person0

Okay, this is about faith versus works.  An age-old discussion among Christians.
There's a difference in faith/works discussions between Protestants vs, say, Catholics and Protestants vs Mormons.  The difference is that Mormons believe not only in Salvation but also Exaltation - the 2 are different things.
So, if we're only talking about Salvation - then we are saved by the grace of Christ's atonement.  We can't possibly do so ourselves.  But, we have to first ACCEPT Christ's atonement.  In LDS belief, we make a COVENANT to be worthy of Christ's Atonement and be born again.  This is symbolized by the ordinance of Baptism through the principle of Repentance.  You may consider this as "work".  Born Again Christians would say baptism is work - not necessary for salvation - when they do believe that one must be Born Again - which is some kind of act saying such (which is still some kind of work they just don't call it such).
Baptism (and being Born Again), is of course, an active state not a passive state such that saying you are Born Again and then you go out and murder some old guy on Facebook Live would put into question whether you are truly Born Again.  In the same manner, we renew our Baptismal Covenants every single week and try to keep those covenants all throughout our lives as part of our acceptance of Christ as our personal savior and gain salvation through his Atoning Sacrifice.  We continue to repent if we do something contrary to what we promised in our covenants.  It's an active thing - we accept Christ as our Savior by making that covenant, we mess up breaking the promises we made, so we repent of that mistake and we continue on all of our lives - all of this is part of ONE entire act of Acceptance of the Atonement of Christ.
So... it really doesn't matter if you call it work or whatever... ALL Christians believe in the ACT of having to ACCEPT Christ's Atonement through Repentance and be Born Again to be Saved.
Now, Mormons also believe in Exaltation.  This is something one can attain after one is Saved.  The LDS believe that there are 3 degrees of glory that we may attain through our Works.  This is something that needs further study so I'm not going to go into it here other than to let you know that when Mormons talk about Works (anything beyond keeping our Covenants at Baptism), they usually mean for Exaltation rather than just Salvation.

Specifying a "condition" while saying stating no "condition" is placed upon it is a tad ironic, don't you think?
Condition: Repent (work, something that is required of you) and accept
BUT no one puts a condition on it?
If there truly is no condition, then an individual does not have to "accept" or "repent" -- it is simply given. But then again, this is just rehashing what has already been shared and ignored.

For those who have never read or heard Elder Packer's classic speech, and also for those who have, here it is as an Easter treat.
http://emp.byui.edu/huffr/The Unwritten Order of Things -- Boyd K. Packer.htm

I personally do not place much value on college education (although I have one due to the modern societal requirement).  Quality experience is much more important.  I agree with Walsh as well.  I believe our society should reject modern universities as a whole and mostly return to a 'trade' approach (this could easily help resolve the 'snowflake' problem too!).
Imagine working minimum wage for a company for 4-6 years while being trained and taught in the industry all that you will need to know to be successful in your career.  You come out age 24-26 with zero debt and plenty of skills.  It should not take long for a hard working and capable individual to be able to provide greater value to the company than what they are expending.  If you did not work up to your potential you would be asked to go elsewhere, but you learned it in one paid year rather than after four years and thousands in debt.  Even if it were an unpaid internship that is better than four years of paying for what basically amounts to nothing. 
I went to a business school for a portion of my degree and 3 of my professors had never worked a real job managing, marketing, or doing other business related tasks in their life, which they were supposed to be teaching me how to do.  What programmer comes out of college having learned more from their courses than from their hours of tinkering and working on projects at home?

I have a personal rule, I don't hire family members, nor do I do business with family unless they have a long proven track record of being amazing employee's/owners with other companies/businesses to the extent that I am certain a problem like this would never occur outside of unforeseen depression causing events (i.e. death of spouse/child).
I also don't ever loan money to family.  Either I give them money as a gift, so that there is no repayment, or I don't give them money but point them to resources where I am confident they might obtain it.

Once on my mission we were teaching investigators about eternal marriage and encouraging them to get married.  They had lived together for a few years and had a baby.  Marriage was their main obstacle to baptism and so we counseled with them about eternal marriage.  As it turned out, the husband completely believed in eternal marriage, his hangup that came out right in front of his wife was that he wasn't sure he wanted to be with her for all eternity!!!!!   As soon as he told us that, with his wife right next to him, we were like  . . . come again? 

I completely agree with Walsh. College diplomas have become a racket, and have turned even good universities into diploma mills. "Women's studies"? Really?

I came across an analogy of the atonement I thought worked pretty well.
 
A child was getting piano lessons.  The child had no way to pay for the lessons.  The parent paid for the lesson that the child could in no way do, but then made their own terms for the child.  Namely that the child had to practice every day what was being taught.
Christ is the parent.  We are the child, there is no way we can pay the price for our sins, but we can give Christ what he asks for. And that is for use to practice what he teaches us everyday.

