JohnsonJones

Just as a little clarification...being raped is NOT a sin.  The person that was raped is under NO condemnation.  If they wish, they can go to their Bishop if they think it may help them heal, but they, of themselves, have committed NO sin.  In that instance, they may be better served going to seek help from a fully trained medical counselor rather than the Bishop.
I say this, because too many (and that unfortunately DOES sometimes include SOME Bishops) make a terrible mistake in this regards.  This was actually akin to something TERRIBLE that apparently was happening at BYU as well. 
I can understand the apprehension some would feel going to the Bishop.  This is not an easy thing.  I am also going to disagree with some of the major thoughts in this thread.  The ONLY person that can grant forgiveness is Christ...NOT the Bishop.  The bishop is there to facilitate things, but there are many sins that are forgiven without the Bishops help.
The Bishop is a facilitator.  They are there to help, NOT grant forgiveness like some Catholic Priest.  I know of some who have confessed far later in life (and I'm not going into specifics here, as such things are personal to people and it is NOT MY RIGHT to share those specific stories) that had committed certain sins in the past.  In all rights they had been forgiven LOOOONG ago.  However, the sins still lay heavily on their heads.  They had already paid as much a price as ever could be asked, they had turned from their sin, and lived a virtuous life since.  There was NO place there that a Bishop was needed except to lighten their hearts, to let them know that yes, they indeed were forgiven.  However, in those instances, the forgiveness had already been obtained LOOONG before that moment, as it is NOT the Bishop that forgives...but the Lord.  It was merely the Bishop to help lighten that burden they had carried all those years.  The forgiveness is between the Lord and each individual, just like any sin is.  This is not something a Bishop can do, a Bishop cannot grant forgiveness.
That said, a Bishop is there to be a judge.  I would highly advise those of grievous sins such as fornication, Adultery, murder, and other such things to see a Bishop.  Forgiveness may be between the individual and the Lord, but certain things between the worldly administration in the church and the individual necessitates a Bishop (or higher in some cases) to handle in the appropriate manner.  This is impossible to do if the Bishop (or as I said, in some cases, higher authority than a Bishop) is unaware of such circumstances or is unable to take the appropriate action as the Spirit decides.  One should go to the Bishop if they have committed grievous sins, as a Bishop is there to guide, aid, and help in the repentance process and to help the person involved with the sin be able to obtain that forgiveness from the Lord.  It is normally something that the Bishop (or higher authority) has to do in cooperation with the individual, as that individual rediscovers and learns and strengthens their faith.  Eventually, as everyone should hope, that individual themselves will discover and feel the Spirit telling them that they are forgiven along with the Bishop (or others) and they will be set back onto the path to eternal life.
So, to be clear, I am not saying do NOT see a Bishop, but rather,
1.  Being a victim does NOT mean one has committed a sin.  I hope we NEVER mix up being a victim with having committed sin.  The victim is sinless and should not be blamed in those instances.  I know I would rather them see someone who is fully trained in dealing with these sorts of emotions and problems than totally rely on me or someone else who are not trained, simply because of a position in the church.
2.  ONLY THE LORD forgives.  A Bishop does not have that power.
3.  If grievous sin has been committed, see a Bishop.  There are sins a Bishop will need to do some things about in regards to the church, as well as help one in the road to repentance.

