Sunday School Lesson Recap: When Does Revelation (Personal and Prophetic) Normally Come

Last Sunday, we wrapped up the monthly theme of "Prophets and Revelation" by focusing on two scriptural stories that describe very different situations but the same action: killing someone else. I used these stories (Abraham & Isaac and Nephi & Laban) to explore what revelation really means and when people generally receive revelation, specifically to address personal revelation in the future of each of the students.

We started by revisiting the story of Abraham being tempted to kill Isaac. (See last week's lesson for a discussion of the word "tempt" in the scriptural account.)  I asked everyone to pinpoint the "revelation" in this story - to tell me what the revelation was. One of the students immediately answered: "Obedience brings blessings." I pointed out that the story can lead to a lesson about obedience, but obedience wasn't the revelation - since obedience had been taught for a long time prior to that moment. At that point, they were stumped, so I altered the question a bit to be: "What was revealed to Abraham that had been hidden / unknown previously?" After some discussion, they understood that the revelation was that human / child sacrifice was to be discarded as a form of worship - and that animal sacrifice was to take its place.

So, in a very real way, the revelation in the story was a clear statement of what would be worded in Moses' time as:

"Thou shalt not murder (your children)" - with an additional understanding of the Atonement that Abraham hadn't possessed previously.

We then turned to the account of Nephi and Laban, and I asked again what the revelation was in this story. Since nobody could answer that immediately, we read the main verses in 1 Nephi 4 that talk about it. We talked about what it means to be "constrained" ("confined; restrained; compelled; etc."). We talked about Nephi's reaction to the idea that he needed to kill Laban ("No way! I've never killed anyone and can't do it.") - and then we talked about the difference between that reaction and Abraham's reaction first thing the next morning. ("Okay, let's get going so I can do this.")

We discussed the concept that Abraham had to be "constrained" NOT to kill Isaac (since he was inclined naturally by his upbringing to kill his son), while Nephi had to be constrained TO kill Laban (since he lived with a long-time practice of animal sacrifice, not human sacrifice) - and how the Isaac story might have been different if Abraham had reacted like Nephi did. (Since the change in sacrificial ordinance was the intended outcome, God might have gone ahead and revealed that to Abraham right away, without all the drama.)

We read the verses that explain Nephi's justifications of his actions, ending with the "revelation" (the new understanding) in verse 13:

It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

I pointed out that, up until the time when Nephi was faced with doing something he would not have done naturally, he simply was "honoring his father" and "being a good son". His dad told him they needed to get the plates, so he tried to do that. They asked for the plates, and they tried to buy the plates. Finally, he went into the city on his own and discovered Laban passed out drunk. It only was when he was faced with killing Laban (something that went beyond being a good son) that he was able to see WHY he had to get the plates - beyond the generic, "God commanded it." The revelation wasn't the command to get the plates; rather, it was gaining an understanding of the reason for the command.

In Abraham's situation, likewise, the revelation came ONLY when he was ready to do something that he didn't understand naturally - NOT killing his son. He had "gone through the motions" of blind obedience and, unlike Nephi, had to be stopped from killing because he followed his natural instincts rather than thinking and questioning first.

(Note: I think there is a very reasonable justification for Nephi killing Laban, especially for that time period and the overall story.  I wrote that post this past Wednesday.)

Finally, to follow the concept of really studying scriptures to understand the people, their stories and the actions of prophets (not just what they taught), I briefly summarized (since we were almost out of time) the story of King Mosiah changing the government structure at the end of his life.

1) Mosiah had taken leadership of a people more numerous than the Nephites. That simple fact opens all kinds of issues relative to his government-altering actions before he died.

2) If one of his sons wasn't going to take his place, there was a good chance that one of the people of Mulek who already was influential and popular would do so - especially if the kingship was determined by popular vote. Again, it is stated clearly in the text that the people of Mulek greatly outnumbered the descendants of Nephi in that area. In fact, the moment Mosiah's sons rejected the throne (and Alma the Younger also did), those other influential Mulekite contenders might have started agitating for the position very quickly.

