Anddenex

Well, someone has to fund Armageddon...

I wouldn't call it "Israel declares war".  I'd call it "Israel is under coordinated attack by Hamas, who has launched ~3000 missiles and conducted open insurgent attacks on multiple cities and areas all at once, with some reports claiming the insurgents have taken prisoners"
Recognizing that these actions mean you are in a state of war, is slightly different than Israel declaring war.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/292301566945218

Jesus is the chief cornerstone which supports and stabilizes the walls of the foundation, so we do build our lives upon Him. Because of this, He can also be called the foundation-of-the-foundation.

I remember when new apostles were not called until general conference where they were sustained by the Church.  Under such conditions many thought that sustaining was like a vote or an election by the membership.  I appriciate the way they are currently called - making clear that our sustaining vote is not a means of expressing our choice but rather our aproval and alignment with G-d's choice.
 
The Traveler.

Obviously, there is more to this than people committing some alliance of sin – other wise it is unlikely that the human species would have survived this long.  The term ripe in iniquity is very ambiguous.   It seems that whenever someone draws a “red” line that it somehow gets crossed, and the prophesy is not fulfilled.  I would submit that the red line of ripe in iniquity is the endangerment of children. 
From the flood to Sodom and Gomorrah to the Tower of Bable to Ninevah to the destruction of the wicked at the end of times – I would suggest that when the voice of the people allows the offences of abuse of children (especially young children under that age of accountability) that the laws and covenants of heaven require that G-d intervein to save the children.
Wars have always taken place – as well as violence and other acts of abuses deliberately targeting young children that ought to be protected by society – I speculate that the keys of destruction lay when the lives of children are sacrificed for pleasure, profit and power – that G-d will destroy such a society.
 
The Traveler

This was the end goal of hate speech and hate crimes.  What is hate speech or hate crimes?  Whatever the tyrants enforcing these laws believe is such.
All hate speech and hate crimes laws should be abolished.  A crime is a crime.  We do not need to enhance a sentence for a crime because it was done in hate.

Do you think this means a simple majority choosing iniquity is the deciding factor for God's judgement to be poured out? And what qualifies as "choosing iniquity"?
To a degree, yes, for a nation to be ripe in iniquity it would require the voice of the people to choose iniquity. My thoughts on this verse though desire to know what exactly is the judgements of God?
We are already seeing the voice of the people choosing iniquity (Look at the movement toward transgenderism (what this entails, neither male nor female which God created the dichotomy) and what is happening with our children). California is a good example of this principle of the voice of the people choosing iniquity.
Some of the moral issues I think are more clear but I wouldn't necessarily label someone as evil just on those.
I think how we view "evil" and how God views "evil" are different. I often think we as sons and daughters, experiencing the natural man/woman, we tend to go very easy on our delicate heart and mind. One day reading the Book of Ether I noticed a phrase from the Lord when speaking with the Brother of Jared when he said, "ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you."
I wanted to know what did he know that redeemed him from the fall! So I started reading the chapter again to know what he expressed that he knew that the Lord would say such, and this is one that stood out to me, "Now behold, O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually;" (emphasis mine).
I would definitely say, agreeing with iniquity is definitely "evil". The Lord would see it as such also. As to the natural man, this isn't evil. I guess the question might be, if the voice of the people is "evil" (choosing iniquity) and we are part of that voice are we not then evil? We definitely aren't choosing the "good", nor the "lovely."
Threat against personal liberties is carried out
Yep, especially the freedom of speech and religion. Right now, to teach the doctrine of male and female, is changing to hate speech. Teaching the doctrine that marriage is only between a man and woman according to God's law (which won't change no matter how much people fuss) is considered intolerant and hateful.  By these subtle changes, I think it is only a matter of time when we will start to see more persecution (potentially jail time) toward religious leaders who continue to speak the truth of God, undiluted.