From the institute manual: "the time of the Gentiles have continued from that time until now..." I don't see this as being the the gospel. In the second paragraph, there is this statement: "As President Smith indicated, the times that the major gospel effort would be with gentile nations continued with the Restoration." The preceding statement alluded to Paul and the other Apostles and the great missionary work. There is a gap there. It still belonged to the Gentiles, but it was not the gospel that was being taught nor was it the great missionary work that the apostles had commenced. The apostasy means there was no gospel of Jesus Christ. There was only a Bible and that's all they had.
When we see that the work continued with the Restoration, we have to consider what we mean by Gentiles. If we take the Jews interpretation of Gentile, it is everyone that is not a Jew. There is little or no effort to accept the possibility that this includes those who were carried into the north countries. If they came back and settled in Jerusalem now, they would not be accepted because they are Gentiles because they are NOT Jews, though they are Israelites. If we see it this way, the work that "continued with the Restoration" is being first brought to Gentiles, even though they are Israelites. 1 Nephi 15:18 reflects this idea, at least to me it does when it says: "Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made with our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." This latter clause speaks directly to the 10 Lost or Scattered tribes who, through that scattering infused the blood of Abraham and therefore the promise which was given to Abraham, or that the Gentiles are the scattered tribes, those who hear the word and accept it, which is also part of this revelation.
Then their are 4 signs which indicate that the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled...
1. Jews gathered to Jerusalem - check
2. Social turmoil - check
3. Gentiles reject the gospel - check (having been separated from the wheat)
4. Jerusalem no longer trodden down - check 
What's left is returning the scattered natural branches will be grafted in again. The natural branches are the ten tribes and which includes the Lamanites. The Jews, though the manual says they are part, in that the gospel will be taken, were never scattered, but have always been a people. It is apparent from the rest of the Scriptures, that Christ Himself will appear to them and reveal exactly who He is/was, that these are not included in the grafting and that they are not part of the "major efforts of gospel teaching". Literally, they will be last. Poetically, the Savior brought the gospel to them first, in person. And the first shall be last. The Savior will bring the gospel to them last, in person.
When I read this, it appeared that you were trying to say that one automatically flows into the other, as though the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled when the gospel goes back to the Jews. The manual doesn't state that. It can't go to them until the very last part, but the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
This is not correct and we may shift our missionary gaze to the Jews (it's already on the lost tribes), but they will not accept it. The Gentiles have rejected it. The Gentiles, as I have described it here, are the field, in which both the tares and the wheat have been allowed to grow together. Missionary work is the effort to gather the wheat from among the tares. While they grew together, they were not discernable, one from another. As the field matures, we will be able to discern, or I should say, those who are wheat will be able to discern. This process is the harvest, the weekly promised baptism that didn't happen. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any wheat in amongst those tares.
I apologize to those who are offended when I disagree with our interpretation of scripture and events that we sometimes see in lesson manuals and come over the pulpit. I can't help it. I sometimes feel that we are staring right at the solution to a problem but resist accepting because it's "just not the way we do things around here". If it's wrong, it's wrong. When it comes to the end times, most of us don't have a clue what happens first and what happens second, or in this case, last. Why, then, does it make a difference if someone comes along and says, that piece of the puzzle doesn't go there? Does anyone here know any better? No. Not even the apostles know for sure. God said so Himself.
There is one thing I have concluded when it comes to the mysteries of God... when it happens, most people just think it was ordinary. It is explainable. It is natural. Only after looking back do we realize what has transpired. Obviously, not everything is going to happen that way. Some things are just going to stand out like a sore thumb, but for the most part, it all fits. No one knew that Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. The earth didn't stop spinning, the Sun was not turned back in the sky. The day started like any other and it ended like any other and that's the way most of these signs will be. For example. There will not literally be blood on the moon. The Sun will not literally darken and the stars will not literally throw themselves down. I, at one time, thought that this meant that the moon was going to crash into the earth, but even this would not describe the event as it is given to us. Sure, the Sun would be darkened, men's hearts would fail them and the stars would be cast down, but the moon would not turn to blood. It might get a little blood on it, but even if it smashed all 5 or 6 billion peoples on the earth, it would not turn to blood.
When I read these and ponder them, I consider the language, the context, the person telling it, the time it was told and how it could possibly manifest itself. Is it literal or symbolic? This latter one is definitely symbolic. 
Another one is the anti-Christ and the number 666. After some study, I realized that this symbol of the anti-Christ has been with us for a very long long time. The key is not the number itself, though it is, in the statement, it is the number of man. This passage has nothing to do with some individual who will be born to sit in the temple and decrease the earth. He won't really have horns and He won't breathe fire and brimstone. All this means is that the anti-Christ is man-made. The number 666 actually plays into that explanation quite nicely, but we hold to traditions that are simply false. We believe things that are given us that simply cannot be, like the modern Chrisian view of creation ex nihilo. It just isn't true, it doesn't matter how long and warm and fuzzy the tradition is, it's just not true.
We might take the gospel to the Jews, but I doubt it. They let is play in their yard, we have more symbology and historical connection with Israel than any other religion. We have a school there and a park and we are a temple building people, but we can't proselyte there. We have also been forbidden from doing work for Jews in our temples. The fact that the Jews will not have accepted Christ until they day He comes, is strong indication that we're not going to focus any effort on teaching the gospel to them.

OK. 
I've been accepted as a full-on ethnic Kekistani. 
I have their trust enough that they've let me in to their number. 
I'm saying this now.
**
No, Kekistan is *not* an alt-right group. In fact, a lot of your key figures in the Kekistan movement, like YouTube host Carl Benjamin, *hate* the alt right. 
So why the label? It's easier for the "progressive" movement to label anyone who is an "other" than it is for them to deal with matters directly. It's the same reason why my critique of Obama's tax policies resulted in my being denounced as a "racist"; the people I was talking to found it easier to smear me than engage me. 
In real life, Kekistan is a loose coalition of people who have grown tired of "progressive" politics and the ever-increasing amounts of racist, sexist, and even violent behavior that the "left" is demonstrating and the censorship of opposing views that comes along with it. Because it's a loose coalition, you'll see people from across the political spectrum under the banner, the spectrum going from "moderate" to "Reaganite". Most actual Kekistanis hate racism, sexism, and whatnot, but at the same time aren't afraid to call out situations where the hard facts are painting unpleasant pictures of different groups and situations where elements of modern life are regarded as being nonsensical. 
Yes, Kekistan includes people who post for "shock" and who could be classed as "trolls". But they're not the norm for the group. And as shocking as it may seem, a lot of the groups Kekistan stands opposed to are worse, both in behavior and in what they mean for society. 

