askandanswer

I find it amusing that the very first quote states that there is no official declaration either way, but then it proceeds to provide all the quotes on one side only.  Yes, that was the title of the page.  But to what end?
And all pages like this always include the following quote as if it supports the idea (which it does not):
This is explicitly stating that this is NOT a sound doctrine, and he only supposes that exceptions may exist.  But as a rule, it is not provided for.
*
I always accept and admit that there has been no official declaration of the doctrine of progression between kingdoms.  But this seems to be a binary answer.  As such, I see the following:
If false, let's not continue saying it could be the case, lest people get the wrong idea. If true, it is still a dangerous doctrine to be spreading.  The doctrine of the Three Degrees was withheld from mankind prior to the Resurrection for a reason.  Man was not ready for it.  As it is, if this "open kingdoms" (to coin a phrase) doctrine is true, is man ready for it?  It is all too easy to interpret this as:
I cannot come to any logical thought that would conclude that teaching the doctrine of progression between kingdoms will result in anything other than this mentality.  Even it if is true, what good can come of teaching it with the state of man today?
Alma warns us about this very mindset.
Whatever that "exception" may be (if there is one or a few) it should be obvious that there is a very strong tendency (and possibly, inevitability) to maintain our current attitudes towards obedience and faith (we can call it a "mindset") after we leave this life.  And it is that "mindset" that will determine just how far we can go.
If complete progress is truly open for all, then that means there really is no separation at all.  So this doctrine of the three degrees is meaningless.  I would think that if the doctrine of "open kingdoms" is true at all, it would be only in the rarest of circumstances (as Pres. Smith said in the quote above).  If the kingdoms truly are open, then what does the doctrine of the three degrees even mean?

Connecting ones worth to ones gender is a dicey game. 

If we are talking about granting mercy as purely a means for avoiding the demands of justice then mercy without conditions is the most merciful. We see this enacted on behalf of those who live without the law, such as little children.
But if we are talking about mercy as a tool for progression then conditions are necessary otherwise there is no progress and the mercy has not fulfilled it's purpose.

Which is more merciful: to grant mercy without conditions, or to grant mercy subject to conditions?

When I read of the entry requirements for the Telestial kingdom, and the glory of that kingdom, I am inclined to believe that, contrary to what Alma taught, there will be a great many who will restored from sin to happiness. I think that their happiness will be less than, or of a lesser quality, than those who inherit a kingdom of greater glory, but that they will still be happy to be where they are. So does that raise the question of whether or not there are limitations, or exceptions, to Alma’s suggestion that we will not be restored from sin to happiness?

The Sydney temple was the same. When it was constructed, the font was above ground. Many years later, at least a decade, the temple was expanded, and a a new font was created in the lowest part of the temple. It was probably below ground level.

This reminds me of President Uchtdorf's general conference talk when he related his experience during physical training. He kept the word of wisdom with specific promises and yet there were so many people running faster and who had more strength, how so?
The Great and Spacious building outwardly appears to be finding happiness in sin. Except when the building falls.
I'm inline with the two other thoughts provided already. We have to look at the meaning of "restored," and look at the possibility of some degree of happiness even in the Telestial kingdom.
The concept of restoring is returning us to our innocent state we had before this life. This correlates with his other thoughts that corruption become incorruption. One thing to remember, is that these individuals who inherit the Telestial kingdom are no longer in their sins. Remember, they are placed in a situation where they must repent, once they have fully repented they are received in the Telestial kingdom, but can no longer progress beyond the Telestial kingdom. Their sins did not bring them a fullness of joy, which is what Alma in these chapters are referring to. Yes, they may find happiness, but only after they have suffered for their sins. So wickedness never was happiness.

No. Sinfulness is by its nature opposite to happiness. You can be cleansed from sin to happiness, but to be restored means to return to a previously held position. Those in the telestial kingdom will indeed experience joy and happiness, but only as they are cleansed from their sin.