3) Nehor is described as being another King Noah, in philosophy and intent. Amalici was one of his disciples. They are said to have gained a following FAR too quickly to have started a grass-roots campaign from scratch at the end of Mosiah's life.

4) If Mosiah knew either of them was likely to become the king, it would have provided the best possible motivation to change the system.

5) If you think about it, the best possible reason for Nehor, and then Amlici, to be extremely upset and demand what they had assumed they would attain would have been what they would have seen as an attempt to perpetuate the minority rule of the Nephites over them. Consider the situation in some Islamic countries even today; there are striking parallels.

6) It's easy to condemn Nehor and Amlici, given the descriptions we have of them, and I'm not trying to endorse them in any way - but it's harder to realize that they might have had a very compelling legal argument and an incredibly strong emotional appeal to a majority people ruled by those of the minority.

Many things are more complex than we tend to assume - and many things in the Book of Mormon are pretty amazing when looked upon a bit more comprehensively than we tend to do.

I emphasized that prophets often do things not from revelation (though Mosiah wasn't a prophet, he might have seen his decision as revelatory) but rather from a perceived need at the time. [Another example I didn't share in the class would be Moses' interaction with the daughters of Zelophehad - where he first allowed them to keep the lands of their inheritance when they married (since their father had died without having sons) and then restricted them to marrying only someone in their own tribe (so their tribe would not lose the lands of their father's inheritance when they married).] There is nothing wrong with leaders making non-revelatory decisions, since leaders often have to make decisions for organizations on their own, based on their best understanding - but we need to be careful not to confuse those decisions and personal views as "revelation" and accept everything they do and say, by default, as the pure word of God.

I ended the lesson by mentioning that I believe all of the students will be faced in the future with something(s) that requires them to gain new understanding (to have something "revealed" to them) and that I believe most of those revelations will come to them only when they have thought, pondered, questioned, considered, discussed, studied, prayed, etc. diligently - when they are at the point where they simply can't understand something better through their own efforts. At those times, through patiently "enduring to the end", a new insight will hit them and they will understand FAR better than if they simply had followed conventional wisdom and relied on the testimonies / understanding of others. Those times hopefully won't involve an impression to kill someone, but the deepest insights generally will come in the times of deepest struggle and trial. I told them I hope they don't give up before the revelation they need comes to them, no matter how it comes to them - even if it seems to be only an idea that makes sense as a solution to what they face at the time.

The Importance of Asking, "What Do They Mean by That?"

There was a quote in an NPR article some time ago that I liked and recorded.  I want to share it today and explain why I like it so much: 

I met a Kabbalist in Israel named Avraham, and he explained it like this. For years, he read religious texts but always wondered: "How do they know that?" One day, he shifted the question to: "What do they mean by that?" A subtle shift, but a crucial one, he told me.

We have become obsessed with knowing - and I don't mean just in our Mormon culture. Our entire modern society is based on the pursuit of knowledge - and, while the pursuit of knowledge is important, it often obscures the underlying meaning of our view of things and can (and does) attack the foundation of faith that is necessary to continue to seek new knowledge as openly as possible.

Let me try to be plainer with regard to making the internal paradigm shift mentioned above.

"How do they know that?" is a skeptical, doubting, negative-side-of-the-coin perspective / launching pad - strictly because, when it comes right down to it, the only "right" answer in many cases, especially in the realm of religion, is, "They don't." 

End of inquiry - beginning of cynicism.

"What do they mean by that?" is a very different question. It is focused on understanding, empathy, connection, unity, etc. It addresses the potential to learn from what can't be "known" - and, thus, is not the self-defeating exercise of the other question. It allows for growth and change of perspective and "additional light and knowledge" - or, in other words, "continuing revelation". It opens the person who makes that shift up to new possibilities and forces that person to dissect statements and search for understanding - not spiral to the crashing impact of, "They don't."