The welfare state in the US has gone on for so many generations now that I fear it's no longer this simple; that people born and raised in this world literally have no idea how to get out of it, let alone any understanding of why they would want to.  The devolution of government welfare in this country is the very definition of a tragedy.

It is a moral decision when you take money or goods from one person and give it to another. 
And if you pay people with able bodies and minds to not work then many will not.  Making people uncomfortable in their poverty may motivate more of them to put efforts in to get out of poverty.

I believe things will start getting better in America when many people begin turning back to the LORD.  Someone invited over half a million people to make a covenant with God recently and ask that the LORD heal our land.  If Latter-Day Saints are following their covenants they have made they can also begin to pray that the LORD will heal our land.

I find it interesting that the passage uses the phrase "voice of the people" rather than "majority" or some similar term or phrase.  While the intent might have been the same, I wonder.  The supposed "silent majority" in the US may well be silently riding the minority's handbasket to hell.  Meanwhile, the "voice" is all from that minority, screaming and shouting at the top of its lungs, rapidly picking off and intimidating the silent majority.  And as soon as said "voice" feels safe, feels confident that the majority is now on their side, rest assured that any who have held on to the views of the previous majority will be persecuted beyond our current imagining.

Had to share this commentary from the wife of my youth.

I could be wrong; however, as to my understanding of Job "all" his "friends" abandoned him and did contend against him saying he was a sinner (so to speak). I often think about Hyrum with this verse and Joseph Smith. If Hyrum, and those like him, would have contended against Joseph Smith I think he would have been like Job.
I also think the "key" point to this verse is "as they did Job." It's not just the contending, but how the contending occurred and what took place as a result. There's also a lot of Job's experience we don't have and what really happened to him. We have knowledge of it, but do we fully comprehend and have all the details?
 

Yes, I'm thankful for the "grace" I have received that I know I have received that has changed my heart and mind. I also agree, I wish my younger self would have understood the principle of Grace before my mission, after my mission, and a couple years after my mission before I realized it.
This discussion from Brad Wilcox is a good discussion with good insight.  My first recognition of "grace" occurred when I finally understood Abraham 1:2. The only way this is possible is through grace, and without God's grace we could not grow in knowledge nor in righteousness.

What did the Lord mean by this verse? I thought by the time this revelation was given, in 1839, many former close friends of Joseph had betrayed him, contended with him, and charged him with transgression.
10 Thou art not yet as Job; thy afriends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job.

That question comes from a July 2011 BYU devotional, "His Grace Is Sufficient", by Brad Wilcox.  I think it's a really good question.  I wish child-me had understood this concept of letting (or pleading for) the Lord (to) change your heart.  I was 40-something before I had an experience wherein I knew, beyond any doubt, that the Lord had changed my heart.  It took about 2 years of constant prayer.  (Maybe he'd done so at other times without me knowing it, but that was the first time I was aware of it.)  I consider that pretty pathetic and my younger self obscenely clueless.  Anywho...
Here's a quote from the devotional:
"learning heaven", "why the debt existed in the first place".  Man.  I should just start watching every BYU devotional ever.  There are so many gems in there.  I recommend this one.

