laronius

Here are the relevant facts as I see it:
1. God, who is omniscient, loves his children and does those things He knows will best further His work in saving them.
The end.

Here are the relevant facts as I see it:
1. God, who is omniscient, loves his children and does those things He knows will best further His work in saving them.
The end.

Here are the relevant facts as I see it:
1. God, who is omniscient, loves his children and does those things He knows will best further His work in saving them.
The end.

For the record, I am not nearly smart enough to know that all this business is Satan's smoke screen.  Hugh Nibley (Approaching Zion, chapter 4) taught me that it was:
And thereafter, I was able to learn the principle.  Race, gender, sexuality, politics - Satan has led is a little way down his road and then presented us with what appear to be choices: well, either you're a bigot or your not, either you're racist or not, either love is love or it's not.  And in every case, Satan defines both "is" and "not", and neither of his definitions is God's.
Be brave, people!  Stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ and his restored Church and gospel.  It will only get harder, so start practicing your bravery now.  Resolve now to be persecuted for his name's sake.
"The Church is racist." = "all manner of evil against you falsely"
"The Church is sexist." = "all manner of evil against you falsely"
"The Church is hateful." = "all manner of evil against you falsely"
"The Church persecutes LGBTQ+ people" = "all manner of evil against you falsely"
"Church leaders are out of touch" = "all manner of evil against you falsely"
"Church leaders don't know what life is like elsewhere in the world / for people different from themselves" = "all manner of evil against you falsely"
....etc.
"Well, they're not saying evil against me, just the leaders of the Church, just some of our teachings, just..." - if you are a covenant member of Christ's Church, then yes, speaking evil against it or its leaders (whom you covenanted to sustain) is speaking even against you and you are obligated by covenant to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death..."  So be brave, and stand.

I do not mean to detract from the conversation at all, and this may be a completely false perception on my part, but growing up I always figured that being called to high leadership positions in the chuch would require a certain level of prosperity on the part of that individual and their family so they could financially support themselves beyond the (I assume) humble expense stipends they may receive.
At the end of the day, Christ prepares those who He calls to lead His church. The idea of church leaders being out of touch or unable to relate has been brought up several times before. I always remember a talk by Elder Holland where he said: "Not often but over the years some sources have suggested that the Brethren are out of touch in their declarations, that they don’t know the issues, that some of their policies and practices are out-of-date, not relevant to our times. As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings." Prophets in the Land Again
Either the church is truly led by Christ or it is not. My testimony is firm in Christ as my personal Savior. Everything else is just an appendage to that.

Love how in one breath we're told to treat everyone equally and racism is awful, and in the next we're told how we ought to persecute (and yes, that's what it is) one specific race because, you know, persecuting one race will surely elevate the rest of them.  Satan and his angels are laughing.  How grateful I am that God is in charge and Christ has already won the war and no matter what anyone else says or does, I get to choose which side I want to be on.
I will engage now in a prediction that just might rise to the level of prophecy: The day we have a person who everyone agrees is a (or a dozen) "person(s) of color", ordained to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, that person will testify and teach the exact same things as the rest of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ always have.  And the Church of Jesus Christ will continue to function the same as it did the day before he was ordained.  If some people are disappointed by any of that, it will be to their condemnation - unless they repent and come unto the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here are the relevant facts as I see it:
1. God, who is omniscient, loves his children and does those things He knows will best further His work in saving them.
The end.

Here are the relevant facts as I see it:
1. God, who is omniscient, loves his children and does those things He knows will best further His work in saving them.
The end.

All who are called to the holy apostleship were foreordained in the premortal world to be such. So while there may be many worthy and able that alone doesn't qualify them. We might wonder about why and where those individuals were sent to earth but obviously only God knows that.

You make a really good point. Far too many, including myself at times, are content to just ignore the evil that surrounds us so long as it doesn't directly impact us "too much." The problem though is that is simply the calm before the storm of persecution.