We had a combined Branch meeting at church today to hear from the Temple President and his wife during both Sacrament meeting and Priesthood/Relief Society. From where I live, the temple of the Temple District of which I am a part of is more than 3,000 kilometers away. But our youth will not be going to this temples for their upcoming temple trip. They will be going to the Sydney temple which is almost 4,000 kilometers away because it is the only temple in Australia with patron accommodation.
During his talk I reflected on the fact that the ancient Israelites had a portable temple that they packed up and carried around with them. Christ, when He was here, wandered the dusty roads of Israel going to the people. The apostles travel the world bringing the gospel to the people, as do tens of thousands of missionaries. Baptisms can be done anywhere where there is enough water and Priesthood ordinations can also be done anywhere. It seems like a lot of the gospel goes to where the people are, but at the moment, temples do not go to the people. People must come to the temple.
What do you think are the pros and cons of having portable temples that could be packed onto a few trucks and be driven to anywhere where the saints are? Do you think this is a question that the brethren might have seriously considered? As we all know, its not the building itself that matters, its what happen inside the building that is important. 

In the 40's the church considered converting a ship into a mobile temple, in the 70s they considered a 747. Both of these options were found to be too cost prohibitive for the berthing and runway storage fees. They decided that just building actual buildings would be cheaper in the long run. Eventually temples will be built closer to the saints, but it will take some time to do that. At least we have planes and vehicles that can make the trips, frustrating, but necessary at this time.

It's been a nice handful of decades for the Lord's people.  We're not a roving bunch of refugees looking for a home.  There was a big call to gather to Zion, and then the whole world seemed to quiet down enough, that it became safe and practical to just stay where we happened to be and build Zion wherever we happened to live at the time.
It's often fun to speculate about God's plans for us, and how they may change over time based on our circumstances.  I speculate that there won't be any portable temples unless we get some old-timey wandering-in-the-desert-esque stuff happening to us as a people.  We're far from those times, although who knows if they may return.  As things stand now, the whole world just seems to respect private property rights too dang much to make a portable temple necessary.  

https://philanthropies.churchofjesuschrist.org/temple#:~:text=Therefore%2C the Church has established,the House of the Lord.
"As the population of the Church continues to expand in the world, there are more and more dedicated saints who live in remote and impoverished locales and lack the means to attend a temple even once in their lifetimes. Therefore, the Church has established the Temple Patron Assistance Fund to provide financial assistance to those who otherwise could not afford the travel expenses associated with attending a temple and participating in the sacred blessings available only in the House of the Lord."
The paragraph before this one says, "As the population of Church members continues to grow worldwide, there is an great desire among the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles to bring temple worship and its associated blessing closer to the people. The Temple Building Fund was created to provide those who have desires to help with this vital program with the opportunity of doing so."

But of course the temples don't exist only for the living. Perhaps a divine decision has been made that the interests of those awaiting baptism in the spirit world outweigh any benefits that might come from maintaining a certain level of sacrifice for the living to attend temples. 

The time certainly did come to plant and build a people and a house to His name. I think that with 167 temples we have certainly done that. The Lord has 167 houses to walk in.   

But of course the temples don't exist only for the living. Perhaps a divine decision has been made that the interests of those awaiting baptism in the spirit world outweigh any benefits that might come from maintaining a certain level of sacrifice for the living to attend temples. 

In the early years of the Restoration the city  Zion was the center place and the stakes of Zion were meant to be sort of embassy-cities engineered and organized after the Zion pattern. Each of these stake cities was intended to have its own temple. Sites for Independence, Kirkland, Far West, and Adam-ondi-Ahman we’re all dedicated before the saints gathered to Nauvoo.
I think it’s also worth observing that the Kirtland house of the Lord was the first meeting house in the modern Church. 
With this in mind, I can imagine stake centers getting add-ons for temple ordinances. The chapel would double as the Assembly Room, perhaps the restrooms on one side would have adjoining initiatory facilities, with a third hall/corridor for the instruction room, celestial room, and sealing room. Or a second story for temple ordinances excepting baptisms. For that scenario if there’s going to be a second baptismal font then it could be an add-on for the ground floor.

This has been thrown around as a proposal among the GAs (according to my area seventy).
About a year ago, he gave a speech at our stake conference.  He mentioned the idea of building modular temples that could be prefabricated and delivered to site.  Local labor would be used to assemble the modules together.
I began picturing the reality of such a structure.  I had actually done something exactly like this for an industrial application.  But the one thing I couldn't get around was the baptismal font.  You'd have to dig a pit in just the right place and in the right way.  Because of the special requirements for foundations, I couldn't quite figure out how that would be done.
After the meeting was over, I went up to the rostrum to ask him about that issue.  He said that currently it is only an idea.  No one has actually fleshed it out yet.  I told him I had already done most of the design work for something like this.  But I just couldn't figure out how to deal with the font in the 15 min since his speech ended.
So, who knows if it will become reality?