This post reminds me of a recent Instagram post I scrolled into. The individual was a member of the Church who said, paraphrased, "I'm a member of the Church who stays in the Church and seeks to change it from within to be more inclusive."
This follows the thought provided, "We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church."
I'm, very much, in agreement with the idea and concepts being shared. This is definitely happening in the Church today. I'm pretty sure someone posted here a while -- a while -- back sharing a video from some movie, episode, or podcast where the individual said, "I can do more damage to the Church by staying in the Church..."
President Nelson's quote regarding having the Spirit with us is the only that we will make it through these last days before Christ comes as strong followers/disciples of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the Spirit is to bear witness of truth, and to help us see things as they really are.
@MrShorty "Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue."
As to the following thought here, the Church already figured this out. The answer is Jesus Christ. If a person truly believes in Christ and His Church, the focus will be upon Christ and building up the Kingdom of God/Zion. Those who focus on this will be able to work together in peace and harmony -- despite their difference of thoughts and opinions (because these individuals will wait patiently on the Lord and how he moves His Church).
This notion extends both ways on the spectrum -- far right and far left. We have been counseled and taught to avoid any and all "religious hobbies." Religious hobbies is one of the easiest ways for the adversary to gain control and place into the heart of individuals to follow forbidden paths.
When any individual places any idea, any action, any decision above the Lord and His Church then they (the individual(s)) will choose to separate themselves from the Lord and His Church. The doctrine is very very clear on many things (the easiest one is marriage), and yet we have members who seek to blur the clarity, and place their thoughts, their decisions, their life choices above the Lord and His Church. This brings up the notion provided by Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "they despised the words of plainness." And we have that happening in our day -- words of plainness being despised by members of the Church such that they seek to change it and are angry with it.
 
 

I'm obviously late to this discussion, and I've only read a portion of the first page of responses. I may duplicate a response.
First, I'm glad you bring this up because this is one verse of scripture I do not completely understand. I've read and heard many different interpretation but none have caused me to be "edified" and "rejoice." Now, in saying that, I'm not saying they didn't provide good response. I'm saying, I haven't felt what I have usually felt when truth is revealed to me by the Holy Ghost. In that sense, I'm still left desiring the answer.
Second, my understanding has been the standard that was shared on the first page of the responses I read. That somehow the greater sin is not to forgive, but this has never settled well with me (e.g. The example you provided with Hitler). I also didn't have any trouble with this verse until specific experiences in my life have caused me to reflect how is there greater sin in me, when in comparison to the one who sinned against me? Since then, I have experienced confusion with this verse.
Third, this is inline with others, but maybe a small nuance. The Atonement is personal -- a one-on-one experience. The Atonement pays for my sins. As I have pondered this two doctrines come to my mind: love your enemy (as Christ even loved his enemies), and blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. To some degree our lack of forgiveness damns us. It is hard to progress to the love of Christ, to become like him, when we withhold forgiveness. In that light, I can somewhat understand a "greater" sin is within, not a "greater" sin than the perp -- but a "greater" sin in that we damn ourselves from the blessings of the Atonement that is "freely" (so to speak) offered.
I'm reminded of the conference talk where this was being discussed, and the question provided was (paraphrased), "You want them to suffer twice for their sin? When I already paid the price for their sin"? And if I'm being totally honest, to the individuals in my life, my spirit right now would say, "Yes. They don't care. They haven't apologized. They don't think they did anything wrong. They apparently need to suffer so they can see what they have done. There is no justice if I forgive them."
I'm more inclined to think the "greater" is not pertaining to the antagonists sin, but is more the greatness of not forgiving damns us to the Atonement to some degree. I'm still not yet satisfied with the answer. I'm still waiting for light and knowledge, truth revealed by the Holy Ghost where I know. Right now, this is where I have come to but still feel I'm missing the mark, the main point.

You have summarized my own feelings very well. Though I would add another possibility here. It may be possible that what the Lord is saying here was not intended to be a blanket statement that is true in every situation. If we consider the context, the Lord is chastising them for grievances they have among themselves, just like the apostles of old. Obviously not Hitler-like sins but I'm guessing things like envy, greed, speaking badly of others, etc. But in verse 3 He says:
3 There are those among you who have sinned; but verily I say, for this once, for mine own glory, and for the salvation of souls, I have forgiven you your sins.
So if the Lord has just forgiven them all of their sins and some still hold grudges then in this case there in fact "remaineth" a greater sin. Greater either because not forgiving was in fact worse than the other offenses or because the other sins, forgiveness having been granted of the Lord, no longer remains or both. 

