laronius

I found this to be interesting and relevant. Taken from History of the Church vol 4:
Joseph Smith speaking: Now this Enoch God reserved unto Himself, that he should not die at that time, and appointed unto him a ministry unto terrestrial bodies, of whom there has been but little revealed... Now the doctrine of translation is a power which belongs to this Priesthood. There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world; they are hid from the wise and prudent to be revealed in the last times. Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead.
So it would make sense that they would return to the earth when it has become (or soon will be) a terrestrial kingdom.

Those are called co-op games where all players either win or lose together.
see https://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com, https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/65244/forbidden-island

I'm going to develop a new card game called Zion, where if you can't get your opponent to win then you have lost. That way we can be perfectly competitive and Christlike all at the same time.

I'm going to develop a new card game called Zion, where if you can't get your opponent to win then you have lost. That way we can be perfectly competitive and Christlike all at the same time.

I totally agree. The difference (and this is all probably just a case of jargon) is that one does not have to win the competition to be happy and satisfied with the outcome of the competition.

I think it means sealing up all who are willing and eligible into the family of Adam. Once you seal the individuals into families, their inheritances go with them, the aim being to become join-heirs with Christ in the Church of the Firstborn. Ephesians 1 gives a great description. It refers to "all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world" in D&C 27:13-14, and the oneness Jesus speaks to in His Intercessory Prayer (John 17).

I like that idea. If their cities descend while the New Jerusalem is being constructed but prior to the coming of the Lord, they may show us how to turn this new city into Zion and help us prepare for the official Second Coming. I don't know if that matches the official timeline of events (if there is one) but it sounds plausible.

My own belief is that the "angels" of the Old Testament period who did any physical activity, such as physically lift someone or carry an artifact, were of the City of Enoch.
Joseph Smith taught that there were three classes of "angels": Premortal spirits, post-mortal (not resurrected) spirits of the dead, and resurrected beings. Latter-day Saints generally think of "angels" as the third type. But an angel is just a messenger from God; a living human being can be an angel, literally (see D&C 13).
Before Christ's resurrection, there were no resurrected beings to do the physical things that might be required of angels. Who did that sort of work? My opinion is that such work was done by translated beings, which would be exactly right for the City of Enoch.
All other cases that I know of involving the translation of mortals fall into one of two categories: (1) Those who needed to traverse the centuries in order to restore keys, such as Moses to Jesus Christ (btw, I assume Alma was one of these); and (2) those who asked to stay on the Earth to further the work and purposes of God, namely, the apostle John the Beloved and the three Nephite disciples. The denizens of Enoch do not appear to fit either of these categories. I believe there is a third category, as I described in previous paragraphs, and that the Enochians fit in there.

Maybe to help the rest of us learn how it's done?

Jeffery R. Holland reviewed this question in significant detail in his book "Christ and the New Covenant". Here is some of what he said:  
The entire first four chapters of Either can be seen as a guide to gaining faith a rending the veil. First the brother of Jared hears the Lord, he then sees him in a cloud, he finally sees his finger and then his entire body. Because of his faith and the promises the Lord has made to him he cannot be kept within the veil. We are invited to do the same. Moroni quoting the Lord says, "Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you—yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel." (Ether 4:15). 

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
Once you take God and his set definition of morality out of the equation our entire legal foundation becomes the house built on sand. Relative morality means you have relative laws.

I think the key is found in verse 9:
9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger.
He apparently saw more than the Lord's spirit body. Somehow he saw evidence of his physical body as well. Then consider verses 16 and 17:
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.
17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.
Not completely sure what this all means but Moroni seems to be pretty adamant in letting us know that what the brother of Jared saw was not simply the Lord's spirit body.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
Once you take God and his set definition of morality out of the equation our entire legal foundation becomes the house built on sand. Relative morality means you have relative laws.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
Once you take God and his set definition of morality out of the equation our entire legal foundation becomes the house built on sand. Relative morality means you have relative laws.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
Once you take God and his set definition of morality out of the equation our entire legal foundation becomes the house built on sand. Relative morality means you have relative laws.

"Pursuit of happiness" - to quote a phrase in the Declaration of Independence - which was substituted for the word 'property'.
The Declaration of Independence may be a legal document in protest to King George, but does it have the force of law today?
Per Wikipedia (Yeah I know):  "The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws."
Thank goodness that "Pursuit of happiness"... is not a legal defense.  I can see it now: "This person has a fancy car and I don't.  And it's my right in my pursuit of happiness that I should have that car, so I stole it."
 