@runewell  The hidden key in this video/parable is that the way the child earned the money in the first place was by doing chores for her parents, who then paid her.  So even though she 'earned' the money, even that part was only accomplished by their love.
Our 'works' are accomplished by the grace of God, through the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, even after we are blessed to be able to accomplish what we can, he still takes care of the rest.  So in essence it is His grace that makes possible 100% of our salvation, but that does not remove our personal responsibility.  There is a great passage from the Book of Mormon relating to this:
 

Jesus offers us a gift. It is the gift of salvation. There is exactly and only one (1) (3-2) way to gain this gift: Christ gives it to you.
Salvation is a gift. Period.
You with me so far?
Now, we are not required to receive this gift. We can accept it or reject it, just as we choose. We are not forced to be saved. We choose whether to accept salvation.
Still with me?
So, how does one accept Christ's salvation? Is it by saying, "Yea, Lord, I believe! Save me, Jesus!"
Nope. That alone does nothing. As the Lord very clearly taught in Matthew 7:21-23:
Merely invoking the name of Jesus as a magical talisman against eternal death doesn't do a thing.
Still with me? I hope so.
So what's the answer? If merely saying "Lord, Lord" doesn't gain us salvation, what does? How do we accept Christ's gift? Again, the Lord himself answered this very clearly in John 14:15:
So there is your answer, runewell. Keep the Lord's commandments, and you will be saved. Don't keep the Lord's commandments, and you will not be saved.
Period.
Hope that's clear now.
 

@runewell  The hidden key in this video/parable is that the way the child earned the money in the first place was by doing chores for her parents, who then paid her.  So even though she 'earned' the money, even that part was only accomplished by their love.
Our 'works' are accomplished by the grace of God, through the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, even after we are blessed to be able to accomplish what we can, he still takes care of the rest.  So in essence it is His grace that makes possible 100% of our salvation, but that does not remove our personal responsibility.  There is a great passage from the Book of Mormon relating to this:
 

@runewell  The hidden key in this video/parable is that the way the child earned the money in the first place was by doing chores for her parents, who then paid her.  So even though she 'earned' the money, even that part was only accomplished by their love.
Our 'works' are accomplished by the grace of God, through the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, even after we are blessed to be able to accomplish what we can, he still takes care of the rest.  So in essence it is His grace that makes possible 100% of our salvation, but that does not remove our personal responsibility.  There is a great passage from the Book of Mormon relating to this:
 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2030-parable-of-the-bicycle?lang=eng
It's really not that complicated.

We are saved by grace, not by whatever acts we may perform. Even ordinances alone don't save us. Of course I agree with that.
This is untrue, runewell.
Paul did not say that works were unnecessary for salvation. For example, repentance is a "work", without which you cannot be saved. Paul taught the obvious truth that we cannot save ourselves. Our petty acts of worship, prayer, repentance, baptism -- none of those will save us. Only the blood of Christ will save us.
So how do we gain the blood of Christ? By accepting Christ and loving him.
How do we accept and love Christ? He told us: By doing as he told us to do.
Christ told us to be baptized -- a work, without which we cannot be saved.
Christ told us to repent -- a work, without which we cannot be saved.
Christ told us to be perfect -- a monumental work, without which we cannot be saved.
Why can't we be saved without such things? Because such things are what is meant by "coming unto Christ" and "accepting the atonement". Remember Matthew 7:21:
Yes, that's right. Jesus himself taught the necessity of works. How about that?

You're an expert on the ancient Roman penal system?
Apparently Christ did.  And perhaps you should be looking for beams.
There's another forum here for discussing generic Christian beliefs.  If you wish to discuss the differences between your beliefs and LDS beliefs, you should initiate a discussion over there. (PS: If you're hoping to convince a bunch of faithful Mormons that they've got it wrong, you're in for an exercise in futility.  If you want to have a civilized discussion on differences in belief, then that other forum is the place to be.  If you want to understand what we believe, this is a good place for it, but you're not asking for clarification / explanation, you're arguing we don't understand (but we do understand, and our understanding is different from what you believe about this event).)
I say all that not to discourage discussion, but to save you time and headache in whatever your discussion goals are.

No, it is not equally absurd. I'm amazed that you would think so. Preaching Christianity is a capital offense in some parts of the world. Do I then assume that you think preaching Christianity is an evil thing?
Where did the phrase "doing all they could do" come from? I haven't seen it in this thread until just now.

I'm not sure how this is a "Mormon" cultural problem. Seems more like a people problem. Specifically, a young people problem.

