brotherofJared

Again, the question isn't just about the wrong way to worship, it's about what God is going to do about it on judgment day. I fully agree with you about wrong ways to worship. I believe worshiping a 3 in 1 God is just as wrong as thinking that Jesus is only a prophet. There is enough support for that idea from the Bible, that many who also claim to believe the Bible also believe that Jesus wasn't God. 
So, there is only one truth about who and what God is. Everything else is wrong. But given what we know, i don't think it is realistic to condemn one person who things God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or 1 but that one isn't Jesus because there is no absolute proof which of these He is. I'm not aware that Jesus condemned anyone for their ignorance. What it all boils down to is men condemning other men because they don't happen to believe the same way. It's not something that God would do.

Yes. I concede that there are wrong ways to worship. When that worship includes breaking the commandments of God, then it is wrong. But I understood the discussion was about our understanding of who and what God is. In that sense, it does not matter if a person thinks God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or a great spirit, nor does it matter what His name is, whether one person calls Him Allah and another person calls him Father or another person calls him by any other name. In this, there is no wrong way to worship. It doesn't even matter if our prayers to such a being are scripted or free form, but taking the life of another person as a form of worship is wrong or if that worship broke any of the other commandments of God as part of that worship.

Again, the question isn't just about the wrong way to worship, it's about what God is going to do about it on judgment day. I fully agree with you about wrong ways to worship. I believe worshiping a 3 in 1 God is just as wrong as thinking that Jesus is only a prophet. There is enough support for that idea from the Bible, that many who also claim to believe the Bible also believe that Jesus wasn't God. 
So, there is only one truth about who and what God is. Everything else is wrong. But given what we know, i don't think it is realistic to condemn one person who things God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or 1 but that one isn't Jesus because there is no absolute proof which of these He is. I'm not aware that Jesus condemned anyone for their ignorance. What it all boils down to is men condemning other men because they don't happen to believe the same way. It's not something that God would do.

I was making a cynical objection to the statement to the quoted reason why people leave the church. I believe people leave the church because they have no reason to keep going. I've been through a lot of situations where going to church is an uphill battle. Several times, there has been nothing to entice me to return, no spiritual food, so-to-speak. I get more from personal study than I do from church and I can't share what I've learned because everyone else poo poo's my observations. Sitting in Sunday School is like sitting in a room full of bobbleheads. But I still go. There is a reason for that and, unfortunately, it's not a reason that I could bottle and replicate. I did all the things opposite of what I was told would give me the answers I was seeking and still the reason for my hope came. Sadly, after I'm homebound, I know no one from the church will come visit me. I won't get the sacrament or get to listen to any more dry and boring unprepared talks from fledgling members of the church. It seems odd that I'd miss that, but I think I would.
Sorry, I was prognosticating there and not really addressing your statement. In response, I will go back to a statement I made in answer to another comment. The reason they leave is because there's no reason to keep going. He has a lot of questions, really means, he's not getting any answers ... to anything.  That could be a result of some personal issue. We could blame it on pornography or internet game playing or blogging on LDS sites, but if the man has a lot of questions, that means he's getting more questions than answers and church isn't filling that gap. I don't believe any of those things I listed for reasons he's not getting answers are valid. Lots of people who do all those things still go to church and will continue until they are homebound. It could be his own doing but it could also be spiritual starvation, like deer who starved to death with their bellies full of hay.
It's okay if we disagree. I'm fine with that. Tell me, when you pointed out that man didn't really have any questions, do you think that helped him or do you think that helped alienate him? 

We are not monotheistic and that is not our doctrine. The Godhead is three gods, three beings who are one in purpose.
I don't know what others believe on this board, but no one, that I know of, has ever claimed that we are monotheists in the strictest sense. Anyone who tries to make that claim is either unaware of his blunder or is trying to find common ground between the beliefs of other Christian teachings and our teachings. We believe that God, The Father, has a body of flesh and bone just as Jesus has a body of flesh and bone. Both are resurrected beings.

Hopefully, you will note that before the three are defined as one, there is one who is called God who is infinite and eternal. There IS A God and then there are three beings who ARE ONE God. @Traveler gave an excellent example of divine investiture of the supreme being and his vassals. In this sense, any one of the three is the same as the one God in heaven who is infinite and eternal... Certainly, there all three of them together would constitute the same authority as the one God mentioned in verse 17.

