CV75

Matthew 18 is about how we address personal offenses by another individual or group. D&C 98 is about how the Lord’s people address offenses by another nation, kindred, tongue, or people. He commands us to forgive in the first; in the second, He commands us to go battle only after certain conditions are met. And even then, we should have forgiveness in our hearts if not trust by virtue of common sense (forgiveness does not require trust, except in he Lord). Nephi’s killing of Laban is an interesting example of an intermingling of these two principles., wherein an individual defended his nation against an individual’s offense.
So yes, I would say these verses teach about two kinds or expressions of forgiveness, suitable for two circumstances (individual and group).

Faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel, but choosing it is a matter of the receptivity of the heart to discern that which is good as illuminated by the light of Christ. We all have this opportunity to choose to have faith in Christ and act on it, but do not always condition our hearts to do so.

Then I understand your position. We tend to justify our beliefs before creating justifications we can believe in. For example, "Since I believe (x) it's important that (y) holds and therefore (z) does not," as indicated below.
But I would say, even with your semantics, that it is equally important to specifically name Jesus Christ as the source of “good” in any estate, since the eternal principle of faith in Christ exists in all of them, and our union or perfection in Him is the ultimate aim. Moroni 7 is focused on Christ: see how often the following terms are used: faith in Christ, faith in his name, faith in him, faith in me, and the context for the discussion of faith as linked with hope (through Christ) and charity (the pure love of Christ) as introduced in verse 1. It is all Christ-centered.

And I beleive it is this aspect of faith in Christ that frees you from that worry which you had previously. What other principle of light would have freed you to see God's mercy, understanding and forgiveness (to the same degree as a personal faith in and relationship with Him)? Who would worry about God's condemnation if they had not known of it or had no faith in Him?

Semantically, and on a logical/formulaic level, yes. And at the same time, no -- it depends on your assigned definitions and your experience with the specific Person, Jesus Christ. A formula is objective, lending itself to be a tool meeting the subjective purpose of whomever accepts and applies it. You mentioned how this formula frees you from judging others who do not yet recognize the specific name of Christ, because deep down, by this logic, they really do have faith in Him. But what about those who, deep down, really don't, as humble as they might be since it is a different kind of humility (a "different gospel/Jesus")?
This is why I tried to personalize your description by asking, "If you never heard of Christ, at what point would you be able to acknowledge your faith in Him?" Faith in Christ, or in anything, is a subjective experience, a product of your "mental states" (which for me includes spiritual processes) in response to the world around you ("...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"). Alma 32 discusses how people who lack faith in Christ can develop it through an experiment with their subjective experience, already being humble (in the right way!), and does so without judging them even though deep down, they haven't yet had such an experience.

If you never heard of Christ, at what point would you be able to acknowledge your faith in Him? Or, what is the difference between holding to an "anonymous" principle of light (such as compassion), and faith in Christ, or the difference between the fruits of compassion and faith in Christ, who has many other attributes? At what point does human compassion become perfect in the form of life eternal for self and others?
Jesus is aware of our heeding His light, and He knows our names, but for many, and for so long, we do not know His name and gospel, what He did for us  and why, and what He invites us to do in His name, and why. Until we learn the fuller picture. Doing good does not yield the same results as exercising faith in Christ and walking the covenant path.
So. I think the difference  is a matter of degree at best.  The only way out of spirit prison is through faith in Christ, and many good people are stuck there until they accept the Gospel message, which begins with faith in Christ. This prison exists in this life as well as after we die.

Many people who do not have the restored gospel or even religion at all can still "follow and embrace the light" by abiding the principles of truth they do have. Over time we believe this will lead them to faith in Christ and making and keeping His covenants.
I suppose this can extend to Church members who have faith in the Word of Wisdom, Tithing and other principles of light such as chastity, honesty, service, etc., and keep them and enjoy the blessings thereof, but may not yet connect these blessings to Christ personally, or think about Him much, or have a solid or valiant relationship with Him. They functionally "follow and embrace the light inside or outside the name of religion" and hopefully will eventually become converted to Christ.
Many saints make and keep covenants without what they may feel is a sufficient level of faith in Christ but keep striving (which itself I consider to be an attitude and act of faith in Christ).

Faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel, but choosing it is a matter of the receptivity of the heart to discern that which is good as illuminated by the light of Christ. We all have this opportunity to choose to have faith in Christ and act on it, but do not always condition our hearts to do so.

I addition to what @Carborendum shared, our hearts are what choose faith, so their condition is paramount. They cannot choose faith without the light of Christ to shine upon the "word" they hear. I consider this a form of grace, for everyone, everywhere has it, though it may be disregarded by some to a great degree. 

I addition to what @Carborendum shared, our hearts are what choose faith, so their condition is paramount. They cannot choose faith without the light of Christ to shine upon the "word" they hear. I consider this a form of grace, for everyone, everywhere has it, though it may be disregarded by some to a great degree. 

It isn't just a play on words.  That is the actual etymology of Atonement.
It was originally used to imply reconciliation. If you reconciled, you were again at one with the one you wronged.  The idea is that whenever we wrong anyone, we sin.  When we sin, we sin against God and are separated from Him.  Thus we need a method of making amends to be reconciled with Him -- to become At One with Him again.
Over time, the word lost its original meaning.  Now it has become synonymous with the word expiation which refers to the "payment or reparations offered to gain the reconciliation", rather than the reconciliation itself. 
It is interesting to note that the Spanish word for Atonement is Expiacio'n.  But French use the word Reviens-moi which means Return to me.