Responding more to the earlier posts (haven't read all the posts after...)
In regards to who one worships...I think many are too judgemental in who they feel is Christian/Saved/etc, and instead of leaving it up to the Lord who is the true and real judge, decide for themselves who is or is not to be saved.
I like C.S Lewis's ideas from the Chronicles of Narnia where Aslan saves one who didn't necessarily believe in Aslan, but did believe in a greater being and as such, what he did in fealty to that, was in likewise fealty to Aslan.
A prime example of this...
When we say Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America...is he really the president?
Do you have to know what he looks like to acknowledge he is president of the United States?  Is it mandatory?
Do you have to understand what his motivations are to recognize him as President of the United States?  If you do not, does that mean you cannot or do not recognize him as President?
Do you have to have a deep personal relationship with him to say he is president of the United States?
If we, as a nation, recognize (whether you voted for him or agree with him or not) that currently, Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America in his current office at this time, how much greater is the reach and power of the Lord for those who believe in him?
In that light, I do feel one could be Muslim and still worship the Lord.  We cannot know the intentions of their heart, but the Lord does.
Even the Muslims (those who bother to even read or adhere to it) have a cautionary verse in their Koran which warns them to be wary of attacking or persecuting the Jew or Christian, for it is possible that they worship Allah.  It is impossible for the good Muslim to know, and hence, great care should be taken in regards to those who are part of those religions.
In that light, I take the idea that we should not judge, perhaps, to strongly, but I feel much as C.S. Lewis that many we might not feel are Christians or worship the Lord will turn out to be worshipping the Lord.
Of course, I also fee that it may be that many we do not think are Christians will turn out to be Christian, and many of those we feel are saved, might not be.  It is not for us to decide...but the Lord.
Thus, in the case of the woman with the hijab...I might have had a more liberal approach than the college did, and acknowledge that while some of the Muslims may worship the same Lord, they do not acknowledge Christ nor his divine role and atonement that was necessary for us all.

I went on an LDS mission, however, at times, when people ask, I will tell them that I served a different sort of mission (for work, actually) across the world.  We didn't do anything with what the LDS would call missionary work, instead doing other things like buildings and such.  I'm an odd sort and find it funny to see their reactions at times when they think I'm skirting the question (which I am) because I didn't serve an LDS mission (though I DID serve an LDS mission) and instead did that.  In effect, I'm neutralizing their arena of questioning (though for the wrong reasons in this case, I know what they are asking, but as they only say mission, I'm doing it for my own depraved entertainment at their cost...though some may never know it).
In likewise, if I had chosen not to have children, and they asked me about it, I'd simply tell them..."We are not able to have children" (and with your husband having a vasectomy, that would be true I think).  "This is not really a topic I enjoy discussing...unless you want to tell me all about your deep personal medical problems involving your privates, inner guts, and other issues".  At that point, either they'll jump to a conclusion (most likely), stop talking and never discuss it again in deep embarrassment, OR...they'll give you a run down on their entire medical history.
If the last one happens, thank them for their very blatant statements, but tell them, it was only being snarky, that you really are NOT as comfortable as they are sharing deep personal items with a stranger (which could also be true).
I had a mother that did NOT like children.  I am grateful I was born...but I will say, in many instances if a woman does NOT like children and does not WANT children, it should be her choice.  She should feel no pressure to have children in that instance because it could turn out to be a very bad thing for some children.  There are times it is better NOT to have children when they are unwanted, then to force oneself to have children in an unwanted situation.

I went on an LDS mission, however, at times, when people ask, I will tell them that I served a different sort of mission (for work, actually) across the world.  We didn't do anything with what the LDS would call missionary work, instead doing other things like buildings and such.  I'm an odd sort and find it funny to see their reactions at times when they think I'm skirting the question (which I am) because I didn't serve an LDS mission (though I DID serve an LDS mission) and instead did that.  In effect, I'm neutralizing their arena of questioning (though for the wrong reasons in this case, I know what they are asking, but as they only say mission, I'm doing it for my own depraved entertainment at their cost...though some may never know it).
In likewise, if I had chosen not to have children, and they asked me about it, I'd simply tell them..."We are not able to have children" (and with your husband having a vasectomy, that would be true I think).  "This is not really a topic I enjoy discussing...unless you want to tell me all about your deep personal medical problems involving your privates, inner guts, and other issues".  At that point, either they'll jump to a conclusion (most likely), stop talking and never discuss it again in deep embarrassment, OR...they'll give you a run down on their entire medical history.
If the last one happens, thank them for their very blatant statements, but tell them, it was only being snarky, that you really are NOT as comfortable as they are sharing deep personal items with a stranger (which could also be true).
I had a mother that did NOT like children.  I am grateful I was born...but I will say, in many instances if a woman does NOT like children and does not WANT children, it should be her choice.  She should feel no pressure to have children in that instance because it could turn out to be a very bad thing for some children.  There are times it is better NOT to have children when they are unwanted, then to force oneself to have children in an unwanted situation.