I did teach that to my class and they all revolted. Now I'm not in the EQ presidency anymore. LOL
.The temple endowment clearly shows a movement up and down the rungs and as far as I can see, there is no difference between Romney's and Smith's statements concerning the rungs of Jacob's ladder. These are all temple related. As I was thinking about this, we symbolize the Terrestrial world in the temple, but in reality we are still in a telestial world. IOW, when we go to the temple, we repeatedly climb that ladder only to return to our telestial world.
Joseph also indicated that by sealing our posterity, family, in the temple, we can reach through the eternities and bring them with us or words to that effect. The idea is that a lost son or daughter can be recovered from their condition and brought up with us. How is this possible if Bruce's concept of being locked into a particular kingdom is correct. We already know that many who will live in the telestial kingdom will arrive there after spending time in hell.
The workings of life hereafter is not well known and there is very little doctrine concerning it. However, it is evident that many have asked questions about it and some have obtained answers that, when it was received, it was significant enough to be included in the scriptures. Two instances come to mind, though there are many subtle statements, mostly made in parables, but the two that come to mind are Joseph Fielding Smith's preaching to gospel to the dead and Alma the Younger's explanation about the state of the soul betwixt the time of death and the resurrection. Outside of these, there is precious little so everything else is speculation.
 I personally think McConkie taught the gospel according to McConkie. He said several things that I just can't accept, so I wouldn't rely on him as the final word on anything. He is one GA who has had to apologize for more statements than any other GA I know, but a lot of members still accept what he said as gospel and I think that is why I had such a hard time with my lesson. The source of my topic actually came from Elder Oaks' talk referring tot he woman who wanted to know if she would have a separate house or would have to live with her husband's other wife in the same house. The gist of that talk was that we not dwell on speculation nor teach it in our classes. Specifically, he stated that such conversations are ok for small intimate groups but are inappropriate for a public discourse. 
Joseph Fielding Smith made this statement: 
Those born under the covenant, throughout all eternity, are the children of their parents. Nothing except the unpardonable sin, or sin unto death, can break this tie. If children do not sin as John says, "unto death," the parents may still feel after them and eventually bring them back near to them again....
If this is true, it seems that parents can reach their children and bring them up with them. How is this possible without the possibility of moving up from one capacity to another, from one glory to another? Joseph Smith said pretty much the same thing in the KFD. He said this continues until the resurrection. It would have to also continue in the spirit world in that time between death and the resurrection. The question then becomes, when is the resurrection and frankly, I don't think anyone can specify when the last resurrection will be, but I suspect will will be a sufficient time for every person who will have lived on this earth to accept or reject the teachings of Christ. We cannot force anyone to do something they don't want to do. I personally believe that every person will obtain the kingdom they are willing to accept the principles that govern that kingdom. 
We might think that given the chance, everyone will want to do what God does, but I don't think that's true. What God does is hard. It's painful and comes along with a lot of grief, but it also comes along with a lot of inexplicable joy. There are some people who simply are not willing pay the price.The joy they have without the grief is enough.
And what about those who had the truth here and then turned away? That is not really a subject we can judge. I know we teach there are no second chances, but how can we say who really had it the first time? We can't. I would never suggest that anyone decide on these ideas that they can let go of the iron rod and play in the mist of darkness because even if they ende up in the great and spacious building, they might still have a chance at celestial glory. Those who are on the right path have so much the advantage over those who never had it and over those who decided to take a vacation from it.
I am curious about what others have said on this subject... Good topic.

I think it's interesting to note that his son also had differing views.

