laronius

I remember being in a ward where during the priesthood opening exercises the ward mission leader took a softball and tossed it to a brother with the commitment to hand out a Book of Mormon and then report back, whereupon that brother would toss the ball to another brother and continue the process. One week it was an awkward young man who had previously received the ball and when he tossed the ball it wasn't to anyone in specifically but rather towards a group of men. I still chuckle thinking about all those good brothers practically diving out of the way to avoid ending up with that ball. It caused some laughter then and fortunately someone had the grace to pick the ball up off the ground. Later I thought about the embarrassment it must have caused those individuals and while it could be argued that they brought it upon themselves, that is not what we want people to feel. That's not how the Lord would motivate his followers.
On the other hand it is a divine principle to ask people to stretch themselves, even things that initially make them uncomfortable because that's how we grow. I have no problem with the commitment pattern. But there are right ways and wrong ways of employing it, depending on the person and commitment we are extending. And I think sometimes we don't give that enough thought.

I watched a BYU discussion group once that speculated that Cain and Abel were the first to be born under the covenant. I don't remember remember everything they said to justify that belief but it does appear that these were not their first children.

Sorry for the incomplete reference. 
Those are some good references. My personal opinion incorporates Pres Benson's interpretation but I think it involves others as well. Following the cleansing of the Church I think the United States is next in line. Partly because it will have swung the farthest from good to evil but also to prepare a place for literal Zion to be established. From there it will spread to the rest of the world. 

One particular sign that I've been interested in, both for what it means but also as a pretty good mile marker, is the following:
D&C 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord
I've heard various interpretations of what the Lord means by "my house." Some say it is specifically the temples, others the Church in general and yet others to the United States or even the Promised Lands in general. I'd be curious to know other people's interpretation and what you think it means.
But regardless, it seems to be a pretty significant milestone and a lead into much of what we might refer to as the "scary" signs of the last days.

Sorry for the incomplete reference. 
Those are some good references. My personal opinion incorporates Pres Benson's interpretation but I think it involves others as well. Following the cleansing of the Church I think the United States is next in line. Partly because it will have swung the farthest from good to evil but also to prepare a place for literal Zion to be established. From there it will spread to the rest of the world. 

This is from my favorite reference that I use regarding verse 25:
"As I read the scriptures, I often reflect upon the chilling implications of what the Apostle Peter meant when he said, 'Judgment must begin at the house of God.' (1 Pet. 4:17.) In our own day, the Lord has said, 'Vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth. ... And upon my house shall it begin.' (D&C 112:24-25; italics added.) What kind of judgments does the Lord have in mind? Why do the scriptures say that the cleansing will begin with the Church, rather than with the wicked?
"The scriptures reveal that the Lord will save his greatest wrath and condemnation for those who outwardly appear religious but who are actually full of evil within. Speaking to Jewish religious leaders, the Savior said, 'Cleanse first that which is within the cup. ... Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.' (Matt. 23:26-27.) Similarly, the great Book of Mormon leader, Moroni, wrote, 'God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first.' (Alma 60:23.)
"President Ezra Taft Benson left little room for doubt that these warnings apply to us. He declared, 'All is not well in Zion. ... We must cleanse the inner vessel, beginning first with ourselves, then with our families, and finally with the Church.' (Ensign, May 1986, p. 4)
"There are two methods of cleansing the inner vessel. The first is repentance. But if we do not repent, the Lord will invoke the second method of cleansing-from without. One way or another, the vessel will be cleansed." (Larry Tippetts, "Cleansing the Inner Vessel: The Process of Repentance," Ensign, Oct. 1992, 21)

One particular sign that I've been interested in, both for what it means but also as a pretty good mile marker, is the following:
D&C 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord
I've heard various interpretations of what the Lord means by "my house." Some say it is specifically the temples, others the Church in general and yet others to the United States or even the Promised Lands in general. I'd be curious to know other people's interpretation and what you think it means.
But regardless, it seems to be a pretty significant milestone and a lead into much of what we might refer to as the "scary" signs of the last days.

Anyone who refutes the value of this list is a science denier.

In the October 2003 General Conference Elder Ballard made the following statement:
Often media’s most devastating attacks on family are not direct or frontal or openly immoral. Intelligent evil is too cunning for that, knowing that most people still profess belief in family and in traditional values. Rather the attacks are subtle and amoral—issues of right and wrong don’t even come up.
How would we rate society right now compared with Elder Ballard's assessment of almost 20 years ago? 

