mordorbund

Easter:
A brief summary of crimes committed on Easter, starting with the execution of an innocent man and ending with...?   (I actually think this might be pretty interesting - if you've had some interesting Easter crimes in your part of Texas.)
Why you should absolutely not stuff the Easter ham.   (Or, why people eat ham on Easter.  Or, why people eat ham at all.)
Oh, how to calculate Easter - it's absurdly convoluted (from a programming perspective).  Should take a good half a page just to explain it.  I have code, somewhere, should you need it (though I'm sure Wikipedia explain it).
Why is Easter called "Easter" (as opposed to Wester or Norther or Souther or Resurrection Day or something...)?
101 Things to do with those plastic eggs that held M&Ms on Easter morning. (Or 11 things, if you're in a hurry - just not 10, everyone does 10 - it's so cliche.)
The dangers of fake grass in Easter baskets.
Spring:
How to get @Traveler to do your spring cleaning for you.
Common spring cleaning chores that would be better done in the fall.  (You'll become the local hero for this one!)
Things to hurry and do in case the world ends this year.
Insects you can look forward to killing this season (and the common household items you can use to do it).  (Alternately, how to turn plastic Easter eggs into roach motels!  Surely someone has done this already.)
Best spots for viewing said eclipse.  How to avoid all the eclipse-nuts.  What to do if the eclipse-nuts park in your yard.  Etc.
Where to go to find spring wildflowers.
Best eclipse-oriented baby names (someone's gonna need these, I'm sure).
Things to do because the eclipse-nuts are in town: like yard sales and lemonade stands and hording bottled water and what-not.
How to make authentic-looking UFOs (you know the UFO crowd overlaps with the eclipse crowd - you just know it)!
Kitten and puppy adoption (spring is the time for this, you know) promotion.
The best fountain pen inks for spring.   (This year, it would have to include Diamine Eclipse, even though it's not really a spring color.)
I'm sure I can come up with more.  This is a fabulous way to procrastinate whatever I should be doing right now.

So, dandelion seeds?

I don't know how to respond to Brigham Young's assertion that immortal beings continue to learn.  in Lectures on Faith, it is well argued that if we didn't have assurance of God's omniscience and omnipotence, we couldn't have faith it God's ability to save or exalt us - after all, if He doesn't know all and have all power, how does He know that he can exalt us - for all He knows, there is something that will stop him, or someone more powerful that will interfere.
Of course, one can argue that God's omniscience and omnipotence are both within his sphere, and that he may well be increasing in knowledge and power by advancing to higher spheres:
Revelation 2:17
D&C 130:10-11
This white stone (the phrasing may make it seem like there are two, but I think the combination of both references clarifies that it's one) will reveal to those in the celestial kingdom "things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms" - What!?  Yep, that's saying there are kingdoms higher than the celestial - at least, I don't know what else it could be saying.  Now, I think it's worth noting that only those in the celestial kingdom receive this.  Therefore, I don't believe it can be argued that those in the terrestrial or telestial may also advance.  Indeed, every indication is that they cannot.  What's more, there's every indication that only those in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom have any chance at advancing, if anyone does.
So then we go back to the quote from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith - about the Savior working out his kingdom and giving it to the Father.  Perhaps this constitutes the Father moving into a higher order of kingdom.  That would correspond to only those in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom advancing - since only they have increase / continuation of the seeds.  Eventually, the "round" will repeat, and the exalted will present their kingdoms to the Savior, etc. etc.
This leaves the lower levels of the celestial kingdom, and the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms stagnant while one of your quotes has those in outer darkness devolving back into raw material and loss of identity (difficult to reconcile with the teaching that resurrection is a permanent, unchangeable state; also something that I think would be dangerous to preach in our day and age when depression and despair are prevalent enough that those in such states might find a sort of hope in the idea of an eternal cessation of consciousness and therefore act to "obtain" said cessation).

I went searching after I posted, and it appears there are folks in both camps.  The difficulty I have with the "small plates" version is that it's too interspersed with things that are strictly Nephi's POV (Lehi not present), and never has anything that's not Nephi's POV (as far as I can tell).
Things to look forward to.

Well, and here I've just tripped over 1 Nephi 1:17:
It would appear that the large plates of Nephi contain an abridgement on the book of Lehi - no doubt called the book of Lehi, but still an abridgement.  That would suggest that Lehi had a lot to say.  It would also suggest that Mormon may have abridged Nephi's abridgement of the book of Lehi.  (Or Mormon may have abridged the original book of Lehi, or that book may have been added to Nephi's large plates, heaven knows - but it's interesting to note that Nephi made an abridgement.)

I really struggle with the concept of Priesthood, holding Priesthood, exercising Priesthood, Priesthood office, etc.   Just when I think I have a grasp, I read something that makes the edges blurry.  Maybe they're supposed to be blurry, I don't know.

I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
The Holy Spirit Board by Holy Spirit Games - Christian Religious Talking Board for Seance with Planchette https://a.co/d/4CzZNGW

A conversation between @mirkwood and I when I tried to cook last night .

Probably should have read this thread before serving my charcuterie.

Probably should have read this thread before serving my charcuterie.

Probably should have read this thread before serving my charcuterie.

Hmm.  Sounds like a sphere.
 
Some interesting factoids:
1. Per Leviticus 12, they would have gone to Jerusalem after 41 days (8 + 33).  So, if we assume they stayed in Bethlehem for those 41 days and then went to Jerusalem as required, the events of Luke 2 happened around that time, including going to Nazareth.
2. It may or may not be meaningful that they went to Jerusalem every year at Passover.  (Note that Bethlehem is very close to Jerusalem (about 2 hours away by foot), and lots of people go to "Jerusalem" at Passover - and perhaps spill out into surrounding towns.)
3. In Matthew 2, Herod kills all children 2 years of age and younger.  You've explained the math here, but it's still a wide range of time - meaning, the visit from the wise men doesn't have to have happened in those 41 days.  Indeed, depending on where "in the east" is (some speculate Babylon), it likely took them more than 41 days just to make their journey.
Verse 1 can be referring to initiating events more than precise times - after all, the star appeared at the birth of Christ, not before, so the wise men couldn't be there "when Jesus was born in Bethlehem" - it would have to be considerably after.  At the very least, they've found a "house" (Matthew 2:11) - not in the manger any more...
4. Herod's experts tell the wise men that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, and Herod sent them there, saying (emphasis mine): "Go and search diligently for the young child..."  OK, sure, maybe that meant infant, or maybe not.
5. Now let us look at exactly what verses 9 and 10 say, without assuming what they say:
They left the king And oh, hey, look, the star!  Let's follow it. The star stopped when it "came and stood over where the young child was" - again young child.  (Moving star - did you know about the Chinese record of the comet (or meteor, or something, I forget now) from this time?) They rejoiced when they saw the star Maybe, just maybe, instead of going to Bethlehem (2 hours of following the star?), they followed the star for a week until it came to Nazareth - or when night fell, they saw the star and it wasn't over Bethlehem, so they picked up and headed north...
6. They were warned not to return to Jerusalem (hard to do if they're in Bethlehem, but easy if they're in Nazareth).
7. Now, before you say, but why send Joseph to Egypt if they're in Nazareth and Herod is going to kill all the children in Bethlehem?  Surely Herod wasn't a complete idiot.  Joseph was there for a census.  It's likely that census would have noted he was there with wife and newborn son.
v13: "Herod will seek the young child to destroy him" - maybe Herod searched the census records.  That v16 doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.   I mean, dude had to know about the census, right?
Anywho, point is that the events can easily fit together without contradiction - the accounts are sufficiently vague that almost anything could be true.

If people are getting their information from videos like this rather than reading the vision itself in II Esdras - and I keep getting the impression that no one is reading it - it's no wonder there's confusion surrounding it.  The video in the above thread has the guy saying "the right side, the good side" - there is nothing whatsoever in the text of the vision to suggest the right side is good (yes, I know, it's frequent in scripture, but not in this vision).  The only indication of meaning for the right side is that it represents the place of rulers (the wings go there ("arise") when they rule).  People are assuming an eagle with two wings, one on the left and another on the right, but the vision doesn't read like that at all - it has 12 feathered wings1 and three heads, and "out of her wings there grew [8] other wings over against them;".  Usually, "over against them" means "across from them" or "on the opposite side" - suggesting there are 12 wings on one side of the eagle and 8 on the other.  (Some translations have the 8 "opposed" or "contrary" to the 12 (and growing out of the feathers of the bird rather than the wings).)  Given that the ones that rule always "arise" or "rise up" or are "set up" on the right side, and sides aren't otherwise mentioned, I don't think we can assume anything except that the right side is a place of authority.
Anyway, he talks about how these two little wings "were on the right side, the good side, they're gonna break over to the bad side" - but the vision says: "...lo, two little wings divided themselves from the six, and remained under the head that was upon the right side..."  Um, so they didn't go from the "right side, the good side, ...to the bad side" - they went from some undefined place (but possibly the left side) to the head on the right.  Dude just read those verses aloud before saying the exact opposite of what the verses say.  What the, huh?  How can I be the only one to catch these things?
Good grief.  Dude is claiming the vision says things it doesn't!  It's like this guy never read the Old Testament and doesn't know the way they spoke / wrote.  It's also like he never read chapter 12. (And he's crappy at making videos - using a pointer that doesn't show on the recording and doesn't edit the video to add visual markers.  Grrr.  Why would anyone pay attention to this dude?  I can't bear to watch more.)
1Wouldn't it be funny if this should have been translated as "twelve-feathered wings".  Then there would be 24 "big" feathers and 8 little feathers.  But alas, I don't know Latin, Armenian, Ethiopian, or Gregorian (the languages of the oldest versions of this text), so I can't go try to figure it out.  Apparently it's universally accepted as 12 wings, so, nevermind. It was fun while it lasted...

I think the seed for that has already been planted.

I think the seed for that has already been planted.

I'm ashamed at how woefully uninformed US college students are.   This is a Wall Street Journal article written by Ron Hasner, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley:
 

No, I've not gone off the deep end!  
TL,DR: Has anyone actually read the original interpretation (by Michael B. Rush who appears to have originated it) of the vision contained in the apocryphal book 2 Esdras, chapters 11 and 12 about US presidents and used to predict the timing of the Second Coming?  If so, do you have any thoughts?
(Above chapter 11 link is an old book on the google play store that was scanned. I trust its translation more as some make no sense and confuse matters more. Other good ones seem to be the Bible Gateway one and Bible Society one.)
Long Version:
A Church member (sister) I know has been reading some books and watching some videos by this fellow, including the book in which he details his interpretation (which he said is inspired, and explains when / how that happened in the book - and in the excerpt at the above link).  Here is where he claims to be the originator (at same link) - at least, that's my interpretation:
Of course, brother Rush has written books and is selling them, along with making YouTube videos.  This is the first time I've heard of him.  And though I've heard the phrase "Ezra's Eagle" before, I had no idea what it was and never felt inclined to investigate.
Back to this sister.  She said her adult children have been giving her a hard time because she's reading the guy's books and asked if I'd be willing to read some portion of them (or perhaps all) and tell her what I think.  The short section on Ezra's Eagle (from the July 2020 edition of A Remnant Shall Return) was the first thing she wanted me to read.  So, I took the book.
First thing I did was google this site, and then the web.  I didn't find much in text (hate watching videos when I'm trying to learn details - wastes so much time).  But I found that it's from a vision in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras 11 and 12.  So, I found that and read it.  It meant nothing specific to me, so then I turned to the book. (Later, I went back and read some of the book of Daniel 2, 7 and 8, because it's mentioned in 2 Esdras, but I couldn't find any obvious relation between the visions - though I don't suppose there has to be.)
Useful notes about me:
I'm not a history buff. I think the US education system I grew up in was explicitly designed to cause children to be disinterested in history, and it succeeded with me.  I've only recently started changing my mind, so I'm ignorant as a stump. I'm not a "signs of the times" buff.  I know the scriptures, I know the basics of these signs, but I've always figured the Second Coming for me was more likely to happen at my death than at the Second Coming, and either way, my preparation ought to be the same - live the gospel, follow the prophets. I'm skeptical about folks claiming to have figured out interpretations of scripture (or apocryphal writings) that are new to the world, so I figure that makes me a good candidate to give this sister a reasoned opinion. But I also believe firmly that secret combinations are real, in operation at this moment, and present a real threat to our peaceful and prosperous existence in this country.  IMO, President Benson was no nut job. Back when Ordain Women was all over the news (but new to me), I decided rather than reading news stories about them, I'd go to their website and see what they said about themselves. As soon as the home page loaded, the Spirit communicated to me in no uncertain terms that this was a dangerous place.  It didn't tell me to leave, just gave me a sense that I needed to be on my guard. That experience has led me to trust that this can happen, to be open for such guidance, and to be skeptical and cautious when researching such things.  All this to say, I'm not in danger of going off the deep end after things like this. Initial Impression
So, back to the book.  I read the first chapter - which was more about him, what he's doing, and why.  It raised some yellow flags (not orange or red, just yellow):
Some phrases could be him setting the reader up to trust the author over prophets and over what they have already learned - maybe (or maybe they're just poorly worded - I would need to read more of his writings to figure out which). He seems to use scripture to discredit himself without realizing it. In the second chapter, he cites scripture that supports him, but skips over verses of the same passage that might encourage the reader to be skeptical of him (which makes me more skeptical). In some places, his wording is a bit condescending, assuming the reader doesn't know certain scriptures or understand their import, and telling the reader that he (the author) will educate the reader on these later. (This also made me wonder if he was trying to set up the reader to trust in the author more than themselves, prophets, the Church and its manuals, and/or the Holy Ghost - doesn't have to be the case, maybe the guy just thinks too much of himself, but it stood out to me.) And, when it comes to eagles as symbols, he doesn't even address Russia or Muscovy with its short-lived three-headed eagle (and I have no idea if there are others he missed).  Not sure that matters, but still. Mr. Rush is also in serious need of a (better) proofreader, editor, and typesetter / printer. (There's a chart / graph that is clearly missing key elements, and even if those elements were present, it would be meaningless without pages of citation to give the data points meaning.  It's kinda bizarre that it was left like that - and no fix or mention or anything on the website.) Ezra's Eagle
And then I read the second chapter about Ezra's Eagle (have yet to read the third).  When I was done, there wasn't really anything that screamed "apostate" or "nut job" at me (though Mr. Rush comes off as both a Trump fan-boy and someone prone to over-the-top (to the point of absurd - seems to have been removed in his latest version found in the excerpt on the website) predictions about what might happen with Trump's presidency - which was on-going when the book was published (2015) and updated (2020)).  I didn't even find any particular reason to think he was wrong except (see the "mess up" comment next)...
After reading this chapter, wherein he seemed to mess up his counting of wings, feathers, and presidents - off by 1, I decided to go back to 2 Esdras and diagram what I read for myself, without regard for or consulting brother Rush's book. 
For those who don't know, the vision describes an eagle which has 3 heads, 12 wings (or large feathers), and 8 feathers (or small or "under" wings).  The interpretation describes the heads, wings, and feathers as "kings" that will rule the kingdom represented by the eagle.
Biggest problem - vagueness in sequence of the various wings/feathers ruling:
Chapter 11 makes it clear that three of the larger wings rule first. After that, it suggests that the other 9 rule... But in v22 we see that the 12 wings (large feathers) and 2 feathers (little wings) are gone, so 2 of the 8 ruled in there somewhere, but that previous suggestion might make you think it was after the 9 wings. Then in chapter 12, in the interpretation, in v14 and 16, it says 12 kings - the 12 wings (large feathers) rule one after another. But then it says in v19 that the 8 "under wings" (little feathers) are kings who will reign for a short time.  "And two of them shall perish, when the middle time approacheth: four shall be kept for a while until the time of the ending thereof shall approach: but two shall be kept unto the end."  Which suggests that two of these kings who rule for a short time will be interspersed in with the 12 wings, despite it saying the 12 will rule "one after another". None of that is insurmountable.  I wouldn't even consider it unusual for an ancient prophecy to not have details in order as we might expect them today.  One could be justified in arguing either way - 12 large rule, then the 8 small (forget the three heads for now); or 2 of the little are intermixed with the 12 large, then the rest of the little.  Neither is unreasonable.
Technical problem: in 11:13-17, but especially v17, it says of the second feather which ruled for a long time, "There shall none after thee attain unto thy time, neither unto the half thereof."  Brother Rush argues that this is FDR, who served 4 terms (but only 12 years, not 16).  Other presidents since him have served 2 terms, 8 years, which is more than half of 12.  And if you count 4 terms, they served 2, which is half as many, and the verse says they won't even get to half.  Brother Rush overcomes this by saying that Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "attain" "as exceeding or surpassing". The Webster's 1828 website doesn't agree. (But, "gain, overtake, arrive at" is the definition in Johnson's 1828 dictionary - Webster includes overtake, but also as a secondary possibility, barely mentioned.)
Now, I'm taking brother Rush's assertion that the first wing to rule this eagle is Herbert Hoover (see the excerpt for why - secret organization), and starting there.  For some reason, Rush himself screws up after wing #12 / president #14 (Barack Obama):
Duration President Wing / Feather 4 Herbert Hoover Wing 1 of 12 12 Franklin D. Roosevelt Wing 2 of 12 8 Harry S. Truman Wing 3 of 12 8 Dwight D Eisenhower Wing 4 of 12 2 John F. Kennedy Feather 1 of 8 6 Lyndon B. Johnson Wing 5 of 12 5 Richard M. Nixon Feather 2 of 8 45 years to the middle   2.5 Gerald R. Ford Wing 6 of 12 4 Jimmy Carter Wing 7 of 12 8 Ronald Reagan Wing 8 of 12 4 George Bush Wing 9 of 12 8 Bill Clinton Wing 10 of 12 8 George W. Bush Wing 11 of 12 8 Barack Obama Wing 12 of 12 1 Donald J. Trump Feather 3 of 8 3 Joseph R. Biden Feather 4 of 8 46.5 years since the middle    
Maybe he screwed it up because he was using one of the weird translations.  Anywho, this screw up is why I stopped after chapter 2 and went back to 2 Esdras 11-12 to map it out for myself.  Ignoring that, let us start with Obama, the last wing.  At this point, all 12 wings and 2 of 8 feathers have ruled, leaving us 6 feathers.  Here's what the vision says about those:
11:24: two of the 6 remaining go and move under the head on the right (presumably ally themselves politically).  These are the two saved to the end (see above). Of the remaining 4, they wanted to rule (11:25) 11:26: (feather 3 of 8) "there was one set up, but within a while it appeared no more" - this is no different from previous language.  But the translation Rush is using says "there was one set up, but shortly it appeared no more."  He takes the "shortly" to mean the presidency would be cut short - Trump's presidency.  No, "shortly" hasn't been used before, but had he gone to the interpretation, that makes it clear that all the little feathers will rule for a shorter time (12:20).  So Trump's rule didn't have to be cut short for "shortly" to apply. (Alternately, Rush somehow skipped this feather.) 11:27: (feather 4 of 8) "A second also, and it was sooner away than the first."  This suggests that Biden's presidency will end before its full 4 years are up (if Rush's interpretation is correct, once his own error is fixed).  Rush actually completely misses either feather 3 or feather 4 - it's impossible to tell which - if he thinks Trump is feather 4, he misses #3; if he thinks Trump is feather 3, he misses 4. Having jumped over one feather without addressing it, he goes straight to feathers 5 and 6 (and this is where he poses some absurd scenarios that I'm not even going to bother addressing - we're past that anyway with Biden being feather 4).  Truly baffled that he could screw this part up even before Biden was elected. Note that feathers 3, 4, 5, and 6 are "kept for a while until the time of the ending thereof shall approach" (ending of the eagle).  This would suggest we're nearing the end. Feathers 7 & 8 will be "kept unto the end". Anywho, if brother Rush is correct (after I've corrected his mistake), here's what's going to happen:
Biden's presidency will be cut short - shorter than Trump's. Feathers 5 & 6 - two folk who want to rule (11:28) will be "eaten up" when the three heads awake with the larger one ruling and the two smaller ones its allies. The large head rules "with much oppression" and more power than any of its predecessors. "For these (the three heads) are they that shall accomplish her (the eagle's) wickedness, and that shall finish her last end."  (Whether this will be the next president after Biden or something else due to government collapse, heaven knows.) Suddenly the big giant head (sorry, couldn't resist) will die in its bed in pain (11:33 and 12:26) Then the right and left heads will rule together, but the right head will kill the left with the sword (11:34-35, 12:27-28) Then the right will also die by the sword (12:28) after being condemned by the Lord (11:36-12:2) Then the last two feathers (7 & 8) will rule together "and their kingdom was small (likely means short), and full of uproar" (12:2) These two will be burned up along with the entire eagle (12:3, 29-33) But don't worry, "For the rest of my people shall he deliver with mercy, those that have been preserved throughout my borders, and he shall make them joyful until the coming of the end, even the day of judgement, whereof I have spoken unto thee from the beginning."
Well, I guess I'll go read chapter 3 now.  Final thought: If brother Rush is seeking to set himself up above prophets or to lead people astray, starting the book with an interpretation of a vision from the apocrypha, where there's nothing from any prophet to contradict him, is a clever move to gain the reader's trust in his authenticity and insight.  (I'd be more convinced were it not for the glaring "feather 3/4 error" and the absurdities of what might happen if Trump's presidency were cut short.)
Anywho, FWIW, and curious if anyone else has thoughts.  If you made it this far, you deserve a milkshake - go get one!

Don’t forget all 134 verses of Follow the Prophet

Don’t forget all 134 verses of Follow the Prophet

Too much work. Too little glory.  😀