I was making a cynical objection to the statement to the quoted reason why people leave the church. I believe people leave the church because they have no reason to keep going. I've been through a lot of situations where going to church is an uphill battle. Several times, there has been nothing to entice me to return, no spiritual food, so-to-speak. I get more from personal study than I do from church and I can't share what I've learned because everyone else poo poo's my observations. Sitting in Sunday School is like sitting in a room full of bobbleheads. But I still go. There is a reason for that and, unfortunately, it's not a reason that I could bottle and replicate. I did all the things opposite of what I was told would give me the answers I was seeking and still the reason for my hope came. Sadly, after I'm homebound, I know no one from the church will come visit me. I won't get the sacrament or get to listen to any more dry and boring unprepared talks from fledgling members of the church. It seems odd that I'd miss that, but I think I would.
Sorry, I was prognosticating there and not really addressing your statement. In response, I will go back to a statement I made in answer to another comment. The reason they leave is because there's no reason to keep going. He has a lot of questions, really means, he's not getting any answers ... to anything.  That could be a result of some personal issue. We could blame it on pornography or internet game playing or blogging on LDS sites, but if the man has a lot of questions, that means he's getting more questions than answers and church isn't filling that gap. I don't believe any of those things I listed for reasons he's not getting answers are valid. Lots of people who do all those things still go to church and will continue until they are homebound. It could be his own doing but it could also be spiritual starvation, like deer who starved to death with their bellies full of hay.
It's okay if we disagree. I'm fine with that. Tell me, when you pointed out that man didn't really have any questions, do you think that helped him or do you think that helped alienate him? 

If you keep reliving the same life, and are never able to make the commitment to achieve Celestial worthiness, isn't it the same thing, whether it happens once or a thousand times, the outcome is the same.

Some differences, and I would argue that they might be significant differences, are that D&C 76 also includes some information about a kingdom that is not a kingdom of glory, which is an idea completely absent in Jacob's vision, (verses 25 - 46 of section 76)  and Doctrine and Covenants also describes the characteristics of those who will go to each kingdom. But its not only the vision that we need to consider, but also how it is interpreted. The interpretation by Brother McConkie of Joseph Smith's interpretation of Jacob's vision includes the idea that the ladder represented not just three kingdoms, but that it also "represented progression from telestial to terrestrial, and from terrestrial to celestial degrees of glory."  This idea of progression is not readily apparent in either the original recording of Jacob's vision, in Genesis, or in the visions recorded in D&C 76        

I know some on this site are not fond of some of the progressive ramblings elsewhere in the bloggernacle, but I recall a post by historian Johnathan Stapley where he talks a little about who taught what as to progression between kingdoms https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/05/22/plans-of-salvation/ He includes Elder McKonkie that is cited in the OP, but he also cites a few other apostles and authorities who were less concerned with progression between kingdoms. Because of Elder McKonkie published Mormon Doctrine and other, it seems that his opinions and teachings carry a lot of weight in our late 20/early 21st century beliefs, but I find it interesting that others before him seemed to have different views.

The most official statement I know if is canonized in the D&C section 20. Read verses 17 to 28. Highlights:
verse 17, "by this we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal..."
verse 21, "...the Almighty God gave His Only Begotten Son..."
verse 27, "...the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son."
concluding in verse 28, "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen."
There's no discussion of ousia or any attempt to talk about the philosophy of what it means to be three in one and one in three. Beyond that, I am unaware of any official, prophetic statements that try to explain exactly what we mean by three in one, one in three. You can find various statements by individual apostles and prophets about the Nicene Creed or what they believe we mean by three in one, one in three. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of anything that will rise to the philosophical rigor of Nicea or subsequent theologians who have thought in great depth about it.
I will be interested in others' responses to this query as well to see what statements and such that they choose to reference. For me, I find the statement in the D&C sufficient to declare myself monotheistic while still finding myself confused and befuddled at mystery that is a single three in one one in three God.

