CV75

This was the conclusion I came to - it's about "attaching" to Christ.  That idea worked better for me than "building on Christ".  (More below.)
The following has been written over the course of a few sessions, with breaks in between and is basically me trying to figure it out by explaining it (answering my own question).
Yeah, sometimes I have a blind spot, and I know it's there, but I can't explain it.  I can imagine "the word" (meaning the teachings of Christ) as a "seed" and I can imagine myself (heart and mind) as the "soil" in which I plant that "seed", and all the rest that follows.  I'm having a much harder time imagining Jesus Christ (the person) as a rock or a foundation on which I "build" some unspecified thing (in the start of the verse, it's "my foundation" (not sure what that is) and later in the verse, it's myself)....
I mean, trying to visualize this like I can visualize planting a seed and nourishing it and the tree that grew from it just wasn't working - like I said, Christ isn't a concrete slab. (It would be easier for me if this verse were closer to Matthew 7:24-27 or even Alma's story, where the "rock" is the teachings of Christ, but that's not what it says.)  But I'm over complicating it.  If a rock (obviously, we're talking bedrock here) symbolizes Christ, and I'm to build "my foundation" (whatever that is) or "myself" on said symbolic rock, now I get farther - I can visualize bedrock and building on said bedrock.  But now I need to imagine that what I build is either "my foundation" (really have no idea what that means) or "myself" (I know what this means, so I'll just stick with it).
The verse itself gives me some hints in the middle, specifically, the reason for building on this rock (that it gives you an anchor so you don't get blown away by a tornado or washed away by a hurricane or similar).  That also suggests that you can't just build something resting on top, held only by gravity, what you build has to be anchored to the rock.  (Your comments, @Carborendum, help here, demonstrating the degree to which the foundation, or the building, must be firmly attached to what's under it.)
I suppose another difficulty is imagining "building on Christ" - that just seems like a strange idea to me.  Anchoring to him, or attaching to him, those make a lot of sense.  If I think of "anchoring my foundation to the bedrock of Christ" or "anchoring my building to the foundation that is Christ", I can make more progress. (And I've never once heard anyone even attempt to flesh out this analogy the way Alma does his seed analogy, and yet I hear it used frequently - "build your foundation on Christ" - without any further expounding on what that means.)
So, recently I was thinking about this and thinking more like Legos or even, for example, insert or tee nuts.  You can't connect any old thing to them - you have to have Legos to connect to Legos (or an off brand designed to the same specs).  For the insert nuts, they'll only take a bolt with the right diameter and threading.
Similarly, if we're going to "build on Christ", we have to have the right connector - you can't just attach any old thing, won't work.  If I try to build a sinful self on Christ, it won't attach, I won't be anchored.  But the life of a disciple, that can be anchored to Christ - covenants are the connectors, perhaps the Holy Ghost is also a connector.  Ordinances are the act of making the connection, perhaps repenting would work as the act of connecting (or repairing damaged connections).  Our various building materials (the concrete of our foundations or the studs used to build the frame, etc.) could be righteous attributes like charity or patience or long-suffering or mercy that we're trying to "build" in ourselves; faith and righteous deeds could be the action of putting it all together.  Living the gospel of Jesus Christ is "building ourselves on him" (aka connecting ourselves to him).  And because there's so many ways to live the gospel, we'll each look a little different (some of us will build a shack, others will have managed to build a mansion), but that's OK, as long as it's anchored to Jesus Christ.
And my house could look different from your house because I'm spending more time on scripture study, so that room is bigger for me, but you're spending more time serving others, so that room is bigger in your house, and maybe I'll need an add-on later.
I still don't know what "my foundation" is, except that if I look at it as just part of what I'm building (myself), then that's OK.  Perhaps "your foundation" is your testimony and conversion.  Whatever it is, it's all got to be anchored to that bedrock which is Christ, anchored with covenants, built by keeping covenants, maintained through repentance, with faith that the bedrock is unassailable, that the anchors will hold, that I'm not wasting my efforts, that all this will keep me from those storms that are coming.
OK, I think I can work with this.  Perhaps others see this differently, or perhaps others have also been hearing "build your foundation on Christ" for 5 decades and been content with the instinctive "yeah, that's a good idea" without ever trying to figure out what your foundation is or how you build "on Christ"...  Regardless, I think I can run with this analogy now, explain it to others, use it to visualize and teach principles.
Would still be interested if anyone else has additional ideas on how to use or "build on" this analogy.
Thanks!

I would say the items you listed are covenants that bind and seal us to Him, and we attach ourselves to Him by making them. And the prep work leading to that (faith and repentance). We stay attached by honoring these covenants (baptism, the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost, priesthood and temple). 
 

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.