That shift really is crucial to peace and charity, in my opinion - since it allows me to strive to make every interaction I have as valuable and educational and growth-producing as possible, even if, sometimes, the new question ("What do they mean by that?") leads me to the conclusion, "I get it - and I disagree with that meaning." However, more often than not (and far more often than most people would think), it leads me to the conclusion,  

"I'd never thought of it quite like that. COOL!!"

A Long, Frank Post about Porn and How We Often Mishandle It in the LDS Church

From my own experience in various responsibilities dealing with the issue of pornography over the years, the following are some important points I think need to be understood when talking about pornography:

1) There are many Victorian attitudes that mess up people's understanding of what healthy sex can include. I can't stress that enough at the beginning of this post, since it's a huge problem in our current religious culture.

2) I believe there are lots of things that are perfectly fine and healthy that are repressed generally in our modern Mormon culture (far more than was the case in the early days of the LDS Church).

3) Talking about pornography constantly from the pulpit often stimulates those who are struggling with it in some way.  It's like talking with an alcoholic about alcohol every day. 

4) Having said that, there are many elements of pornography (hard-core porn, especially) that are not examples of "healthy" sex - and, in many cases, marital issues arise when a spouse (a husband or wife) begins to want and expect the other spouse to act like the people in the porn - or, knowing there is no way the other spouse is going to act like the people in the porn, uses porn as an outlet for fantasies revolving around those unhealthy practices.

5) Mainstream porn (as opposed to specific sub-categories) tends to portray extremes in sex - and I don't just mean "extreme activities" when I say that. There is never "average sex" - sex that isn't "perfect"; there is never sex that is a compromise when one person really isn't feeling it; there is never a statement of "No, I'm not comfortable with that" and an acknowledgment and acceptance by the person who is wants what the other person is unwilling to do; there never is anything that involves real discussion and "middle ground" of any kind. At the most extreme, there are lots of things that are "extreme", in and of themselves, by any reasonable definition - including things that are cruel, controlling, sadistic and, literally, based on the elimination of agency and love. Lots of porn is "dehumanizing" in the sense that it removes individuality and focuses solely on the animalistic nature of the physical activity to the exclusion of everything else that involves intimacy and being human.

6) This restates #4 and builds on #5, but the extremes that are the norm often lead to unrealistic expectations, and that can put enormous pressure on spouses to accept things they naturally wouldn't accept - and enormous pressure on the one with those expectations to find an avenue for those expectations to be met. That combination can be very destructive in a relationship.

7) Finally, porn as an industry is brutal for many of those who are involved. I won't go into details here, but it is as repulsive as anything I've ever researched.

It is very similar to prostitution in some ways - the disease rate, the lack of decent health insurance, the lack of long-term employment (for lots of reasons), the preying on people who get into it out of desperation or to make money while pursuing other dreams that never materialize as they get "used up" by the industry; the huge underground reliance on runaways and youth, in general, especially in other countries but even in the USA. The celebrities in the industry get all the attention and make it look glamorous, but those who constitute the "fodder" pay a huge price - and, again, that's even here in America. The porn industry in other countries is nearly unspeakable and truly vile and evil.

Seriously, the research is horrific.

Again, using prostitution as an example, I live in Nevada - where prostitution is legal and "ladies ranches" are common. There is one just outside Carson City, where I live, that is the focus of an HBO show. Apparently, the show makes prostitution at that ranch look somewhat glamorous - but I know a woman who wrote a book about the industry in Nevada who visited lots of ladies ranches, interviewed owners and the women who work there and talked about what life actually is like for them. They often are forbidden to leave without supervision (since the owners don't want them to leave or to get paid for anything that can be hidden from them, thus cutting into their profits); the managerial take is comparable to what pimps get through illegal prostitution; women are discarded immediately, with no financial security, if they get AIDS or any other "serious" sexual disease; "minor" sexual infections are overlooked and not disclosed to the "customers"; etc. One owner, portrayed as a benevolent father figure publicly, referred to the women who work there as "my stock" - literally, in the exact same way a rancher speaks of his cattle. In many cases, pimps from California transport their "stable" to Nevada and employ them at the ranches - taking their own cut on top of the owner's cut - leaving the women with next to nothing except a roof over their heads until they go back to their home turf.