Yes, yes indeed. With one as studied as yourself, I will always play the scripture card. 😁
I was first taught Adam and Eve's marriage by G.A. on my mission, and at that time coming from a G.A. I automatically assumed it was right. It wasn't until reading the following manual from the Church that it seemed to be a proper teaching.
This particular statement, "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world. They had an eternal marriage. They taught the law of eternal marriage to their children and their children’s children."
In a different manual from the Church, we can read the following from Joseph Fielding Smith, "President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “Marriage as established in the beginning was an eternal covenant. The first man and the first woman were not married until death should part them, for at that time death had not come into the world. The ceremony on that occasion was performed by the Eternal Father himself whose work endures forever. It is the will of the Lord that all marriages should be of like character, and in becoming ‘one flesh’ the man and the woman are to continue in the married status, according to the Lord’s plan, throughout all eternity as well as in this mortal life” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1955], 2:71)."
You are correct though, we don't have any scripture that specifically says they were married in the Garden of Eden -- sealed; although, it seems more likely that this was done at this time. They were having children. They were married. Who married them? If the interpretation of scripture, as taught in Church manuals, is accurate then their marriage was a sealing covenant and any child then born to them would have been born under the covenant.
I'm open though to what is true. This is why I was wanting to know the scriptures used to purport the idea of the sealing later and that Cain and Abel were the first under such. If that is the truth, then that is the truth.
 

You would play the scripture card. 😀
Well that's why I called it speculation because I don't even know that the scriptures ever say they were even officially married, let alone sealed. And while you may be completely right you also might be assuming things that aren't explicitly taught. Unless a prophet has officially addressed the issue I think it's a matter of trying to fill in the blanks based off those things we do know.

Oh, I agree with you 100%.  I have no intention of backing down from the truth.  Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger.  There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave.  The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me.

I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated.  I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe.  I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention.
I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord.  I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over.
I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message.  To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry.  Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings.  I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement.

Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth.  I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.

I did read it. My point is that I think it's counterproductive to argue against terminology because not everyone interprets things the same. I can show talks from other general authorities who have referenced unconditional love.  Likewise, I don't find Divine Love in the scriptures either. Rather, a better tactic is to focus on understanding doctrine, using whatever terminology helps people understand.  If they like the phrase unconditional love, help them to define it in a way that more perfectly teaches the doctrine.
 

I think @Vort did a good job of pointing out some of the things that seem to imply the sealing covenant took place well after expulsion from the garden. But I would also point out that Adam and Eve were still quit ignorant upon leaving the garden. They didn't even know the purpose of animal sacrifices. I think they needed to grow in their knowledge of spiritual things just like we do. This fact also seems to support the idea that any covenant entered into would likely only have happened when they were in a position to keep it. And while this does not imply they needed to be anymore prepared than 20 year olds are today in making that covenant I think it would be safe to assume that only being a barely accountable 8 year old (spiritually speaking) would have been a bit premature.

Adam's covenant is detailed in Moses 6:51-68:
Please note (verse 50) that this is Enoch's recounting of Adam's and Eve's history, given many centuries after it happened. The conversation reported by Enoch took place long before Enoch was born, but still (verse 53) well after the events in the garden of Eden. This is the history of Adam's first, primal baptismal covenant. Whatever covenants Adam had made in the garden of Eden may have been in force, just as any premortal covenants we have made are still in force; but this first baptismal covenant in the flesh (meaning in mortality) must be made upon which to establish the other covenants that follow in mortality.
Note also in verse 68, the Lord makes clear that, though Adam was a son of God by creation, as are we, Adam became a son of God through covenant, as may we. Until this primal baptismal covenant was made, Adam had no sealing promise. That covenant in the flesh must have been made after their fall into mortality and subsequent to their baptism, despite their premortal creation and assignment in the garden of Eden. Thus, I do not believe that Adam and Eve's children to this point had been born in the covenant, because that covenant cannot yet have been made in mortality.
Backing up a chapter, we see in Moses 5 that Adam and Eve, having been expelled from the garden, immediately began producing children. Verse 4 (after the report of Eve's bearing of children is recounted) tells of their worship of God. This alone is a pretty weak foundation upon which to try to prove that they were only then (after the children were born and grown) under covenant, but in concert with Enoch's history in Moses 6, that is the reasonable inference. The rest of chapter 5 tells of the happenings after the gospel was preached to Adam and his posterity. Only then (verse 16, after repentance was widely preached and rejected) was Cain born, whom Adam and Eve rejoiced in and said that "he [Cain] may not reject his [the Lord's] words." That sounds to me like they, as parents, were at this point under covenant, and thus it is reasonable to infer that Cain was born under that covenant. For all the good it did him, which appears to be none. But the point is, the inference that Cain was the first of Adam's and Eve's children to be born under Adam's and Eve's covenant marriage seems perfectly reasonable to me, and very much scripturally based.

I don't agree with this. It is truth that's sets us free and only then can a person truly be happy. And if a person is not ready for the truth we don't start pretending it's not the truth. Modern revelation teaches us that we need to teach truth and even reprove if necessary (as moved upon by the Holy Ghost) and then show forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. We can teach correct principles and show love at the same time. Anything less only makes us hypocrites and reinforces a lie. I don't see how that would ever help a person.