I believe you are missing the ancient Near Mid Eastern Suzerain - Vassal treaties defining Kingdoms and the concept that man is fallen and exiled from the Kingdom of heaven.  Because this idea of Kingdoms is not a modern concept and also because the ancient Suzerain - Vassal law or covenants were significantly modified - both by the Roman empire and the feudal system of the Dark Ages there are misconceptions in our Western Culture of the covenant relationship between a Suzerain and their legal Vassal(s).  In all cases in scripture G-d the Father is presented as the Supreme Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven and Jesus Christ (Messiah) is presented as the Vassal and appointed King (G-d or ruler) of fallen man.  I challenge anyone - especially @prisonchaplain to find and present a single example in Scripture to invalidate the Suzerain - Vassal law of the Near Mid Eastern Kingdoms which defined and illustrated the purpose and meaning of a Kingdom when the Old Testament and New Testament were preserved.
As I posted the term "Ehad" specifically demands that relationship.  In addition Jesus never implied or referred to himself as "equal" to the Father but rather in all cases he refers to himself in terms to designate that he is the Vassal of the Supreme Suzerain and one (similar to one in marriage).   I would point out that as a "Mediator" of the Supreme Suzerain and under the Law - a Vassal had full "power of attorney" to act as the Supreme Suzerain and would also speak in the first person as if they were the Supreme Suzerain.   This was not confusing to the subjects of the "lessor" kingdom.  For example at the trial of Christ the Jews (citizens of a lessor kingdom to Rome) cry out "We have no King but Cesar".  One might ask, "Who then was Herod?"  Because Herod was the appointed Vassal of the Supreme Suzerain (Cesar) he was not consider a different or another king other than Cesar - but in our modern culture and understanding Cesar was a King and a different person from Cesar.  It would be folly to say that this event in scripture proves that Cesar and Herod were really one individual acting in separate roles. 
That Jesus Christ is the Son of G-d, the only begotten of the Father and the Mediator are all terms that full substantiate and validate the modern revelation that there is a Kingdom of Heaven from which mankind is fallen and governed by  a Vassal of the Supreme Suzerain that is the Son of G-d that is the Supreme Suzerain.  I purport that this is the only consistent concept of the relationship of the 3 persons of the G-dhead presented in the Holy and Sacred scriptures.  I would also point out that the various creeds of traditional Christianity that attempt to redefine this sacred relationship - is not scripture but the desperate creation of men for the single purpose to redefine what was scripture for thousands of years.
 
The Traveler

Interestingly, that is almost the exact same answer I got from a 7th day Adventist preacher when I asked him a different question with a similar principle foundation.  I asked something along the lines of, "Jim is shipwrecked and doesn't know what day it is but wants to keep the Sabbath day Holy.  He makes a calendar, has a private worship service, and observes the sabbath every 7th day, however, it turns out that, unintentionally, his 7th day is Wednesday.  Will God reject his sabbath adherence because he didn't know which day was the real 7th day?"  The preacher's response was that in that situation he believes God would reveal the correct Sabbath day to the man.  Personally, I disagree that would be God's default response, although I don't reject it as impossible.
Overall, I get where you're coming from;  I agree in principle, but disagree on timeline (clearly, as I believe in baptism for the dead). 
I think this is key, and I agree with this statement 100%, but I think we may disagree on the 'real world' application of this statement.
Once again, gospel of person0 here but, I believe God often avoids revealing the truth of things to those who do not have 'ears to hear'.  Take someone like you, for example: Part of the reason I would never suggest that you could be limited to Terrestrial Glory based on your current rejection of the Restored Gospel is because, for all I know, God has intentionally withheld revealing the truth of the Book of Mormon to you by the power of the Holy Ghost because He knows you are not willing to accept it, or in your words, would be 'resisting the Spirit and pridefully clinging to error'.  Now, please don't mistake this as an accusation against you.  I merely wish to demonstrate how I think our Father loves us so much that he sometimes obscures information from the unprepared in order to reduce their personal liability for knowingly rejecting the truth.  Hence, 'he who hath ears to hear, let him hear'.
On a similar but somewhat different note: As a missionary, the parents of a family I was teaching literally told me to my face (admittedly, after pulling it out of them) that they had not, and would not pray about the Book of Mormon because, if God revealed it to be true, they would have to change, and that was something they were not prepared to do.
Sometimes that's the best answer any of us can give.  🙂

This statement makes no sense to me at all. I'm not sure how it answers the question, what difference does it make?

Again, if God is invisible, then what difference does it make? The Bible makes a pretty good argument for three beings in the Godhead. If one worships as Jesus taught, what difference would it make if those who worshiped Him understood him to be three beings or one being?

Embrace the "difficulty" or "mystery". Well, two of the three here are being led into serious error, so it seems that we should at least get this right. "LDS" hold to the definition that Paul gave to the Corinthians. "to us, there is but one God, the Father...". That statement was made in reference to many gods and it specifically called out Jesus as Lord out of many lords. I believe that would be the Biblical middle ground. Funny thing is, I don't think all members of our church understand that and, from experience, I've learned that not very many people like to be corrected.
This is my understanding of what we believe... we worship one God, the Father. It is to Him that Jesus Christ leads us to and directs us to, if we follow him. Jesus is also God. If it was not so, He could not bring us to His Father. The Godhead is one in unity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are each separate individual Gods in the Godhead. We do not single out any other member of the Godhead to receive special attention. I'm sure we will when we are in the presence of one of them and rightly so, But Christ, according to the Bible, directed our worship, not to himself, but to His Father and our Father, His God, and our God.
 