Finally, pornography can be highly addictive - and it's created specifically by its producers to be as addictive as possible. There are ranges of porn (soft-core vs. hard-core and lots of degrees all along a scale), but, just like any other commodity in our society, it has been researched extensively to be marketable. I view pornography as perhaps the best example we have of addiction peddling and the result of "evil which does and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the latter days" - and I've done enough research and known enough people over the years to feel strongly about that, even as I also recognize how screwed up our view of sex is and how much that contributes to the problem with pornography that exists in our culture.

The biggest reasons we have a difficult time addressing pornography correctly, in my opinion, are the conflation of nudity with porn and the Puritanical attitudes about and obsession with sex in general. There is nothing wrong with sexual urges and thoughts, in and of themselves, but we have created a culture in which almost anything that is sexual in nature is being repressed. Repression doesn't work; it only leads to explosion - and explosion is seen as gross iniquity - which leads to depression and extreme guilt - which perpetuates a cycle. 

Finally, we tend to view issues with viewing pornography much more harshly than other issues with addiction or varying levels of consumption.  We feel badly for an alcoholic and generally don't "punish" him; rather, we feel sorry for the person and do everything in our power to love her - including referrals to Alcoholics Anonymous or other professional help.  In the LDS Church, we do not excommunicate someone for struggling with alcoholic consumption - or even disfellowship him or require probation.  On the other hand, official discipline and punishment often is the track taken in dealing with viewing pornography - even if there is no abuse or other actionable issue involved (and, as a commenter pointed out, even though the Church Handbook of Instructions says clearly that discipline is NOT appropriate for those struggling with pornography, masturbation or the Word of Wisdom).  Thus, many members who struggle to any degree with pornography face the very real possibility that their struggles will not be met with love and compassion and professional referral but, instead, formal punishment and, in some cases, threat of divorce and the destruction of their lives - even in situations that would not be classified as clinical addiction.


How we treat these people (with direct punishment [both organizational and individual] and social shaming) contributes directly to most of them never confessing their problem and seeking help, which contributes to a vicious cycle of attempted repression as the only viable solution, which rarely succeeds over the long haul. 

So, what is my advice?

Preach against pornography, but don't hammer away constantly.  Understand the similarity for many people to those who struggle with alcohol consumption, and treat each person with the same foundation of love and compassion.  Provide opportunities for confession and therapy (whether with a counselor or through an addiction recovery program) without automatic, official punishment.  Encourage spouses not to threaten or consider divorce automatically, except in cases of severe addiction or when it causes other serious issues in marriage.

There is more, but what is outlined above would be a wonderful starting point. 

Why Did Nephi Kill Laban - and What Lesson Should We Take from It?

I see the story of Nephi killing Laban as Nephi's justification for his action. By that, I don't mean at all that I see the action as wrong, and I don't mean at all that I see it as uninspired.  I just see it as a man far removed from the actual event trying to explain to others who weren't there why he did something so out of the ordinary and, to most people, including himself, repugnant. 

Frankly, if Nephi was committed to getting the plates and not getting his family killed in the process, chopping off Laban's head as he lay defenseless in the street might have been his only option. He'd tried everything else, and he'd been robbed and threatened with death or imprisonment. Now, here he was, following his instincts and promptings, and there was Laban - so drunk he was passed out.

Nephi had two choices if he felt he had to get the plates of brass:

1) Do what he did without killing Laban.

That might have been possible, but it would have been very risky. When Laban woke up naked, returned to his home and discovered the plates gone, he would know exactly what had happened - no doubts whatsoever. He would have raised a force to pursue Nephi and his family, almost surely found them, and wiped them out. With Nephi's family having only a day or less lead time, that is the only logical outcome.

I think that is vital to understand, especially when trying to understand why he killed Laban.