This comes from Helaman 5:12:
Some analogies click for me - usually because I can visualize them or relate to characters in a story.  Other analogies, not so easy.  This is one that has not worked as well for me - I mean, Christ is a person, not a slab of concrete, and what does it mean to build on a person (obviously, we can't go trying to alter said person - that wouldn't work at all).  Instinctively, without words or images, the analogy works for me, but I can't explain that instinct to anyone else.  I think I've figured out a way, but first, I'd like to hear from others.
I'd especially like to know if @Carborendum has any insights as an engineer who I'm sure has a much better understanding of foundations and building on them...
Anywho, any and all thoughts you may have about "building our foundation on Christ" (see there, I've already messed it up - Christ isn't the foundation, he's the thing on which we build our foundation... ).  Anywho, any thoughts you may have about this analogy would be greatly appreciated.
 
(Shall I get the mob joke out of the way, about pouring a concrete foundation over a dead body...?  No?  Too poor taste?  OK, nevermind.)

"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.

Maybe not so much a mentor per se as observing the repeating pattern that is part of the fabric of existence. As we observe, we make choices, and he made his.
However, his umbrage at a perceived misjustice indicates that he perceived a wrinkle in the pattern, so it seems he was, characteristically, acting from a very selfishly independent and parochial basis. Not the personality type for following a mentor! He probably thought he was innovatively improving things!

Maybe not so much a mentor per se as observing the repeating pattern that is part of the fabric of existence. As we observe, we make choices, and he made his.
However, his umbrage at a perceived misjustice indicates that he perceived a wrinkle in the pattern, so it seems he was, characteristically, acting from a very selfishly independent and parochial basis. Not the personality type for following a mentor! He probably thought he was innovatively improving things!

You didn't say, "Can I get an Amen?" so I didn't take it that way  

This is the gist of the Replacement Theology argument: The Jewish people broke the "If my people..." conditions and so inherited the "If my people do not ..." warnings. Thus, God replaced the Jews with the Christian church. 
My difficulty with this approach is that we have all failed God. Jesus forgives 70X7. The cycle throughout the Old Testament was of sin (whoring after false gods--not just corrupt Judaism, but full-on Paganism), repentance, forgiveness, blessing, and gradual drifting away. Every time they came back, God forgave them. His covenant remains.
Every time I repent, likewise, God embraces his prodigal son. We need the Old Testament largely because it reminds us that as undependable as we are, God remains true to His word.

This part of the link to Orson Hyde's Dedicatory Prayer is very interesting to me:
“…restore the kingdom unto Israel -- raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king.”
Such a nation would serve the Lord. The divine impetus for the Jews to gather to the land of their inheritance, which Orson mentioned in his notes, like the Spirit of Elijah, can also be imitated and twisted into many false versions to suit the ambitions of evil and conspiring parties. Or, as with the settling of Missouri, become polluted due to “contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires” (D&C 101) among factions within Judaism. I avoid describing his impression of the “great wheel… unquestionable in motion” as “Zionism” as we see it today, for this reason. The nation-building and its declaration as such a kingdom would require prophetic oversight.

The idea of two classes of human being, one being the spirit children of God (some obedient and some apostate) and the other an animal without moral accountability, recognizes that apostate, erstwhile covenant children of God may practice bestiality with primate animals in violation of the eternal principle to multiply after their own kind. The accountable offspring, when repentant, would have been adopted into the covenant as opportunity arose, and by the time of Noah, this form of bestiality ended, if nothing else by virtue of how genealogies ended at the Flood and proceeded after the Flood.
Some believe that the animal in these abominable human-beast couplings was dark or black-skinned, and this animal-like, natural-man tendency or trait of instinctive behavior and non-accountability was carried through the Flood through Ham’s wife. I think Abraham 1:26 dispels that notion since Pharaoh was a righteous man and not a human-animal hybrid; his father Ham was not a hybrid (neither his mother nor Noah being animals or hybrids); otherwise, Noah and his family would not be qualified for admission into the ark (i.e., the covenant), much less build it.
This of course is an oversimplification and there is as much figurative language as there is literal (since our science was not available in those days, and a temple rite is not based in science anyway), as reflected in my remark below.
I do not think any child of God was ever born that did not have their origins in a covenant established for them at the start of their genealogy. Apostate civilizations once had a covenant-abiding ancestor, whether one sees that as an Adam (in the case of multiple men of God, an interpretation of the Biblical text that renders it a temple drama) or the Adam (as in the case of a literal interpretation of the Biblical text). So, I think any people on the American continent or anywhere else), no matter how degraded and depraved they may have become, had an originating ancestor within a dispensation of the covenant, whether “our” Adam’s or a subsequent restoring prophet and dispensation following an apostasy. Sexually abused animals, whatever their skin color, would have been removed from the equation long before the floods receded.