Well, some of them.  When  got my pilot's license we learned we actually don't want to fly through them unless we've verified via Radar there is no turbulence in them, otherwise it's a good way to get killed.
I think they must have gotten this idea from the period of time right after world war two.  They had all these prop warplanes left over, and every time those planes flew in formation the clouds just blew the other way...
 

Responding more to the earlier posts (haven't read all the posts after...)
In regards to who one worships...I think many are too judgemental in who they feel is Christian/Saved/etc, and instead of leaving it up to the Lord who is the true and real judge, decide for themselves who is or is not to be saved.
I like C.S Lewis's ideas from the Chronicles of Narnia where Aslan saves one who didn't necessarily believe in Aslan, but did believe in a greater being and as such, what he did in fealty to that, was in likewise fealty to Aslan.
A prime example of this...
When we say Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America...is he really the president?
Do you have to know what he looks like to acknowledge he is president of the United States?  Is it mandatory?
Do you have to understand what his motivations are to recognize him as President of the United States?  If you do not, does that mean you cannot or do not recognize him as President?
Do you have to have a deep personal relationship with him to say he is president of the United States?
If we, as a nation, recognize (whether you voted for him or agree with him or not) that currently, Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America in his current office at this time, how much greater is the reach and power of the Lord for those who believe in him?
In that light, I do feel one could be Muslim and still worship the Lord.  We cannot know the intentions of their heart, but the Lord does.
Even the Muslims (those who bother to even read or adhere to it) have a cautionary verse in their Koran which warns them to be wary of attacking or persecuting the Jew or Christian, for it is possible that they worship Allah.  It is impossible for the good Muslim to know, and hence, great care should be taken in regards to those who are part of those religions.
In that light, I take the idea that we should not judge, perhaps, to strongly, but I feel much as C.S. Lewis that many we might not feel are Christians or worship the Lord will turn out to be worshipping the Lord.
Of course, I also fee that it may be that many we do not think are Christians will turn out to be Christian, and many of those we feel are saved, might not be.  It is not for us to decide...but the Lord.
Thus, in the case of the woman with the hijab...I might have had a more liberal approach than the college did, and acknowledge that while some of the Muslims may worship the same Lord, they do not acknowledge Christ nor his divine role and atonement that was necessary for us all.