I don't agree with this. It is truth that's sets us free and only then can a person truly be happy. And if a person is not ready for the truth we don't start pretending it's not the truth. Modern revelation teaches us that we need to teach truth and even reprove if necessary (as moved upon by the Holy Ghost) and then show forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. We can teach correct principles and show love at the same time. Anything less only makes us hypocrites and reinforces a lie. I don't see how that would ever help a person.

I don't agree with this. It is truth that's sets us free and only then can a person truly be happy. And if a person is not ready for the truth we don't start pretending it's not the truth. Modern revelation teaches us that we need to teach truth and even reprove if necessary (as moved upon by the Holy Ghost) and then show forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. We can teach correct principles and show love at the same time. Anything less only makes us hypocrites and reinforces a lie. I don't see how that would ever help a person.

I don't agree with this. It is truth that's sets us free and only then can a person truly be happy. And if a person is not ready for the truth we don't start pretending it's not the truth. Modern revelation teaches us that we need to teach truth and even reprove if necessary (as moved upon by the Holy Ghost) and then show forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. We can teach correct principles and show love at the same time. Anything less only makes us hypocrites and reinforces a lie. I don't see how that would ever help a person.

From where I'm standing, things look like this:
Most politicians follow two great commandments: Thou shalt gain power, thou shalt remain in and increase thy power.  Their actions and words are best interpreted as ways to follow these two commandments.  It's not that they believe in this or that principle.  They just figure if they appear to believe and fight for this or that principle, their voting base will vote more, lobbyists will throw more money that way, they'll have more leverage in their work.   
The majority of the media is beholden to their pocketbook, and will peddle outrage and sensationalism as a way of driving clicks/likes/follows/subscribes, because that drives revenue.  So their stories and agendas are not to give news, provide transparency, or even forward their personal agendas.  But instead they work to expand the number of people who consume their content, by playing to their various audiences.
Less than half Americans hold principled beliefs strongly enough to actually defend them.  Everyone else is just consumers of other people's beliefs/agendas/opinions/outrage/entertainment.  And they get blown about by whatever cultural wind populates their news feed and friend's conversations.
The most surprising thing I've found in my weekly hangout with the wolk folk, is my mirror image buddy (a genderfluid antifa supporter) and I usually end up agreeing on 95% of the core principles we discuss.  And we even agree on well over half of the best ways to get more good things and less bad things.   But we are all peddled images of reality that elevates and worships division and outrage, and the divisions seem wider than they are in reality.

For several years, my dad was a sergeant major at one of the bases where the United States military provides basic training to new recruits. 
As part of it, these recruits would often be assigned to post guard duty in order to get them used to it. This would be on top of their regular training and other assignments. 
As part of that, my dad and the other non-commissioned officers (NCOs) would have to go around and periodically ensure that the soldiers assigned to guard duty were awake and alert. Many recruits, being recruits, did not maintain a fully professional bearing while on guard duty, and so the NCOs were able to take them by surprise. In a real situation, this would likely mean serious consequences for those recruits and the people they were supposed to be guarding, if not death, and so the NCOs made it a point to impress upon them the importance of constant vigilance. 

Some time ago I talked to a Jewish Rabbi concerning this and his response to me was that this is a very poor translation of an ancient Jewish saying.  I have posted this before but it was some time ago so I will post it again.
The ancient new year for Israel was according to covenant and specific signs from “heaven”.  The first sign in heaven was what we now call the spring equinox.  The second sign was a new moon.  After the signs were given, the new year would begin on the next Sabbath.  Officially there were experts in Israel that would watch for and verify before a judge that they had seen the signs.  The judge would then declare the next Sabbath as the beginning of the new year.  These signs also became part of Passover and the official celebrations.  This is also why Easter does not fall on the same Sunday each year.
However, sometimes the weather would not cooperate, and clouds could hide the sun and moon enough that it was impossible to directly see the signs of heaven.  When such was the case and there were questions concerning when the new year would begin – the answer to the question was, “No man knows not even the angles of heaven”.
In reality experts that understood the progressions of things knew in advance when the equinox and the new moon would occur.  Rather than argue or speculate such things they would testify before the judge and Israel would celebrate the new year without anyone directly seeing the signs in the clouds. 
I find peace in this understanding.  That in the last days there will be clouds of doubt, deceptions and distractions – so much so that it will be impossible from a worldly view to directly validate the sign of the coming of Christ – only those that are “expert” in keeping covenants and following the directions of the holy Spirit.
 
The Traveler

Plausible deniability  

Is this the one where the primary president was organizing a BLM themed primary parade through the neighborhood? Fortunately the stake put a stop to it. My friend's brother is in that ward.

I did read it. My point is that I think it's counterproductive to argue against terminology because not everyone interprets things the same. I can show talks from other general authorities who have referenced unconditional love.  Likewise, I don't find Divine Love in the scriptures either. Rather, a better tactic is to focus on understanding doctrine, using whatever terminology helps people understand.  If they like the phrase unconditional love, help them to define it in a way that more perfectly teaches the doctrine.