I suspect it may have been as simple as that Jesus' disciples did not consider being rich a sin. On the contrary, as in our society (probably moreso), the rich were considered blessed by God and probably more virtuous than the average person. If, as in the case of the rich young man, a rich person uses his wealth generously and honorably, and otherwise lives a covenant life, yet still is not fit to enter heaven, then who is?
The answer, of course, is: No one. None of us is worthy to enter heaven on our own merits. The rich have an additional and substantial struggle: They must overcome the desire for their own money. As Christ taught, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. That makes this into a tale of hope, not despair.

No worries, I just like to go read the original, see footnotes, etc.  And I'm far from having chapters and verses memorized.  I knew that it was New Testament and recognized it, just didn't know which gospel it was from, or which chapter.  Thanks!

I agree with this to the extent that the law of consecration is enforce. But it still doesn't explain the disciples' reaction which was my main point. These were men who had in essence already forsaken all worldly pursuits. So it's not a new doctrine. So why so astonished? 
Their reactionary question of "Who then can be saved?" would seem to imply that what the Savior was teaching applied to everyone, not just those we consider wealthy. 

Some humor. 

Mosiah 29:26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. 27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
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"? In the political arena it can be difficult to differentiate between what is evil vs just bad policy. Some of the moral issues I think are more clear but I wouldn't necessarily label someone as evil just on those. Many supporters of these policies are otherwise decent people who do care about others. In the Book of Mormon destruction usually follows internal disruption, often when a threat against personal liberties is carried out. When evil people get power that almost always happens eventually. So maybe that's the tipping point?

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

You make a really good point. Far too many, including myself at times, are content to just ignore the evil that surrounds us so long as it doesn't directly impact us "too much." The problem though is that is simply the calm before the storm of persecution.

Speeding is a crime as well, and could be purposeful. It’s illegal and should be but not done in hate. 

Okay, I'll bite:
An inexperienced 16 year old accidentally drives through a red light and kills someone and gets charged with manslaughter.
Though I imagine you probably had purposeful crimes in mind. 

I think these words from Paul bring some insight.
1 Cor. 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
I could be wrong but I don't think actually attaching a structure to a foundation was common back then. Rather, a building meant to last was usually constructed of stone, the weight of which would keep it in place assuming the foundation could bear it. So if we are starting with a sure foundation it's the quality of the structure itself that will determine whether it stays put. And because we are talking of spiritual things, it's not so much the building itself that matters but what takes place inside. Temples are built to create holy space and what takes place in that space endures. Likewise, whatever structure we build, it's what happens inside that will endure into the eternities.

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.

"Common" would be 2 standard deviations of the mean. A normal distribution renders this as 95% of the cases.  Non-normal distributions are more challenging to analyze and determine what is common, and politics might fall into this category since the variables for individual decision-making, and who may exercise a voice (and how), are so complex.
I agree that passing laws that remove or undermine personal (and "common" or national) liberty create a tipping point, as are laws that support secret combinations and those that fuel the symptoms of the upswing in the pride cycle. These symptoms result from an abuse of liberty where the fruits, and not liberty itself, become the primary objective.

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.

I think there is interest among members of our church in seeing how our beliefs are viewed by other Christians. I think we often view ourselves as being misunderstood and if only people could see what we really believe they will think differently about us and see we really are Christian. And when these individuals say complementary things about our church that's just proof that our feelings are justified. And everyone likes to be complimented, right?
But as to why it's showing up in your feed is entirely algorithm based. I've watched a few of these types of videos and now they keep showing up.

I think there is interest among members of our church in seeing how our beliefs are viewed by other Christians. I think we often view ourselves as being misunderstood and if only people could see what we really believe they will think differently about us and see we really are Christian. And when these individuals say complementary things about our church that's just proof that our feelings are justified. And everyone likes to be complimented, right?
But as to why it's showing up in your feed is entirely algorithm based. I've watched a few of these types of videos and now they keep showing up.