lucifer was invited to be born into mortality but he and others rejected it. I have no problem believing that there were others who were just as bad but decided it was better to be born than not.

This is just another wokeism based on zero facts.  It is born from false equivalence and ignorance of the true etymology.