@runewell In my experience most Christians of other faiths do not understand the word 'works' the same way we do (which contributes to confusion in their faith vs works perspective).  Most people do not realize that prayer, repentance, scripture studies, and every other gospel related action, are all works.  I was talking to a former employer one time about faith vs works and he finally told me about how giving to the poor, etc was his idea of works and I came to the realization that he did not interpret it the way we do (even though he acknowledged that those things were important commandments).
My perspective is that works (in the gospel) is anything that you do with your mind or body to take action that leads you to Christ.  So as @Carborendum said, the very fact that he was admitting guilt and acknowledging the Savior is in itself a work.

Once on my mission we were teaching investigators about eternal marriage and encouraging them to get married.  They had lived together for a few years and had a baby.  Marriage was their main obstacle to baptism and so we counseled with them about eternal marriage.  As it turned out, the husband completely believed in eternal marriage, his hangup that came out right in front of his wife was that he wasn't sure he wanted to be with her for all eternity!!!!!   As soon as he told us that, with his wife right next to him, we were like  . . . come again? 

I have a personal rule, I don't hire family members, nor do I do business with family unless they have a long proven track record of being amazing employee's/owners with other companies/businesses to the extent that I am certain a problem like this would never occur outside of unforeseen depression causing events (i.e. death of spouse/child).
I also don't ever loan money to family.  Either I give them money as a gift, so that there is no repayment, or I don't give them money but point them to resources where I am confident they might obtain it.

Hello.  I'm new in the forum.  I am LDS.  I joined because I enjoy gospel discussions and don't get to scratch the itch as often as I would like. Not sure what else to say but feel free to ask!

And herein we see the lack of understanding.  In the languages I know which have two second-person pronouns, their use is divided as follows (note: I'm merging three languages, there are subtle differences, but I'm just merging them into general rules; and as was said elsewhere in this thread, there are cultural/familial exceptions):
1) The familiar (tu, ты, thou) is used:
For those in your family For close friends For peers / equals (fellow students, co-workers) Underlings (children, teacher to student, boss to employee) When used with strangers, it's generally an insult (implies they're subordinate to you) (it is always singular) 2) The formal (usted, вы, you) is used:
As the plural (you all) regardless of relationships For those in authority over you (employee to boss, student to teacher, child to adult, citizen to police officer) For strangers (as a sign of respect) Given these general guidelines, it's not at all surprising or contradictory to use the same term respectfully when speaking to our Father, and dismissively when addressing Satan.

I like most of what you said, however, the EQP has exactly 0 stewardship in this situation.  The keys the EQP holds have nothing to do with this woman's issue.  His stewardship only applies as it pertains to Home Teaching for this family, but not the Young Women's leaders because they are a side organization not a subordinate organization.  He is not the person to go to at all, unless he is their friend and they just want some friendly advice (but isn't that why they posted here?).

Just because even righteous men struggle with keeping a law of God, does not mean, nor even hint at the idea that the law will not apply.
If even just 1 righteous priesthood holder were to abide his covenant with 2 spouses then the marriage is eternal in relation to both spouses (the spouses could be at different times due to death).  If this happens just once, then plural marriage will be applicable in the Celestial Kingdom (even if only for a righteous few).  I tend to believe that there will be more than just a handful of sufficiently righteous practitioners of plural marriage by the time all is said and done.  Also, in terms of agency, when we are resurrected to a celestial glory, filled with righteousness and our desires are to the Kingdom of God and to abiding the principles of eternity, who will even care about plural marriage?  Will wives bicker and complain about it?  No.  Will husbands lustfully seek it?  No.  In every applicable situation will it be entered into and eternal for the right reasons?  Yes.  I seriously doubt anyone will have an issue with it once we get to that day, and there is more evidence to suggest that it will be applicable eternally than that it wont.
Also, in relation to David and Solomon: 
I would venture to say that it is more likely that the Lord is revealing information line-upon-line when speaking to the Nephites regarding plural marriage.  He had not issued a commandment to them to practice polygamy, they still wanted an excuse because of David and Solomon.  Even though David and Solomon had initially entered into many marriage covenants righteously, they also did "things which they did not receive of [the Lord]", therefore, He could righteously reveal only this precept to the Nephites because it is what they needed to hear in order to repent since they received no such commandment.

I like most of what you said, however, the EQP has exactly 0 stewardship in this situation.  The keys the EQP holds have nothing to do with this woman's issue.  His stewardship only applies as it pertains to Home Teaching for this family, but not the Young Women's leaders because they are a side organization not a subordinate organization.  He is not the person to go to at all, unless he is their friend and they just want some friendly advice (but isn't that why they posted here?).