The problem today, is that the law has become corrupted with notions that everyone is "equal" under the law.  You cannot argue reason and morality against a corrupted law.  That's what you're all trying to do and it's not WORKING.  It's because the defense of morality has become a moot point in the law today.  You're arguing from the gospel perspective.  If it wasn't a gospel perspective, then it would be illegal for same-sex couples to have children.  That is not the case, therefore, the law is incomplete from a moral perspective for the protection of children.
"Pursuit of happiness" has to only work within laws found in nature.  If you want a particular car, you can get it by working and labor.  If you want children, you can have them when you are aligned with natural law, marry someone of the opposite sex, and procreate.  Same sex couples cannot procreate - at least not without some kind of assistance.
The law today is corrupted against nature - against God.  And unless you can find a LEGAL defense OUTSIDE of the gospel or other moral standard - such as PROOF of how the children of same-sex unions are damaged... you will have no defense against our corrupted legal system.
Just because I agree MORALLY and within the GOSPEL does not mean that our legal system will also take that view.

The Brother of Jared's experience is similar to Joseph Smith's. In order for Joseph Smith to see God he would have been transfigured, not translated. As to my understanding of translated, this is a change of state. When we are transfigured it is not a permanent state but a state that will allow one to see God (in the flesh) and not die. The Brother of Jared would have been transfigured also.
How often do we read in the Book of Mormon, "This was the greatest war." And then we read again how there was another war and it was greater. How often have I heard friends say, "That was the best sunset ever!" And then again to hear them say at another sunset, "I have never seen such a sunset so great, the best sunset ever!"
At that moment, no one had ever had sufficient faith that they saw the finger of God -- by their faith. Even Joseph's experience is not similar to the Brother of Jared's, although both were brought to pass by great faith. It almost sounds like, Jesus was not intending to reveal himself, but because of the Brother of Jared's faith he saw the finger of the Lord, like no one else before him.
We know other people were brought into the presence of God -- Adam being one of them (after he had been expelled). The Lord is making a witness to that specific event, just as the Lord could have said to Joseph, "No man has ever had such faith that the Father and the Son appeared to him after a single (the very first) vocal prayer." This wouldn't negate the Brother of Jared's experience, or anyone else. This is specific to Joseph, as the experience and witness was specific to the Brother of Jared. 

I think the key is found in verse 9:
9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger.
He apparently saw more than the Lord's spirit body. Somehow he saw evidence of his physical body as well. Then consider verses 16 and 17:
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.
17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.
Not completely sure what this all means but Moroni seems to be pretty adamant in letting us know that what the brother of Jared saw was not simply the Lord's spirit body.

I think the key is found in verse 9:
9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger.
He apparently saw more than the Lord's spirit body. Somehow he saw evidence of his physical body as well. Then consider verses 16 and 17:
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.
17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.
Not completely sure what this all means but Moroni seems to be pretty adamant in letting us know that what the brother of Jared saw was not simply the Lord's spirit body.

I think its important to address the difference between agency and rights. Agency is simply the ability to choose for ourselves. This however does not mean we get to do whatever we want (even when it can be argued that it doesn't impact anyone else). For example, the war in heaven was fought over agency. One third of the hosts of heaven wanted to follow Satan's plan. Did they get what they want? No. God essentially said too bad and gave them the royal boot. Why was he able to do this without depriving them of their agency? Because following Satan's plan wasn't an option or a right that God had given them. Everything comes from God and we have no right to demand anything except that which he chooses to give us. Its no different in this world, especially here in the US of A. The Bill of Rights was our inspired forefather's attempt to address exactly what those God-given rights are. So to argue that God (and by extension His Church) does not have any say as to what right's people have just doesn't hold water. IMO.

@zil: Maybe that is a reason for both of us to stay home, watch it together on the internet or BYUTv, and cuddle together on the couch (making sure to maintain a firm hold on each other). That way, it will be both or neither (as if I really had any aspirations that my puny strength could defy God's decrees if He really was going to only take one of us).
@laronius: That sounds like an excellent idea. Jupiter is pretty low in the west, though it should still give a decent view in the twilight. While there, scoot up and look at Saturn (which is higher in the sky and easier to see), maybe over to the east where Neptune and Uranus are near opposition and check out these little blue dots. If I can get out of town and away from city lights, Andromeda should make a good target along with the Ring nebula and... What does the weather look like this weekend? If my wife comes home to find the house mysteriously empty, she may not know if I was raptured or if I just went out of town for a few hours.
Who wants to go on a rapture star party?