We had a combined Branch meeting at church today to hear from the Temple President and his wife during both Sacrament meeting and Priesthood/Relief Society. From where I live, the temple of the Temple District of which I am a part of is more than 3,000 kilometers away. But our youth will not be going to this temples for their upcoming temple trip. They will be going to the Sydney temple which is almost 4,000 kilometers away because it is the only temple in Australia with patron accommodation.
During his talk I reflected on the fact that the ancient Israelites had a portable temple that they packed up and carried around with them. Christ, when He was here, wandered the dusty roads of Israel going to the people. The apostles travel the world bringing the gospel to the people, as do tens of thousands of missionaries. Baptisms can be done anywhere where there is enough water and Priesthood ordinations can also be done anywhere. It seems like a lot of the gospel goes to where the people are, but at the moment, temples do not go to the people. People must come to the temple.
What do you think are the pros and cons of having portable temples that could be packed onto a few trucks and be driven to anywhere where the saints are? Do you think this is a question that the brethren might have seriously considered? As we all know, its not the building itself that matters, its what happen inside the building that is important. 

To reinforce what @Just_A_Guysaid, without some sort of change your current direction is likely to be your future direction. Perhaps you could give some consideration to where your future direction is likely to take you and what sort of change you can most successfully and effectively make. Example is often considered by many to be a successfull and effective means of bringing about change. 

Baptizing long-time family friends today.   Pretty happy for them, and glad they made this decision for themselves.   

I don't know that it's the case that the building of the temple doesn't matter, but only what goes on inside. On the contrary, the physical temple seemed to be a high priority to the Lord early in the Restoration, to the point that the revealed ordinances were to be shut down if the temple wasn't built, and at great sacrifice. The Israelite tabernacle was necessary for a purposefully nomadic people. Such is not the case with us.
I heard talk ten or so years ago about the Brethren investigating something like a cruise ship made into a mobile temple. I can only assume that they decided the idea was not appropriate, at least for the moment.
We have the means to build (small) temples at various spots around the world. That is the pattern that has been revealed to us, so I'm guessing that's the pattern we are expected to follow.

I think its a great Idea.  Bring back the tabernacle. I’m sure that we have enough member that would be willing to travel, set up, staff, and disassemble the tent / portable structure (year long special service mission)?
Logistics would be exciting and challenging. Couple 747s dedicated by Elder Uchtdorf no doubt. Couple  of containers.  Legal permits, passports.  Do we buy land and dedicate it at each temporary site. Would be a great way to get into some countries. Also a great missionary tool and it would no doubt have a great presence.  
I have heard speculation that the BYU Jerusalem center was dedicated as a temple and that it was designed so that it could be easily converted to such.  

I've never heard the notion brought up as a modern thing, but I'm really interested.  Our church certainly preserves and gives life to a lot of Old Testament stuff the rest of Christianity doesn't - temples included.  Just thinking about it for the first time ever, I can't immediately see any reason why the church couldn't have a mobile holy-of-holies.
Time to dust off and read some Ezekiel, 2 Chronicles, and 1 Kings!

We had a combined Branch meeting at church today to hear from the Temple President and his wife during both Sacrament meeting and Priesthood/Relief Society. From where I live, the temple of the Temple District of which I am a part of is more than 3,000 kilometers away. But our youth will not be going to this temples for their upcoming temple trip. They will be going to the Sydney temple which is almost 4,000 kilometers away because it is the only temple in Australia with patron accommodation.
During his talk I reflected on the fact that the ancient Israelites had a portable temple that they packed up and carried around with them. Christ, when He was here, wandered the dusty roads of Israel going to the people. The apostles travel the world bringing the gospel to the people, as do tens of thousands of missionaries. Baptisms can be done anywhere where there is enough water and Priesthood ordinations can also be done anywhere. It seems like a lot of the gospel goes to where the people are, but at the moment, temples do not go to the people. People must come to the temple.
What do you think are the pros and cons of having portable temples that could be packed onto a few trucks and be driven to anywhere where the saints are? Do you think this is a question that the brethren might have seriously considered? As we all know, its not the building itself that matters, its what happen inside the building that is important. 

Is this just a theory or have you actually tested it?