I'm obviously late to this discussion, and I've only read a portion of the first page of responses. I may duplicate a response.
First, I'm glad you bring this up because this is one verse of scripture I do not completely understand. I've read and heard many different interpretation but none have caused me to be "edified" and "rejoice." Now, in saying that, I'm not saying they didn't provide good response. I'm saying, I haven't felt what I have usually felt when truth is revealed to me by the Holy Ghost. In that sense, I'm still left desiring the answer.
Second, my understanding has been the standard that was shared on the first page of the responses I read. That somehow the greater sin is not to forgive, but this has never settled well with me (e.g. The example you provided with Hitler). I also didn't have any trouble with this verse until specific experiences in my life have caused me to reflect how is there greater sin in me, when in comparison to the one who sinned against me? Since then, I have experienced confusion with this verse.
Third, this is inline with others, but maybe a small nuance. The Atonement is personal -- a one-on-one experience. The Atonement pays for my sins. As I have pondered this two doctrines come to my mind: love your enemy (as Christ even loved his enemies), and blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. To some degree our lack of forgiveness damns us. It is hard to progress to the love of Christ, to become like him, when we withhold forgiveness. In that light, I can somewhat understand a "greater" sin is within, not a "greater" sin than the perp -- but a "greater" sin in that we damn ourselves from the blessings of the Atonement that is "freely" (so to speak) offered.
I'm reminded of the conference talk where this was being discussed, and the question provided was (paraphrased), "You want them to suffer twice for their sin? When I already paid the price for their sin"? And if I'm being totally honest, to the individuals in my life, my spirit right now would say, "Yes. They don't care. They haven't apologized. They don't think they did anything wrong. They apparently need to suffer so they can see what they have done. There is no justice if I forgive them."
I'm more inclined to think the "greater" is not pertaining to the antagonists sin, but is more the greatness of not forgiving damns us to the Atonement to some degree. I'm still not yet satisfied with the answer. I'm still waiting for light and knowledge, truth revealed by the Holy Ghost where I know. Right now, this is where I have come to but still feel I'm missing the mark, the main point.

I would say:
Verse 6 explicitly says it was the "first year of the judges". Alma 1:1 explicitly states that the first year was also the year Mosiah died. Mosiah 29:3 & Alma 17:6 states that Aaron (the eldest son) was already in the Land of Nephi on his mission at the time that succession should have taken place.  And because Aaron would not take the kingdom, Mosiah proposed the system of judges. Therefore, it all happened within the same year.  This could mean the same calendar year, or it could mean the same 365 day period.

But it could still have happened in the same year.  I doubt they had as much red tape as we do...

No. The first year of the judges means the year that the judges started ruling. (Or possibly the 365 days starting from the day the judges were installed, but that seems less likely. In either case, the wording precludes it being before the ruling of the judges.) Mosiah remained the titular king and probably helped immensely in the transition, but the judges were in place and issuing rulings when Mosiah's son's left for Lamanite lands.

This is similar to a thought I had, except I approached it this way:
Perhaps the word "greater" is not an attempt to compare two sins in terms of which one is more damning to the offender but rather which one is more damning to the original offended. No matter the damage caused to an individual by someone else's sin it does not condemn the offended only the offender. But withholding forgiveness is more damning to the offended than any consequence to the offended by the first sin and so strictly from the perspective of the offended's own eternal welfare, withholding forgiveness is the greater sin.
This may have been what @CV75 or others may have been getting at but I just wasn't understanding the point they were making. But if this is what the Lord had in mind then that makes more sense to my imperfect mortal reasoning.

So at judgement day if both Hitler and an unforgiving Holocaust survivor stand before the judgement bar God will say:
"Adolf, you committee acts that caused untold suffering to millions of individuals, committed mass genocide and brought condemnation down upon many who followed you. But at least it wasn't as bad as this guy's sin of not forgiving you."
Now if that is truly what it means then I will accept it as such and chalk it up as one of the great mysteries I do not yet understand. But is it possible that maybe the Lord is not actually comparing the two sins that way and had something else in mind?