Dispensation can be several things.  One big item with Dispensations in one sense is that there could be a Big D (Dispensation) and a little d (dispensation).  With the Big D, there are seven Dispensations, each with a Dispensation Head.  Each corresponds to one day, or one millennia...
Now if I can recall it off the top of my head, those Dispensations with their heads would be 1st Mil - Adam.  2nd Mil - Noah. 3rd Mil - Abraham.  4th Mil. - Moses.  5th Mil - The Savior  6th Mil. - Joseph Smith  7th Mil. - the Return of the Lord.
Now, not everyone agrees with this, but this used to be a common teaching...long ago.  Memory evades me, but I think at times Abraham may have been left out, and instead was replaced by Enoch or I may be confusing those two with the Seals that are opened each Millenium.  (edit: Ah, it appears Carborendum touched upon this already, so it appears Enoch is many times counted under Adam's, which makes sense, as well as Enoch's church did not remain on Earth nor did Enoch...sooooo....).
During each of these, they are creating the church anew, or it is when the church is normally gone from most of civilization, and they are there to restore that church and the authority that goes with it to create the church.  Further, each of these Dispensations and Dispensation heads had a special authority to establish something new.  For Adam it would be the race of men.  For Noah, it is to establish the race of men anew, as well as the promises of the Lord (as seen via the Rainbow).  For Abraham it was the promises of prosperity, family, and priesthood again.  For Moses we have the Mosaic law and where we get a majority of the Law we now know.  Through the Savior we received the fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the atonement as well as many other things.  Joseph Smith is the fullness of times and all those keys are restored through him.  When the Millenium comes, it is once again the restoration of all the keys, as well as the fulfillment of the gospel on earth to all men, believed by all men with the Savior reigning.
Now, there is another view that parallels the above very closely, and says the basic same idea, but each is not paralleled to a millennia, but to what is known as the Seven GREAT Dispensations.  It is STILL, however, the Seven Great Dispensations (big D).  In this, the Millenium is not counted as one of those dispensations typically.  In this, there are the seven great Dispensation heads...as I have discussed above, but all of them are included...hence...Adam, Enoch (whose dispensation is no more on Earth, but in heaven), Noah, Abraham, Moses, The Savior and his Apostles, and finally Joseph Smith.
In this, Joseph Smith has the fullness of the dispensation, but Adam is the great Dispensation head, who holds the keys to ALL Dispensations.  I believe it is also that Adam will hand over all these keys to the Savior when he comes again to reign in the Millenium, but I'm not completely clear on this.  Each head of the Dispensation has a special position as they hold the keys, or all the keys specifically for that dispensation, whereas individual leaders and prophets only hold the keys to the church for their time period...if that makes sense.
These then would be the Big D, or the Great Dispensations, of which there are seven, each with it's Dispensation head.
There is also the small d, or dispensations which seems to be the common interpretations now from what I read on LDS.com and from what I've seen at this thread.  These are those who also started or restored the respective churches at the time.  A prime example would be Alma, who established the church among the Nephites (though we know the Nephites already had this gospel...ala...King Benjamin), it was via Alma who we can presume established it in a more organized method with teachers and priests, though at the time it was Mosiah who was the actual seer if I recall right.  Another among the Nephites would be Lehi and Nephi, who established the church among their desendants.  Another Book of Mormon dispensation head would be the Brother of Jared who established the church among the Jaredites. etc....etc...etc...
 Paul, interestingly enough also claimed to be head of a dispensation if I recall right...though memory may be failing on that.
In this, basically, we see as the gospel dictionary states it...
So, it's hard to say exactly in some ways.  The Dispensation heads used to be taught (as I said, a loooong time ago, apparently that has changed in more recent years) in regards to the milleniums they were part of and such, and they made it pretty clear at times who and what they were (though I haven't really gone over this for a while, I think Skousen may touch on some of the heads and their respective milleniums in his thousand year series).  I believe McKonkie also touches on this in his Mormon Doctrine, if you can get your hands on it.

I don't know about the lab and such, but apparently some of them tell you where your background is from (Area of the world and such).  How they do it, or how they supposedly do it, I don't know, just know those two stories which are particularly funny to me.  It could be a false positive, or I think someone said they may have mixed up the results by accident or something (because, those results didn't make any sense, unless it was a joke).

I think what you say makes perfect sense.  I actually agree with you.
HOWEVER, it is not the same thing I'd say to a missionary currently serving.  While I might not make promises, I would probably tell them to work hard and that by working hard they have a better chance at baptizing.
When I served a mission, we had similar promises given to us.  Now, at the time I was in one of the lowest baptizing missions, and that meant my current baptisms per month was also zero (and I think the entire mission had an average of 10-15 baptisms total each month, or it might have been yearly...it was VERY low comparatively to other missions at the time).  Well, I went on a contacting and working frenzy.  I tried to do what they asked to the best of my ability.  Now, I didn't have a ton of baptisms, and our baptisms didn't double (if you double zero, it is still zero), but we finally DID have a baptism. 
Hard work cannot be discounted, and encouraging missionaries to go out there and proselyte cannot be underestimated.  It is their mission at that time, to proselyte and convert. 
Obedience brings blessings, and though it may not be baptisms, it can help develop their own strength in the gospel and build their testimonies to levels they could never imagine.
I have never been a Mission President, and may never be one, but I think that in working with 18 and 19 year olds, if I simply said to work hard and it will help you...it is not going to encourage as many as if I phrased it differently.
When one uses a number, such as, go out and talk to 20 people every day, and your other numbers such as discussions and baptisms will likewise increase, it is something tangible that they can look at and say...hey, I can do that.  Then, they go through the day and count up to 20 as they contact 20 different people.  It gives them something tangible that they can work towards. 
Now, I, of myself, would be more hesitant to promise something like a guaranteed baptism, but then, I'm not a Mission President who has that spirit for their mission who may have the spirit revel that something like that may occur.  Of myself, it may take a great deal to convince me to make any sort of promise like that, but as far as numbers in contacting, or goals with discussions, I can see how that can inspire and motivate young men that are still in their late teens far more than promises of testimony growth and personal enlightenment.
That's probably just me speaking. 
However, I do agree with what you are saying, just not sure that is the way to motivate most teenagers that are on their missions these days.