The Parable of the Sower reminds me of the condition of the heart (mind, spirit) into which the seed (the word of God, Alma 32) is planted. Faith, belief and the desire to believe require a place (the heart) in which to operate and are prompted, or awakened and aroused, by choosing to heed the light of Christ as it shines within our heart. This capacity can be reduced through disobedience and tradition as the quality of the soil is affected.

This makes a good deal of sense and explains why people leave the Church, especially when BIC: they had lesser desires all along and the Lord provided a way to accommodate them if they would not come around to better desires while in this life. Paraphrasing Abraham 3:25, “…we will prove them herewith, to see if they will [come to desire] all things whatsoever the Lord their God [desires of] them.” The bolded conditional conjunction indicates nothing was written, or known, in stone.
I can accept that someone like me did not want to be born into the Church, and that most of the human population throughout the ages did and does not want to be BIC, but my patriarchal blessing suggests that my premortal desires were consistent with God’s. Since all patriarchal blessings make this same or similar pronouncement, are the patriarchal blessings of those BIC who leave the Church mistaken?

I don't either -- it was more a rhetorical question to point out why I don't subscribe to what was shared by another poster, as much sense as it might make initially.

I think this I why President Nelson emphasized the need to "think celestial" in this world's probation. A person who thinks celestial does not murder or even desire to murder (even better, put, he does not get angry with his brother, have contempt and deride him, or condemn him) and is thus prepared for the celestial law in that kingdom, where the law is to love everyone and foster life. I think this is one way in which the celestial inhabitants minister, or bring sustenance and life, to those in the terrestrial world who cannot steward it themselves (D&C 76: 87).

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.
I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

I think you’re fine in what and how you said it, I was referring to the alternate assumptions that I carry because of my own background. Our assumptions still have us testifying of Christ as we discuss the ideals in our lesson topics. What I think happens sometimes is that teachers simply read and parrot the material, which thoughtlessness gets in the way of the Spirit and meeting the needs of the students.

My opinion, since the handbook has been shared: The decision and instructions are solely hers, and you are simply honoring her request for representation. The medical personnel in turn perform the procedures to remove life support in good faith. They consult with you, and you consult with the Lord.

I think I'm not saying things right.  It's not that I don't believe in or teach the ideal.  It is that I don't assume everyone in my class is wanting the ideal at that instant and so I don't speak as if they do.  I might encourage them to pursue the ideal, but I don't assume they already want it.  Because to someone struggling, speaking to them as if they weren't can just cause more pain or make them think they'll never be good enough, that there's nothing in the lesson for them, that they probably shouldn't bother with Church because the lessons are never "for them", or whatever.  Instead, I focus on the Savior - if anyone will help them want the ideal, it's him, and he'll do it as they are ready.  Whether you wish you had never existed, or whether you hope to one day live in an eternal family with your spouse and children in the kingdom of God, Christ will help you to overcome whatever you need to overcome.

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.
I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

I see the two views as compatible in that Christ invites us to be one with Him (John 17, and is that not something to put first?), but many parables show that we do not place that vision foremost. Jesus uses the phrase “may” and “might” constantly with regards to our receiving His blessings, because He leaves the choice to us. Our Church must put it first just as Christ does in His Intercessory Prayer.

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible.
I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

"In like manner, what will your seeking open for you? What wisdom do you lack? What do you feel an urgent need to know or understand? Follow the example of the Prophet Joseph. 1. Find a quiet place where you can regularly go. 2. Humble yourself before God. 3. Pour out your heart to your Heavenly Father. 4. Turn to Him for answers and for comfort. 5. Pray in the name of Jesus Christ about your concerns, your fears, your weaknesses—yes, the very longings of your heart. 6. And then listen! Write the thoughts that come to your mind. Record your feelings and follow through with actions that you are prompted to take. As you repeat this process day after day, month after month, year after year, you will “grow into the principle of revelation.” -President Russell M. Nelson, "Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives", April 2018 General Conference.

One way to look at this, I think, is in terms of stewardship. The celestial stewardship is the business of creating life (in addition to maintaining and using), terrestrial stewardship is the business of maintaining life (in addition to using), telestial stewardship is limited to the business of using life. Each kingdom's limits and opportunities are ours, according to our agency's alignment with God's ideal. The celestial scope (especially exaltation) is perfectly aligned, terrestrial somewhat, and telestial less so.
He used the word "comfortable," which tends to eliminate striving for improvement at that point.
Adam and Eve lived the terrestrial law in Eden; after the Fall their wayward posterity lived the telestial kingdom, and in the resurrection Adam and Eve are exalted.
I think it is very interesting that President Oaks framed his remarks in this fashion, as if to say, "If you don't want to be part of pursuing the ideal, you can go someplace else more comfortable, but respect our mission. God still loves you and prepares a place for you." As if the Church is going to spend less time and energy addressing the demands of detractors and more wherewithal proactively building Zion (as Elder Bednar pointed out in terms of those in the "last wagon").

In the US that directive is called a living will.
The Church uses strong language against euthanasia (violates the commandments of God) but notes that what you describe is not euthanasia. Here’s the relevant section in the Handbook of Instruction: