"Who's on the Lord's Side? Who?"
The moment you were baptized, you demonstrated to heaven and hell, time and eternity, that you were Jesus Christ's, and He was yours.
It is a bold, audacious move which invariably sets in motion a series of events designed to test your resolve, and either reward or condemn, per the actions you take in adhering to your covenant.
Thus, for us latter-day saints, life is essentially a test of one's valiancy in the testimony of Jesus. Those who are NOT "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" receive terrestrial bodies and "obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."  They also:
- Are not members of the church of the Firstborn.
- Are not blessed with all things of the Father.
- Are not priests and kings (and priestesses and queens), who have received of his fulness, and of his glory.
- Shall not dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
- Shall not accompany Christ he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
- Shall not have part in the first resurrection.
- Shall not come forth in the resurrection of the just.
- Will not come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
- Do not have their names written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
- Are not just men made perfect.
- Do not have celestial bodies.
When we look at these criteria against the backdrop of the forthcoming pre-millennial tribulations and the millennium itself, it's clear that they will not qualify for entrance into Mount Zion/New Jerusalem, because that will be a city where Christ dwells. Neither will they be part of the 144,000, who are emissaries of the Church of the Firstborn. In fact, because they do not have part in the first resurrection, they will not be found anywhere during the dawn of the millennium.
Could there be, among this group, church members who were always taught that because they had been baptized, endowed and sealed in the temple, they had celestial glory in the bag? Undoubtedly so. It is possible to be honorable, yet blinded, by the craftiness of men. 
"Members of the Church who have testimonies and who live clean and upright lives, but who are not courageous and valiant, do not gain the celestial kingdom. Theirs is a terrestrial inheritance."  To certain members of his ancient church, the Lord said,
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." 
So, what does it mean to be valiant? In the October 1974 General Conference, Elder Bruce R. McConkie summarized many of the characteristics of valiance . Although I will not copy and paste all of them here, there is one paragraph I wish to spotlight: "To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord's side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father."
Yet is there a potential for a deeper level of non-valiancy? Yes. It is possible to claim allegiance to prophets and apostles, not the Lord. Those who do are destined for a weightier punishment: telestial, not terrestrial, glory:
"For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
These are they who say they are some of one and some of another-some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant." 
Put in real-world, modern-day terms, yes, we can check off all the boxes in our temple recommend interviews, magnifying our callings and even attending the temple regularly, yet still be:
- Uncharitable to the needy.
- Abusive and/or neglectful to our spouses and children.
- More focused on the temporary, fleeting things of the world (pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth). 
- Idolatrous. 
- NOT taking the Lord's side on every issue.
- NOT vote as he would vote.
- NOT think what he thinks, NOT believe what he believes, NOT say what he would say and NOT do what he would do in the same situation.
- NOT have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father.
It is particularly challenging to have these characteristics these days. But 2,000+ years ago, under Roman rule, ancient Judea was also a hyper-sensitive, politically-correct, make-no-waves society. Yet look what Jesus, the quintessential "Beautiful Outlaw," did:
- He expelled the merchants and the money changers from the Temple once  and maybe twice  -- with a whip of cords -- at a time when Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps numbering 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims. 
- He called the Pharisees and Sadducees (the two most powerful and competing factions within Judaism at the time) a "generation of vipers" . In the Greek translation, the phrase is translated as "You snake-bastards." (Now think about that in honor-shame culture. If you get your honor from tying your lineage to Abraham, to be called the illegitimate son of a snake is like a double insult. All in just two words. Impressive!")
Being valiant does not just mean taking the Lord's side on every issue just when everything's hunky dory. It does not mean you vote as he would vote, think what he thinks, believe what he believes, say what he would say and do what he would do when the timing's right.
No. It means just the opposite. Just like Jesus, you stick up, stand up and even shout out what is right even in the most uncomfortable, inhospitable conditions -- quite likely in front of as many people as possible. Just like Jesus, there is not a particle of lukewarmness within you. For if we are to be counted among God's own Firstborn, if we are to receive an inheritance with Jesus and dwell not only with him, but also with others who similarly passionately championed inconvenient truths, then we must do as they did. Anything less than that does not square with scripturally-established criteria.
Is it possible for leaders, prophets and apostles, to get it wrong and display moments of non-valiancy? Absolutely!
- Adam and Eve rebelled against God's commands in the Garden of Eden. 
- God told Moses to take his staff and gather the people together and speak to a rock and water would pour out of it. But Moses did not obey God. Instead of speaking to the rock, he struck it twice with his staff. Because of this sin, God told him "therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them." 
- Peter said that David was a prophet.  David committed adultery. 
- "Solomon turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God" 
- When God told Jonah to preach to the Assyrians in Nineveh, he disobeyed by boarding a ship travelling in the opposite direction. 
- When told that the Lord was about to be betrayed, die and raise again, "Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." 
- God rebuked Joseph Smith for (1) often transgressing the commandments and laws of God, (2) yielding to the persuasions of men and (3) fearing man more than God. 
So, on the surface, I would say "yes," leaders, prophets and apostles have at times had moments of weakness and non-valiancy. And for that, they were surely rebuked by God.
But what about today? Is the church and its leaders valiant and steadfast in their testimonies of the truth and Jesus? In many cases, the answer could be yes. However, there are two instances where I still have questions.
BE LOYAL TO LEADERS, NOT YOUR CONSCIENCE
On June 1, 2018, the Church held a special worldwide event to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Known as the Worldwide "'Be One' Priesthood Celebration," the event featured messages from Church leaders and performances by Gladys Knight, Alex Boyé, the Bonner family, the Unity Gospel Choir International and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
During his address at the event, and in speaking about the priesthood restrictions on the blacks prior to the 1978 revelation, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said,
"I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray-as promised from the beginning of these restrictions-that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now that day had come, and I wept for joy." 
Although Elder Oaks did not explain what "to be loyal to our prophetic leaders" means, he implied that we should accept uncritically the divine origin of whatever they say, including the ban on the priesthood. These remarks underscore the common member belief (which I recently read on another forum) that "It's better to be on the side of your local priesthood leaders than to be right."
Thus, when given the opportunity to align with the truth or abandon it in favor of the brethren, the brethren should always win -- even when their policies and doctrinal pronouncements are contrary to the truth.
Additionally, in addressing the brethren's pre-1978 policies and doctrines, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated that "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."  Thus, Elder Oaks aligned himself with brethren operating with limited understanding and without further light and knowledge...not the truth.
History is filled with instances where loyal officers did not like the reasons given by leaders at the time, so they just defaulted to "just following orders."
It is heartening to me to see the mass media and politicians so concerned about life these days! People are passionate about the sanctity of life, and livid about those sworn to protect life, but kill it.
Let us see if that overwhelming concern for life is genuine.
In 1996, a fire erupted on the hillside of Reno. Incredibly, it spread to 3,000 acres in less than two hours and then to 6,000. It shut down Interstate 80 and threatened to come into the city and destroy many homes. Firefighters from across the western states rushed to the fire lines and stopped it from coming down into the city.
Today, America is on fire. The raging fires of abortion threaten our civilization and our civility. Since 1973, approximately 60 million abortions have been performed in the United States. 60 million innocent souls whose lives were snuffed out, cut out and sucked out of existence. Here is my proof:
- Abortions worldwide this year: Almost 20 million 
- Number of reported abortions, 2017: 862,320 
- U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ending in abortion, 2017: 18% 
- Pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion, 2016: 34% 
- Legal abortions performed in the United States since 1973, 2017: 60 million+ 
- In 2017, 72% of U.S. abortion clinics performed abortion through 12 weeks' gestation, 25% performed abortion through 20 weeks, and 10% performed abortion through 24 weeks 
- In 2014, 4% of U.S. abortions occurred in hospitals; 1% occurred in physician's offices. The other 95% occurred in freestanding abortion clinics-without any established doctor-patient relationship 
- In 2014, 88,466 abortions in California were paid for with public funds. Public funds paid for 45,722 abortions in New York 
- Percentage of Americans identifying themselves as pro-choice, 2019: 46% 
- Number of abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 years in the U.S., 2017: 13.5 
- Number of reported abortions girls age 14 years or younger in the U.S., 2016: 1,232 
If a child in the womb can be killed because we think she will not have an acceptable quality of life, then there is nothing to prevent us from killing others that society thinks are burdened with a poor quality of life. If a child in the womb can be killed because he may adversely affect a mother's emotional, economic and educational development, there is no argument to prevent society from killing those who are too burdensome to society, or whose beliefs are contrary to the perceived well-being of society.
Life is sacred, and we must seek to protect all human life: the unborn, the child, the adult, and the aged. Several scriptures reinforce the sacredness of life:
- "therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" 
- "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." 
- "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." 
- "Thou shalt not kill." 
- "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" 
- "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." 
- "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." 
- "Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it" 
- "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." 
In terms of the church, since 1864, the term "abortion" has been mentioned in General Conference 89 times.  Within weeks after the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, the church issued a statement saying, "Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality." 
"In 1974, an official Church representative publicly expressed LDS opposition to the legalization of elective abortion. That baseline position against the legalization of elective abortion has never been repudiated or disavowed." 
"In his first sermon after he was sustained as President of the Church, a little more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, President Spencer W. Kimball explicitly condemned abortion and encouraged members of the Church to be politically active in "their respective political parties and there exercise their influence."  He later declared, "There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin. We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender." 
The "Proclamation on the Family" (issued September 23, 1995) declares, "We affirm the sanctity of life" and "we call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." 
Today, the church "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion." Although there are some exceptions listed, even they "do not automatically justify abortion." 
To combat abortion, church leaders are asking members to take a stand against elective abortion. Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley mentioned the loss of sanctity of life due to millions of legal elective abortions and called for members to stand up and speak up on such social issues.  Elder Oaks refuted pro-choice arguments for elective abortion and encouraged students at BYU to speak out against such evils.  And Elder James E. Faust lamented that "we have come to a time when the taking of an unborn human life for nonmedical reasons has become tolerated, made legal, and accepted in many countries of the world. But making it legal to destroy newly conceived life will never make it right. It is consummately wrong." 
But what about the church as an institution? After all:
- If the church is asking its members to fight abortion, we can and should expect the institution and its leaders to do the same.
- Knowing what we do about "valiance," and knowing how deeply the Lord cherishes life and the preciousness of children, it would be natural to assume that the church and its leaders would be the world's foremost champions of life, including prenatal life.
- With a $100+ billion "rainy day" fund, it could do an incalculable amount of good.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Here is its official policy:
"The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."  I also assume, by personal observation, that the church spends no money to combat abortion in the mass media.
This may be because the church considers abortion to be a "revolting sin" and not one which is relevant to "the shedding of innocent blood.". (I kid you not -- it is not equated as the shedding of innocent blood):
"As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church:
'As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.'
"This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin." 
Meanwhile, in the time it took you to read this post:
- Number of fetuses aborted worldwide: About 760.
- Number of church president/brethren statements regarding this more significant loss of life: 0.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." 
Because of the aforementioned facts, I am left with the following questions:
- What does it mean to take upon yourself Christ's name?
- Is your passing the temple recommend interview a virtual guarantee of celestial glory?
- Do you think non-courageous, non-valiant members deserve celestial glory?
- Was Jesus always happy, or was he sad, upset, even raging mad at times?
- Has God rebuked or condemned past prophets? Why?
- Does God inspire us to abandon or neglect truth, light and knowledge?
- When faced with the choice between sticking with the truth and following leaders, should we place mortal leaders on a higher pedestal than the truth?
- What has God said in the past regarding the sanctity of life?
- What did he say regarding harming children?
- Are fetuses/unborn babies innocent beings?
- To the 15 Brethren -- Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Jeffrey R. Holland, Henry B. Eyring, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson, Neil L. Andersen, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, Dale G. Renlund, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses Soares -- I ask you:
o As the ones who established and/or are responsible for maintaining the church's policies regarding abortion: How is the Church's stance on avoiding legislative involvement and public demonstrations, as well as its silence in the mass media and other venues, considered a valiant effort in combating abortion?
o The church once encouraged members to fight against abortion. How is the church doing the same? If it is not, then how can this not be considered "Do as I say, not as I do?"
o If you were a very skilled, well-respected firefighter and saw a fire threatening to come into a city and destroy many homes -- would you rush to the fire lines and try to help stop it from coming down into the city? What if this fire were threatening thousands of lives? Or would you stand back and tell others to go fight the fire?
o Just how many more babies must be aborted until you (and the church as a whole, especially leadership) not only get involved in, but also champion, the abortion issue (please be as precise as possible; rounding of numbers is fine)?
o Hypothetically, could the church's stand on abortion be more outspoken ("hot") or more silent ("cold")? What's that called when you're neither cold nor hot?
CHECK THE COMMENTS BY LATTER-DAYTRUTHS BELOW FOR UPDATES TO THIS POST
1 D&C 76:75-79
2 Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "Be Valiant in the Fight of Faith," October 1974 General Conference
3 Revelation 3:15-16
4 D&C 76:99-102
6 President Spencer W. Kimball, "The False Gods We Worship," First Presidency Message, Ensign, June 1976, p. 6
7 Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48
8 John 2:13-16; Some scholars believe that these refer to two separate incidents, given that the Gospel of John also includes more than one Passover. See Craig A. Evans, "The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary", 2005, ISBN 0-7814-4228-1, p. 49.
9 E.P. Sanders, "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Penguin, 1993. p. 249; Robert W. Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar, "The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus," Harper-San Francisco, 1998.
10 Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33
11 Genesis 3
12 Numbers 20:12
13 Acts 2:30
14 2 Samuel 11:4
15 1 Kings 11:1-13
16 Jonah 1:1-3
17 Matthew 16:22-23, Mark 8:33
18 D&C 3:6-7
19 Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Remarks at the Worldwide "Be One" Priesthood Celebration," June 1, 2018
20 Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," BYU Speeches, August 18, 1978
26 Deuteronomy 30:19
27 Psalm 139:13-14
28 Psalm 127:3
29 Exodus 20:13
30 Isaiah 44:24
31 Jeremiah 1:5
32 Luke 1:41, 44
33 D&C 59:6
34 Luke 17:2
37 Lynn D. Wardle, "Teaching Correct Principles: The Experience of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Responding to Widespread Social Acceptance of Elective Abortion," https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/teaching-correct-principles-experience-church-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints-responding
38 Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, "Guidelines to Carry Forth the Work of God in Cleanliness," Ensign, May 1974, p. 7, 9.
39 Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, "The Foundations of Righteousness," Ensign, November 1977, p. 5, 6.
40 The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign 25 (November 1995): 102
41 General Handbook of Instructions 38.6.1
42 Standing for Something (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), p. xvii-xxv, 167-68, 170-71, 172
43 "Weightier Matters," Ensign, January 2001, p. 12-17
44 "The Sanctity of Life," Ensign, May 1975, p. 27