I think what you say makes perfect sense.  I actually agree with you.
HOWEVER, it is not the same thing I'd say to a missionary currently serving.  While I might not make promises, I would probably tell them to work hard and that by working hard they have a better chance at baptizing.
When I served a mission, we had similar promises given to us.  Now, at the time I was in one of the lowest baptizing missions, and that meant my current baptisms per month was also zero (and I think the entire mission had an average of 10-15 baptisms total each month, or it might have been yearly...it was VERY low comparatively to other missions at the time).  Well, I went on a contacting and working frenzy.  I tried to do what they asked to the best of my ability.  Now, I didn't have a ton of baptisms, and our baptisms didn't double (if you double zero, it is still zero), but we finally DID have a baptism. 
Hard work cannot be discounted, and encouraging missionaries to go out there and proselyte cannot be underestimated.  It is their mission at that time, to proselyte and convert. 
Obedience brings blessings, and though it may not be baptisms, it can help develop their own strength in the gospel and build their testimonies to levels they could never imagine.
I have never been a Mission President, and may never be one, but I think that in working with 18 and 19 year olds, if I simply said to work hard and it will help you...it is not going to encourage as many as if I phrased it differently.
When one uses a number, such as, go out and talk to 20 people every day, and your other numbers such as discussions and baptisms will likewise increase, it is something tangible that they can look at and say...hey, I can do that.  Then, they go through the day and count up to 20 as they contact 20 different people.  It gives them something tangible that they can work towards. 
Now, I, of myself, would be more hesitant to promise something like a guaranteed baptism, but then, I'm not a Mission President who has that spirit for their mission who may have the spirit revel that something like that may occur.  Of myself, it may take a great deal to convince me to make any sort of promise like that, but as far as numbers in contacting, or goals with discussions, I can see how that can inspire and motivate young men that are still in their late teens far more than promises of testimony growth and personal enlightenment.
That's probably just me speaking. 
However, I do agree with what you are saying, just not sure that is the way to motivate most teenagers that are on their missions these days.

According to The Church of Rob Osborn.

20 But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised;
21 Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.
22 Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace; (D&C 138:20-22)
I personally have had dreams about the spirit world and there is an actual separation of places between paradise and hell. In hell it is actually physically dark, a very dark and dingy place. The spirits of the righteous, clothed in power and authority, actually take light with them into the darkness to teach the captives. Some spirits are ready and come into the light and are receptive, others however, still flee and hide from the light. One thing is for certain though, they themselces have no power to come into paradise on their own to be embraced by Gods love and light. Their only path is through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. And even then after that, only after they have paid the penalty required by justice and mercy are they actually released and allowed to go into paradise.

I am NOT a Trump supporter.  I did NOT vote for Trump.  I don't even like how Trump acts many times.  However, I am really sick of how biased the media is against Trump.  If I had the election to do over again, simply due to how biased the media is, I'd be HIGHLY tempted to vote for Trump just because of that.
Now, to the surprise of no one with half a brain, Harvard has a study showing just how biased (or could one say, being more gossip rags rather than news with journalistic integrity) the news media has been. 
Liberal CNBC's article on media bias against Trump
 
 
I put a liberal news site there just so one can see it's not just a verification from a conservative news site.  It's actually kind of ticked me off over the past few weeks on just how much of a vendetta the media has been against Trump.
Look, I don't like Trump, but how the media has treated him actually makes me pretty sick of it, to be honest.  The study probably won't do anything to wake them up, but I sure wish it did, because, even for those like me who don't like Trump, it really hurts the media's credibility with how hard and far out in the field they've gone with their bias.  Maybe this is part of Trumps master plan to make it so, even if I have an unfavorable view of Trump, I'd support him over almost anyone the media would support these days simply because I'm sick of how much they try to control me, and would simply be rebelling against that in my own way.
For example, this entire Russian investigation...look no further than the media.  They are their own worst enemy.  That probably has more of an effect on anything I choose than some sort of slander from Russia.  The bias of the media has done FAR more to make me consider supporting Trump and some of his issues than anything that the Russians probably could do (unless, of course the Russians support NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, and other media outlets...in which case, the FBI should be investigating media ties to Russia far more than any ties Trump may have).
For me, the entire way the media has reacted has basically made me fish harder on the internet for what I would see as valid news, because of how biased they are has hurt their credibility tremendously. 

Guy ends up shot in the park, twice in the chest, once in the head.

This is something I have seen many of those opposing the LDS church doing (not you, I'm talking the people you are calling Critic).  They take sources which historically may not be that reliable, and use it as their primary source.  Their oft loved stone in a hat story of the translation is VERY similar in their sourcing, as well as various other stories they try to use to paint Joseph in a bad light.  They use many sources that were anti-Mormon then and trying to destroy Joseph as their primary sources today.
Sometimes what it boils down to is to tell some member who's read the stuff on line who they believe, Joseph and the apostles that stayed with him and the Mormons after, or those who had dedicated their lives to his and all Mormon's destruction.