2) Kill Laban - and do it by chopping off his head.

Laban was a drunk. This probably wasn't a rare occurrence, meaning when his body was discovered and identified most people would probably say, "It finally happened. I told him he'd be sorry at some point." There is a good chance nobody would associate this death with Nephi and his family, since a man like that had to have had enemies - and taking Zoram with them easily could have shifted the focus of the investigation onto him. Even if Nephi and his brothers were considered, it wouldn't be the immediate assumption - and I really think it probably didn't cross anyone's minds, given all the other possibilities.

Also, by chopping off Laban's head (and, presumably, by hiding it away from the body), the identification process would take longer - perhaps much longer. That would give Nephi's family more time to make their escape, thus greatly increasing the likelihood that they actually would escape - even if they were pursued eventually.

3) In other words, I see Nephi's actions as the result of his logical conclusions in the moment - his intellectual rationalization for doing something he would never have considered doing previously. 

Assuming he was the type of visionary person he describes in his record, I also see him justifying his actions in religious terms - and attributing his thought process to inspiration. (I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm sticking purely to a logical analysis right now.) I have a bit of a problem justifying murder to get the plates, but so did Nephi, based on his own words. Therefore, in order to follow through with his plan to obtain the plates, he had to construct an argument that was legal (verse 11 says it really wasn't murder), philosophical (verse 13 makes it a "humane" decision to sacrifice one person for the good of a larger group) and religious (verses 14-17 solidify it as keeping the commandment of God). It's also important, I think, to remember that the account probably was written LONG after the fact, after Nephi had decades to hone his reasoning. I'm not saying it would have been intentional, but we all know that such memories get shaped over time.

I can't reject the legal argument, if I remove myself from our modern outlook and put myself in his shoes in that culture; the philosophical argument was solidly part of his culture, and we even use it now in times of warfare (or, for example, in the case of an abortion to save the life of the mother, who, by living, can "save" her family in very practical terms - or when we excommunicate someone who truly is stirring up active and virulent apostasy within the Church, like someone who is trying to recruit for a polygamous sect among a congregation); the command aspect is the most "iffy", in my opinion - especially since he personally didn't receive the command but was trusting that his father had received it from God. That final aspect is what I think fits the Abraham and Isaac situation the most closely - a son trusting his father to the extreme.

When I read 1 Nephi 4, I see someone who had an objective in mind and had to figure out how to justify accomplishing that objective in a way that he had never considered previously. In other words, he didn't go into the excursion to get the plates thinking he might have to kill someone. The thought probably never crossed his mind. Faced suddenly with the realization that, if he REALLY was serious about getting the plates, the best course of action was going to be killing Laban, he took the time to construct a legal, philosophical and religious argument for doing so.

In that sense, if God really did want them to have the plates, Nephi did what he thought he had to do to get them - and he only had a minute or two to decide. I might not like what he did in theory, but I can't condemn or even judge him for a quick decision in a time of great stress - especially from the luxury of almost forty years of reading his account.

Finally, in reading the rest of his account, I think that decision haunted him all his life, despite his justification for it - and I think that might be the greatest lesson we can take from it.  

[Postcript]: A good friend whom I admire greatly (kevinf) made a comment in a thread on By Common Consent discussing this story that I think is profound - and something I had not considered in all my years of exposure to the story.  I am adding it to this post, since it hit me so hard when I read it.

One interesting point is that ultimately, Nephi’s descendants did ” dwindle in unbelief.” In Nephi’s psalm, while not specifically identifying the sins that have caused him such anguish, I do believe that Nephi can see the direction his divided family is headed, and the role he played, both for good and bad. Perhaps, in his role as prophet, Nephi has seen the ultimate end of his people,and is questioning why he had to kill Laban, if in the end it results in what he was trying to prevent? How many more violent deaths are to occur, and sins be committed, he seems to be saying, despite his efforts to prevent them? 

We Determine How God Speaks to Us

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiff-necked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311.)

Modesty: Extremism Is Not a Good Thing

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with modesty as a standard.