This part of the link to Orson Hyde's Dedicatory Prayer is very interesting to me:
“…restore the kingdom unto Israel -- raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king.”
Such a nation would serve the Lord. The divine impetus for the Jews to gather to the land of their inheritance, which Orson mentioned in his notes, like the Spirit of Elijah, can also be imitated and twisted into many false versions to suit the ambitions of evil and conspiring parties. Or, as with the settling of Missouri, become polluted due to “contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires” (D&C 101) among factions within Judaism. I avoid describing his impression of the “great wheel… unquestionable in motion” as “Zionism” as we see it today, for this reason. The nation-building and its declaration as such a kingdom would require prophetic oversight.

This part of the link to Orson Hyde's Dedicatory Prayer is very interesting to me:
“…restore the kingdom unto Israel -- raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king.”
Such a nation would serve the Lord. The divine impetus for the Jews to gather to the land of their inheritance, which Orson mentioned in his notes, like the Spirit of Elijah, can also be imitated and twisted into many false versions to suit the ambitions of evil and conspiring parties. Or, as with the settling of Missouri, become polluted due to “contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires” (D&C 101) among factions within Judaism. I avoid describing his impression of the “great wheel… unquestionable in motion” as “Zionism” as we see it today, for this reason. The nation-building and its declaration as such a kingdom would require prophetic oversight.

I think your 2nd paragraph generally reflects our Church's teachings and members' attitudes. Some finer points perhaps, which I'll offer from my point of view:
1. Our Church is politically neutral, and where the state of Israel is one devised by man and not the covenant kingdom per se (e.g., as was David's), we take a theological view and really don't take sides in these kinds of conflict on religious grounds. Individual members are free make their personal political decisions however they justify them, acknowledging that the spirit of contention is of the devil and the Lord has revealed how His people are to engage in war. Related to this, Israel does not have a prophet to lead them no more than any other nation, and their constitutional freedoms and liberties are inspired of God but managed by fallible men.
2. The locale of the end-times prophecies seem very clear, but this would be the case irrespective of what government, or what kind of government, has jurisdiction over that geography. Jews will certainly there, and the Lord will fulfill His promises to His covenant people on conditions of repentance. The prophecies testify that there will be widescale repentance, sufficient to greet and worship the Savior upon Hs rescue of them at the last moment.
3. While Israel and the remnants of Israel living across the globe are indeed God's special or covenant people, the covenant is restored to them only through the ministry of the Gentiles who extend to them the covenants by way of the Restoration. This reflects the times of the Jews and the time of the Gentiles in turn from the Meridian of Time and the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.
4. God extends the covenant to both the Gentiles and the Jews since the times of Paul, and in this current dispensation. The Book or Mormon details the promises to the Gentiles that were also mentioned by the prophet Isaiah of the Bible.
 

This is interesting in that Church members are Gentiles by virtue of the nation that is central to the restoration of the Gospel, and inasmuch as we live in a Gentile nation. We are also of the House of Israel, sometimes by lineage, sometimes by birth in the restored covenant, and sometimes by adoption as with coverts that are not by birth of the lineage of the chosen people. Overarching both of these is that we are beneficiaries of the Abrahamic Covenant, which preceded Israel and was eventually lost, but introduced again through Moses, recognized by Jesus Christ during His earthy ministry, extended to the Gentiles after His ascension, was again lost, and then restored yet again through Joseph Smith subsequent to that Great Apostasy.

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

It stands to reason there was in "interregnum" including a carryover of the king's edicts at the ending of his reign and the commencement of the reign of the judges.
They got permission from their father, the king. They took their journey. It does not say when they left, it could have been before, during or after the interregnum, and the first year of the judges could have also been the same year as the last year of the king.
PS your first scripture quote is from Mosiah 28: 8-9.

It stands to reason there was in "interregnum" including a carryover of the king's edicts at the ending of his reign and the commencement of the reign of the judges.
They got permission from their father, the king. They took their journey. It does not say when they left, it could have been before, during or after the interregnum, and the first year of the judges could have also been the same year as the last year of the king.
PS your first scripture quote is from Mosiah 28: 8-9.