Maybe you'll be someone's guardian angel.  Maybe that someone will be a world travelling adventurer that constantly is in need of help to not die (maybe they climb mountains and you'll need to make sure they don't fall from great heights or something stops them from falling, or sailing across great oceans and some angel needs to keep them from dying in the storms as they cross, and then someone to stop the wild beasts or other dangers of the great wilderness from killing this wondrous adventurer, and then you'll need to stop them from getting mugged or lost, or any number of other things in the many vast cities across the globe).  Who knows.  Maybe you're job may be to roam around and see things and help people that you see in need as circumstances dictate...but without letting them see you or know directly that you were there or helped them (though if they have the spirit they may realize something helped them).
Etc...etc..etc...
Who knows.  What some call work, others call play or hobbies, and vice versa.

The only difference I hear then, is the difference between Socialism in the world as it is seen, and that practiced when led by the Lord (and some outside the LDS church would call the Law of Consecration in practice straight up Communism with a theological slant) is that one is led by the Lord, while the other is fallible because of the corruption of men.
In both instances, you are taking from those who have more, and giving it to those who have less.   The idea that you are stealing from one and giving it to another still stands, if one says that applies to socialism.  If you call it theft, it is JUST AS MUCH THEFT when a government led by man does it, as when a government led by the Lord does it.  It doesn't matter who does the taking, it is still someone taking something from you and giving it to another.  It is fallacious to try to claim that one is theft while the other is not.  If one is theft, so is the other.  If one is not theft, the other is not either.
In fact, it is this idea of THEFT that caused great problems among the saints in Missouri when they tried to live the law of consecration.  Instead of seeing it as a system where all men are created equal and are treated as such, those who had more felt it was theft and in some cases even lodged complaints about it against Jospeh (as well with that as in conjunction with the Kirtland banking disaster).  Those who consider it theft in socialism, are not suddenly going to have a change of heart if the Lord comes down and institutes it.  They will STILL CONSIDER IT THEFT no matter WHO is doing the taking and giving out.
The idea that everything does NOT belong to us (the core of selfishness) and instead belongs to the LORD (the core of consecration) is what we should realize.  In the hands of a righteous people, Socialism can work.
In the hands of an evil or corrupt people, Socialism is probably an ill worse than any other form of government (and in that light, is why Communism is so terrible, because it is typically led by the minds of evil and conspiring men instead of enlightened and inspired men).
In fact, a Socialistic idea (and Joseph Smith is considered one of the Early Socialists by many historians, at least Non-LDS ones) may be the BEST form of government when led by Inspired and enlightened men led by the Lord.
I am grateful we don't have to live that law right now, as I have a lot of stuff that probably would be taken from me and given to others, and I am inherently selfish, but I think that Socialism in and of itself is not actually an evil form of government, and in fact may be one of the most inspired ones.  There shouldn't be this class divide between the rich and the poor that we have, and in regards to medicine, it shouldn't be decided that those who have more money are the ones who live, while those who are poor are the ones who die.
All are children of our Father, and all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

I do not know what Osborn is thinking, it may be this or it may be something else.
I am not a scientist either, this was learned because, as a historian, we learn a few scientific things occasionally in relation to what we do.
Carbon dating has a very short half life that gets more unstable in it's accuracy the further along you go back.  Anything under 500 years should be considered mostly accurate.  After that the gaps get larger in how accurate or inaccurate it may be. 
When you get to two thousand years ago, we can still use Carbon dating, but you normally want to use something else to back it up.  For example, if you have a scroll that dates to 30 A.D., you can see that it is the same type of scroll used historically, that the item it was found in was an object in the ground where the dirt layers approximate from that date, the language and forms used on it also approximate from that date...etc...etc...etc...
Overall, for most of written history, carbon dating is utilized and considered mostly efficient. (what I mean by this, is when modern day historians or archaeologists use it to date something, not that they used it for most of history).
There are OTHER forms of chemical dating besides Carbon dating which are much more accurate for things that are thousands, millions, and even billions of years old.  I believe one that is particularly well used is argon dating (potassium-argon dating) for things that date into the tens of thousand to the hundreds of thousands of years old.  Beyond that, though I haven't utilized this one, I believe is the uranium-lead dating which can be used for things that are billions of years in age.