 None. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

 I really like the general definition of modesty as, "Moderation in all things" - although there are times when extreme measures are warranted on either side of the continuum. It's when modesty becomes an obsessive focus on one aspect (in this case, how people dress), as well as a hedge about the law (moving the lines to avoid coming anywhere near the edge of the law), and the hedge obscures the path itself (so people lose sight of what modesty in dress really means), and the ideal disappears from sight (when extremity in dress is seen as modesty) that I am concerned - and we have too many members who have lost sight of the ideal, in my opinion.

For example, more clothing that covers more of one's body is not modesty when it moves past moderation; rather, it becomes extremism (like a full-scale burkha), which is the opposite of modesty.  Complete, shapeless coverage when in public is simply the opposite extreme of full nudity in public - and both are equally "immodest". 

The BYU-Idaho example that occurred a few years ago is a classic one.

The Church and BYU-Idaho didn't ban anything the young woman was wearing, but an administrator and an employee stretched the definition of modesty so badly that it made both organizations look stupid - and necessitated a general statement reaffirming that, in deed, nothing she was wearing was forbidden. Furthermore, the young woman in question was the RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT in her ward and had gone straight from a meeting with her Bishop to the testing center. She was covered from neck to toe in clothes that weren't even tight (not skinny jeans, but standard boot-cut jeans), but one guy apparently was distracted by her curves and exercised "a little authority, as (he) suppose(d)," to define modesty in a ridiculous way.  *sigh*

Sometimes, we really are our own worst enemies - and sometimes it's because we restrict meaning and build such high hedges about the law.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Varying Kinds of Testimonies and Gaining Them Individually

We focused last Sunday on the lesson outline entitled, "What does it mean to bear testimony?"

After the traditional scriptural discussion, I took them through a comparison to court proceedings and what different types of witnesses testify in that setting. (eye-witness, character - both good and bad, expert - like psychiatrists or forensic scientists, etc.) We talked about which ones are least reliable (only one eye-witness) and which ones are most reliable (often experts who analyze data without perceptual biases). One of the students explained about a car accident in which his friend was involved and how the expert was able to reconstruct many details of the accident that were unbiased and based only on what the visible evidence showed.  We talked about why more than one eye-witness is important - primarily to counter confirmation bias and our tendency to see what we believe, rather than believing what we see.

We then applied each of those types to spiritual testimonies and talked about the importance of gaining a testimony from each category - to have a well-rounded, balanced, multi-faceted testimony.

I asked each of them to take a minute and think about one aspect of the Gospel that they feel is the strongest part of their testimony - and why it is. We talked about some of those aspects, very briefly. I am not going to share any of those details, since it was a very personal discussion.

I then asked them to identify one thing about which they didn't have a strong testimony but want to gain such a testimony. One student said tithing, since she hasn't earned much money in her life to this point and doesn't feel like she has a personal testimony of it. Another student hesitated and then said, "Everything." He explained that, due to some pretty serious ward issues where he used to live, he had withdrawn emotionally and become mostly inactive. When he moved here, everyone accepted him - and one friend in particular made a huge difference in his life and helped him look at the Church differently. He said he wants to understand everything better, which wasn't the case a couple of years ago. (On a personal note, it was one of the highlights of my time as a teacher of that class - and I told him afterward that I was grateful he had had the courage to comment.)

We read John 7:16-17, which says:

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

I asked them what is the best way to figure out how they feel about something (to "gain a testimony" that is unique to each of them individually, no matter what it ended up being), and they all understood that it was to do it.  I mentioned the idea of an "experiment upon the word", as Alma said - and I stressed the need to try it over an extended period of time, both when it was easy and when it was hard. If they do that, they might come to differing conclusions among themselves, but those conclusions would be uniquely their own.

We Shouldn't Pound a Principle So Hard We End Up Burying and Distorting It

I was talking with a friend a while ago about the concept of teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves, and she shared a very instructive, poignant story with me.  I want to pass it on here and add my own commentary at the end.