I guess I didn't get that the first sin was not repented of.  (Obviously, refusing to forgive is an unrepented of sin.)  So, in that case:
Are you sure that D&C 64:9 says that [refusing to forgive sin X] is worse than [committing and refusing to repent of sin X]?  I've spent a couple hours on this so far, and have not found another scripture (and can't remember one) that teaches this principle.  Unless the search engine is flawed, the phrase "greater sin" doesn't occur anywhere else in scripture.  The Lord establishes truth via 2 or 3 witnesses, so this may suggest that the principle being taught is closely tied to the situation.
...So, the section is addressed to Church leaders.
The preceding verses seem to suggest that this is a case of forgiveness being asked for but withheld.  In verse 7, the Lord says, "I forgive people who repent" (the subtext is, "so should you").  Verse 8 suggests the disciples in question looked for reasons to hold grudges against each other - trying to remain offended, refusing to forgive even when asked (yes, I'm reading that in, but I don't think the interpretation is unfounded).
Verse 9 talks about brothers and trespasses.  This does not sound like vile sins (Hitler can go back in the drawer for some other thread).  The phrase "there remaineth in him" seems like the one who won't forgive is the one where something remains, but not so with the original trespasser (nothing about his sin here) - but we know from a multitude of witnesses that the only way that trespasser is forgiven is if he repents.
Subsequent verses do say we are required to forgive all and let God mete out justice, but it doesn't repeat the "greater sin" part, nor is it entirely clear about "forgive when they ask for it" or "forgive whether or not they ask" - it's silent on this aspect.  This principle is repeated many times in scripture:
It then goes on to teach how to deal with those who don't repent (also taught many times), and hints at forgiveness regardless of repentance:
So, is [refusing to forgive your rapist (which is an unrepented of sin, BTW)] worse than [unrepented of rape]?  I don't know.  We only have this one verse to suggest it.  If it is, then it is.  But the question is academic - any and all unrepented of sins are enough to keep us from salvation and exaltation, no matter how great or small.
Personally, I think the verse in context seems to be saying: [withholding forgiveness when asked to forgive] is worse than [tresspassing against your brother and then repenting].
But for the non-academic record: Just repent, already!  (And forgive!)

I think context is important, of course. From D&C 64, verse 8 places the trespass to be forgiven in context: “My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.” As long as they were still disciples and not excommunicated (see verse 12), this behavior seems to consist of ignoring the Beatitudes and other teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, falling short of the higher law of the gospel.
The subject verse in the OP, 9, “Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin,” because he is not forgiven, per Matthew 6:14-15, and this because of the hypocrisy in praying for forgiveness (covered in verses 5 - 13): “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” The hypocrisy at the root of a professed disciple’s unforgiving heart is the greater sin of any in the Sermon on the Mount and ultimately has a lot to do with judging others, wresting this role from the Lord, which is the greater of any other sin He condemns, because it so thoroughly denies Him: Judging Others (churchofjesuschrist.org) So yes, in many ways a disciple's lack of forgiveness is hypocritical, unrighteous judgement and condemnation, and the greater of any other forgivable sin.
Concerning our attitude toward more serious trespasses (D&C 64:12), we have in verse 11, “say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds,” because “the Lord, will forgive whom He will forgive, but of [me] it is required to forgive all men (verse 10).”

As long as you don't forgive, the sin of an unforgiving heart remains with you.
You can only forgive in mortality those sins committed against you that you survive. In the hereafter, you must yet forgive any other sins against you that ended your life. The effects of any and all sins against you are swallowed up in Christ by virtue of the resurrection: you will be healed, immortal, and have every resource with which to live.
So, the greatest of all sins in not to forgive either of those kinds of sins (the kind that kill you and the kind you survive), because both have been swallowed up in Christ through the resurrection. 

Christ took upon himself all our sins.  If you refuse to forgive someone else, you refuse to forgive Christ.  In essence this is what Christ does via the Atonement - he takes their sin upon himself and says to you, "forgive me, your Savior, and let me worry about their sin".  By refusing to forgive, you reject Christ's Atonement which, it seems to me, is - if you persist - the unpardonable sin.  So, yeah, worse than any possible sin anyone may commit against you.

From the Church's recent statement, "As servants of God, we affirm that He calls upon all of us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and we pray for a peaceful resolution of all conflicts." First Presidency Issues Statement on Middle East Violence (churchofjesuschrist.org)
Using D&C 98 as a template for the laws of the land (are you suggesting this approach for Israel or USA?) would require the state to become an agent of or for the Lord's people. While it may be argued that governments are such agents to the extent their free constitutions protect religious expression and other rights, at what point do the heads of state wait upon God to command their entry into battle?

The term "schism" is not used by President Lee. He is speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing (bolded above) who deceive the saints. No inroad (a precedent to a schism) has been made within the "authority of the Church," and a consistent message is put forth by the President, First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Members challenging and leaving the Church is not a schism. Wolves are typically called out before long and whether they are around or not, the governing quorums remain intact. President Lee's counsel is for the safety of the members, and not for the integrity and preservation of the governing quorums. Our leadership does not divide and label the membership into opposing camps, and I find it unwise to suggest this approach to dealing with increasing power of Satan as expressed through the hypocrites that are bound to worship among us.

Correct. It’s the members who do it. I’m not sure why they do it, because I can‘t read minds. I’ve never heard a bishop or SP do it.