Venezuela's leaders spent the oil money on hookers and blow, while Bolivia's saved and invested theirs.
With wisdom and integrity in the leadership, any economic system can succeed.  However, strong control systems are at a much higher risk of failure as soon as corruption takes hold.  Since we're still waiting for the Incorruptible Guy to step up and take over, don't be surprised if a lot of other socialist countries go the way of Venezuela (or worse, Germany) as soon as they elect a charismatic, corrupt dictator.

if you got the music onto it, how did you get the music onto it in the first place?
With my ipod, I transferred it via iTunes.  ITunes is the BEST CD ripper in the business.  All the music is recorded in a format that most MP3 players can recognize.  You just go to the folder that ITunes has your music in and transfer it by hand directly to that mp3 player.
In addition, you can burn those ripped CD's to a USB or hard drive, then when you reinstall iTunes, transfer that music to your new iTunes folder and then it's a simple drag and drop to have ITunes recognize them.
ITunes got rid of DRM a LONG time ago, so unless your itune music is really old, you should not have any problems transferring music from your old iTunes account to your new iTunes account.
How Easy it is to transfer depends on the size of your ipod.  If it is under 120 GB (so that would be any of the 40GB, 60, GB, 80GB, 120GB, 16GB, 32GB, 64GB) you should be able to fit them all into an equivalent Ipod touch (32GB, 64GB, or 128GB).  If it is under 32GB, I would advise you to get the Ipod Nano which I think is around 32 GB now days.
Then it depends on how you got your music in the first place.  If you got it from ITunes (and you are using the same account), it's as easy as redownloading iTunes and signing into the account and redownloading.  If it was a ripped CD, then you'll have to rip the CD's again.
Other methods, they may be harder, I'm not familiar with the other methods of gaining music so can't tell you how easy or hard it would be.
I'm not really a big techie or know much about technical stuff, but I do enjoy my Ipod and how easy it is to get my music onto it.
The biggest problem you might come across is if you have an Ipod Classic that was 160GB and had filled it up.  Apple no longer makes an Ipod with that much space in it.  The only solution there is very expensive (to get an Iphone 7 with 256 GB that does not have a provider, I think that costs around 800-900 dollars).
 
PS: I did hear of something recently.  They have this usb drive at walmart that I asked about as it has a lightning adapter to it.  The employee there (so who knows how accurate a walmart employee is or isn't) said it doesn't add memory to your ipod, all it does is make space for more music.  It's used as storage, so it transfers songs you want to keep off the ipod onto the storage device.  if it does as the employee stated, perhaps that's another way to get music from one ipod to another?
Don't know, just basing it off of what the employee told me.

Maybe you'll be someone's guardian angel.  Maybe that someone will be a world travelling adventurer that constantly is in need of help to not die (maybe they climb mountains and you'll need to make sure they don't fall from great heights or something stops them from falling, or sailing across great oceans and some angel needs to keep them from dying in the storms as they cross, and then someone to stop the wild beasts or other dangers of the great wilderness from killing this wondrous adventurer, and then you'll need to stop them from getting mugged or lost, or any number of other things in the many vast cities across the globe).  Who knows.  Maybe you're job may be to roam around and see things and help people that you see in need as circumstances dictate...but without letting them see you or know directly that you were there or helped them (though if they have the spirit they may realize something helped them).
Etc...etc..etc...
Who knows.  What some call work, others call play or hobbies, and vice versa.

LOL.  I think there may be quite a few that have that idea.  I think that in the next life, just like in this one, we will all have choices which we will be allowed to make.  It is possible that you will get to choose what you wish to do, and if you work, what type of work you will do.
Of course, considering how few Mormons there are, and how many Non-Mormons there are, if we are so lucky as to attain Spirit Paradise, I imagine that those who choose to work will be EXTREMELY BUSY in the next life.

Something interesting.  Most people who are not Mormon would look at the United Order (Law of Consecration) and call that theocratic socialism.
If you think about it, the Law of Consecration is basically Socialism, but with the idea that it is led by the Lord insteasd of men.
Hence, is the Law of Consecration stealing money and stewardship,a nd if not, what is the difference between Mormon Socialism (Law of Consecration) and that of Socialism we see today...EXCEPT for the idea that the Law of Consecration is driven by the Lord, and that of Socialism is not.
Heck, the Law of Consecration even goes further than most Socialistic governments.  Socialism may restrict what your job choices are, but in the Law of Consecration you are CALLED to the JOB you are supposed to do (it could even be to be a blacksmith where you have no experience nor knowledge of how to do it before your calling to do so under the Law of Consecration!).
Mormon Theocratic Socialism (aka, the United Order utilizing the Law of Consecration) even specifies that when it is in effect, there will be no rich OR poor among them!  It is basically identical to the idea most have regarding Socialism and Socialistic governments (some may consider Communism a sort of different type of copy of it as well, Ezra Taft Benson did, though he considered it a copy inspired by the adversary as a twisted form of the United Order that made men's lives worse, rather than better and was all for capitalism to oppose it!).
How do you justify the United Order or Law of Consecration if one is absolutely against anything that even smells like Socialism?