Subject of OP: I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?”
The "TEST" is not what I find disturbing, as we already know this life is a "test" (Abraham 3:25), but the test being spoken of centers around this sentiment, "it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God." If anything, this bring to my remembrance, "Wolves in sheep's clothing," but I am not sure this is referencing a "wolf" among the sheep. How in the world can we not know a "Saint" from an "enemy" to the people of God?
My first thoughts lean toward the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament (the Gospels). Who were "Saints" and yet were "enemies" to the people of God, or better said maybe, "Who should have been "Saints" rather than "enemies" to the people of God? The pharisees, saducees, and scribes were all "sheep" and look at how they treated the people of God. Look at how they treated their God, for that matter.
I remember listening to a TED talk on Youtube who mentioned the following (she was Mormon), "We only need enough Millenials to grow up in the Church, who then become leaders, who then are able to change the policies and doctrines." This mentality is truly the "enemy's" (the evil one's) philosophy. The philosophies of men mingled with scripture, and obviously a poor understanding of doctrine. I don't even think this individual realizes how this is not the Lord's mind or heart.
I would agree with the thought regarding "love" and its misunderstanding and misuse in our world. This is probably already occurring through social media. I have seen all to often, from Saints, how the Church has failed society -- really? -- OK, sure (false).
Regarding Public Policies and Laws in Relation to Morality
When the proper understanding of rights is understood there really isn't a question as to what the Law protects. The misuse of the term "rights" is why we are enduring what we are right now.
Zion will be a system of Laws, even based on morality, where if people do not want to adhere to they are able to leave. There will be no "SSM" in Zion. So, how people confuse the notion that if we fight against "an assumed right" (which isn't a right to begin with) that we are somehow following Satan -- I don't know.  This is incorrect.
There was a sacrament talk that misunderstood this principle, and the talk assumed that if we don't have all the choices we are following Satan also (or if we inhibit choices we are following Satan's plan). If so, then why did Nephi not teach his posterity of the people in Jerusalem, and their ways? Because they were not of God. What I hear from people is that Nephi was actually following Satan's plan of not giving people options as he should have. He should have taught, he should have made laws to protect the "sin" of Jerusalem, because that is God's way. NO IT IS NOT. Never has been, never will be. If so, the Church would have never moved forward with Prop 8. Why did they? Because they know of the judgements which are to come, and they have given warning.
Zion will be accomplished by righteousness and by laws that keep righteousness, otherwise, there will be nothing in place to protect it. There are Celestial Laws, Terrestrial laws, and Telestial laws. Zion will be a place where Celestial laws (it doesn't matter what personal belief system someone will hold) will be maintained by law.

I think its important to address the difference between agency and rights. Agency is simply the ability to choose for ourselves. This however does not mean we get to do whatever we want (even when it can be argued that it doesn't impact anyone else). For example, the war in heaven was fought over agency. One third of the hosts of heaven wanted to follow Satan's plan. Did they get what they want? No. God essentially said too bad and gave them the royal boot. Why was he able to do this without depriving them of their agency? Because following Satan's plan wasn't an option or a right that God had given them. Everything comes from God and we have no right to demand anything except that which he chooses to give us. Its no different in this world, especially here in the US of A. The Bill of Rights was our inspired forefather's attempt to address exactly what those God-given rights are. So to argue that God (and by extension His Church) does not have any say as to what right's people have just doesn't hold water. IMO.

I think the test began (formally) in the 1960s. Until then, even though the world rejected some of our more "peculiar" beliefs, much of our core principles were in line with society's. Beginning in the 60s that all began to change and has been becoming more pronounced over time. Like Pres HInckley alluded, it will be our ability to hold to our old-fashioned principles in a world where it is all the fashion to embrace the cutting edge of moral evolution that will decide where we fall in the day of judgment. I think Pres Monson has it right when he quotes the poem:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
- Alexander Pope

Well, if your wife doesn't come back from the women's session of GC, you might need to conclude you got left behind...   On the other hand, if she returns to find the house mysteriously empty...