Now, it's even more difficult for me. 

This makes me wonder why anyone still goes to this church. Everyone sins.
I have to disagree. Sin is not the cause of people leaving the church. I think they leave the church because they had a question and didn't get an answer that satisfied them. People remain active in church as long as their questions do not become the focus of their satisfaction. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered right now. Most people who face these questions and stay are willing to accept that we don't have all the answers and will wait for a brighter day. Some people just ignore their questions and some people make their questions a hill they are willing to die over. It seems that once a person is confronted with the dilemma of a void instead of an answer, the wound festers and gets infected so that after a time, all the person can see is all that is wrong or is perceived to be wrong with the church.
But there are some who leave because they can do better outside the church than they can inside the church, I mean money-wise. There is the lure of instant popularity among a group of people who are very hungry for dirty laundry. I was listening to one disaffected member who spent a good deal of time explaining to these hungry listeners about how he cheated on his wife because the Holy Ghost told him too. I had to wonder how far these people were willing to go to get their dirt. He was very popular even though he wasn't a person who I would think was trustworthy.
 

Well, it appears that no one understands it well enough to explain it.
I understand the marriage covenant. That's pretty straight forward. I believe being born in the covenant entitles the children to the same blessings that the parents have through the parents, so I assume that being sealed does the same thing in that regard. A temple marriage should be unbroken and dependable. I believe it is the ideal model of what a family should have... a father and mother who works together for the salvation of their children as well as their own. But the sealing is also genealogical, connecting the family of Adam to the family of God, parents to children down through all the generations of time. This latter sealing cannot be broken even by divorce. It is the same as blood relations. The natural parents of a child will always be the parents of that child regardless of whether or not they stay married. Divorce makes this extremely complicated and thus it is not ideal. For example, I have two stepchildren. I am not biologically related to either even though they refer to me as one of their parents. Having them sealed to me would effectively make me their parent spiritually which, I'm guessing, is as effective as a biological connection.
My confusion and concern was about what happens when that spiritual connection is broken between husband and wife. From my statement, it appears that it would be the same as a biological connection between natural parents and children after divorce. They are both still the parents of the children even though the parents are not together. That being said, the children could obtain a new set of spiritual parents, if, for example, the wife married another man in the temple and had the children sealed to them. That would be discomforting.
This, of course, complicates matters even more. I think it best to follow Pres Oaks' recommendation that we lean not unto our own understanding. For now, I'm happy with inaction pending further light and knowledge.

Why would the cause of saying one thing is true be any different than saying the other thing is true? If a person is compelled by social mores to say "I know the church is true", what is to say that saying, "I know that Jesus Christ lives", is not also compelled by social mores?
Further, I have to question what one means when they say, "I know the church is true". To me, it includes, "I know Jesus Christ lives" as well as, "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet" and "I know that this is Christ's church". But I don't know if it means the same thing to everyone who says it. 

I offer the following thought: As far as I can tell, children are not sealed to their individual parents, but rather sealed within their parents' eternal marital union. My understanding is that the only one-to-one sealing is that of husband and wife.

I haven't read the article yet, but here are my thoughts on salvation vs exaltation. I believe they are relative with respect to the person receiving the glory. Those who obtain a Terrestrial glory will be happy and, quite frankly, will have most of what non-LDS Christians expect. From my point of view, they will receive their salvation. The same is true of those who receive a telestial glory. These are weights of glory, but to be exalted, by the meaning of the word, implies a much greater weight of glory, the highest glory. While all of these beings who receive glory, they cannot consider themselves exalted, but for us, being exalted is salvation because that is what we teach salvation is.
Unfortunately, it creates a culture within the church that those who aren't married are less than those who are. We struggle to overcome that, but the culture still exists. I don't believe that in the kingdom of God, single persons who dwell there will be treated any less than those who are married. They accomplished all that was expected of them, certainly; they are no less perfect than anyone who is married. The only differences between them are that one will have glory added upon them and the other not and that one will continue is pain and sorrow and the other not. The cost of glory is a heavy one.