My friend explained to me that when her daughter attended Young Women meetings and activities, it seemed like the central lesson always was related somehow to marriage (dating [with specific reference to preparing for marriage], chastity [with specific reference to being clean for marriage], virtue [with specific and exclusive reference to remaining pure for marriage], modesty [with specific reference to attracting a worthy mate], traditional homemaking skills [with specific reference to life after marriage], etc.)  My friend told me two things that really resonated with me about how this affected her daughter:

1) It made each of the things listed above appear to be about marriage, exclusively.  Each of them has a much more broad, important, even critical role than just in relation to marriage, but all of the other aspects of each of them were hidden (literally "buried") under the avalanche of marriage-related rhetoric.  That distorted everything taught in the lessons in a real and practical way for her daughter.

2) Her daughter understood how important marriage is, but, because of the unrelenting application of everything exclusively to marriage that daughter finally stopped attending Young Women classes and activities completely.  Why?  She was 15-years-old and had no desire to "stress about marriage all the time".  She wanted to focus on other things, get a good education, learn a marketable skill, etc. - all the things that would be important whether or not she got married.  She wanted to be taught like an important, full individual in and of herself - not just as a potential wife of someone else.

My commentary: 

There is a HUGE difference between "teaching and emphasizing" (even something that needs to be taught and emphasized) and "driving a tent stake so far into the ground that it's impossible to see the stake being driven and being left only with an image of a sledgehammer hitting the ground".  For example, how do you think it feels to a single mother (divorced, widowed from a non-member spouse, never married, etc.) or a single adult in the Church to hear every single week - even in our "worship meeting" - that the ideal is a married couple, sealed in the temple?  In that light, and please picture this image as you read, when you keep driving a tent stake into the ground further than it needs to be driven in order to secure the stake, it actually ends up restricting the tent and "shrinking" and "distorting" the tent in a real, practical way. Stakes have to be driven into the ground to secure the tent, but they don't have to be driven two feet or five miles under the ground.

We do a lot of driving already buried stakes so far into the ground that the stake itself gets buried and lost - and ignoring other tent stakes that ought to be driven in the ground, as well, to make the tent more secure. That can result in a lop-sided, distorted tent - one in which many faithful members can't find comfort and rest.

We Are All Liable to Error - Even Prophets

“We are all liable to error; are subject, more or less, to the errors incident to the human family. We would be pleased to get along without these errors, and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:212)

Charity Suffereth (Allows) Long and Is Kind: How "God Is Love"

I see "eternity" as, literally, extending for time and ALL eternity - and I believe that we won't be "placed into a kingdom with boundaries" until we're done becoming - or, more precisely, reached a point of becoming where any new development is a result of creating things outside ourselves. When we're done with the internal becoming and are ready to move on to external creating, that's when we will become like God. We'll be ready to step fully into an eternal round.

With that in mind, I'm not hung up at all on a timeline.

On the other hand, the LDS Church simply MUST preach a timeline. It simply must talk in terms of the importance of this life - since it's all we have right now, and since it's important to be moving forward and "becoming" more complete, whole and fully developed. Anything except that is stagnation and regression, and, while those things can be reversed, we can't preach it in such a way that we encourage it. We can make theological and doctrinal allowance for both stagnation and regression, and we do exactly that with grace / forgiveness, but we also must stress the importance of progressive change, and we do that with repentance. Either one is "dead, being alone" - but when you combine the two (and mix in patience and humility), you get the mindset that says:

I will do what I can to live according to the dictates of my conscience and best understanding, and I will hope in the Lord to provide what I can't see on my own - according to His timetable and not my own.

So, as long as someone really is doing the best she can to live what she believes to be truth and right, I believe she will become exalted - and the key to me is "become" instead of "be made". I believe God exalts his children more through his patience and long-suffering (his charity / pure love) than by any direct action on his part.

Read 1 Corinthians 13 with that in mind - looking at it as a description of God and his interaction with us. It might be an interesting experience.