MrShorty

The charitable, "wants to eliminate human suffering" part of me votes yay. The part of me that is suspicious of government and bureaucracies (even the for profit bureaucracies), doesn't know who to put in charge of delivering universal healthcare. Government? non-profits? for profits? I would venture to guess that most of us want everyone to have affordable access to healthcare. I think most of the disagreement is around which bureaucracy to put in charge of delivering health care to all.

So, the only valid definitions and rankings for science are those given in a medical (specifically looking at surgical methods) journal? As a chemist, I am well aware of some of the disdain that we in the hard sciences can express towards those in the social sciences. If we want, we can branch into our own bash on the social sciences thread. When all gets said and done, though, I'm not sure it is appropriate to stubbornly insist that surveys like this are not science, when they are a perfectly good, scientific way to measure people's (in general or a specific demographic) attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. Certainly they can be done well, or they can be done poorly, some have better methodology than others, and there can be real value in critiquing someone's methodology (and they frequently do). For those who are interested in how members of the Church view evolution (and some of the theological challenges and nuances that science versus religion bring), the survey results should prove interesting.

(At the risk of reopening this wound before it has healed) @Scott
(and others) who is "just curious about the numbers" -- you may find this recent publication interesting: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205798&type=printable
 

I don't want everyone to have health insurance.  I want everyone to have access to treatment.  If you can't tell the difference, or just never thought of it before, it's worth thinking about long and hard.

These arguments always come back to a bait and switch...  They flow like this... Pick a topic most people will agree with (Say like helping the Poor and Needy)... then once you know everyone agrees then you pick a method (in this case Universal Healthcare) as an answer to that topic.  Then when any one disagrees or points out problem with the method ignore the points made and instead attack them for be an heartless monster who does not care about the topic.
Such a bait and switch is fundamentally dishonest and I see no reason to engage such people

I'm reasonably certain that the Apostles and 1st Presidency don't think in terms of "We're doing plan A, because it'll really get rid of some of our useless dead weight."   Pretty sure they think in terms of "We're doing plan A, because it'll help us forward the work of the gospel, and increase individual discipleship."
This church isn't about grouping people into wheat and chaff.  It's about gathering as much wheat as possible, and everyone is potential wheat.

Who are going to be the Wheat and who are going to be the chaff though?
Just because they do not do the scripture study does not make them chaff, and just because they do their scripture study does not mean they are wheat.
Pride seems to be the dividing line between wheat and chaff in the Book of Mormon.  One particular group would go to church every Sunday and then proclaim how they were chosen above all others, but as we see, were the most wicked.  Meanwhile those who could not attend were those humble enough to listen to Alma.
In the New Testament the Pharisees and Saducees probably studied the scriptures and adhered to church law far more than any other.  However, due to their pride in doing so the Lord continually spoke ill of them and their fates while ministering to the poor and humble.  Many of the poor and humble didn't even know the scriptures all that well, but found faith enough to follow the Savior's words.
Division between Wheat and Chaff I think is going to be FAR more than simply two hour church and following the study program they put out.  I think it may have a tendency to lend a hand up or down to those who choose to follow it, but in and of themselves, most of the changes I see are not specifically to divide wheat and tares anymore than other changes have been in the past. 

A good question, Vort. I don't know if I have any answers. However, that won't stop me from saying stuff.
I have observed that we talk about three purposes for our sexuality.
1) Procreation -- nothing to add to what you said in the OP.
2) strengthening bonds between husband and wife. Perhaps this is a complementary part to your "creating families", because our goal is not just to bring children into the world, but to keep marriages intact so those children can be raised together by both parents.
3) learning self-mastery -- I think this is a "newer" or more recently emphasized purpose, because I don't recall this as much when I was younger. This kind of hit me with the new mormonandgay website with this article: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/self-mastery-and-sexual-expression?lang=eng Sometimes it seems to me that "self-mastery" or "self-control" (or even "bridle") become synonymous with "abstinence" -- especially when applied to sexuality. The question then is, does the couple who gets married to avoid fornication really have a chance to learn self-mastery (meaning abstinence)?
Like I said, I don't have answers. Mostly more questions.
What is wrong with the idea of a "sex fun pass"? Does it cut too uncomfortably into the desire for sex to be sacred (see Elder Holland's "Of Soul's Symbols and Sacraments")?
The main concern I see is if the couple who marries just to legitimize the sexual will have the strength of commitment to the marriage to stay married through the inevitable hard times. I find myself concerned that such a couple does not have the relationship skills to keep the marriage intact. But that concern becomes more about the discomfort with divorce -- not necessarily about sexuality specifically. Is the OP more about the possible increased risk of divorce?
1 in 5 marriages (in the US, I understand some nations are higher) are sexless. Part of me wonders if there is much to worry about. If they fail to learn abstinence before marriage, there is a good chance they will have an opportunity to learn abstinence later.
As you mentioned, Paul in the New Testament talked about marriage as the preferred outlet for those who have not yet learned self-control. How shall we understand these passages if we want people to try harder to learn abstinence?
At the end of the OP, you ask about treating symptoms rather than the disease. What is the real disease we are afraid we are failing to treat?

The debate as to the authenticity of that purported relic has been known to become quite explosive at times . . .

Oh ... it doesn’t, you have to be enlightened to know this

I have thought some more, and want to add this to my response. Another idea that strongly informs my response to the poll question is an essay (I could not find it) I read a few years ago by a Catholic, speaking of his brothers in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He said something to the effect of, anyone who can sign off on what he called the basic kerygma of Christianity was his brother in Christ. He referenced 1 Cor. 15 (see verses 3 through 8 ) in defining that kerygma, and further research suggests that most descriptions of the basic kerygma list a handful of basic assertions like - Christ lived, died on the cross, and was resurrected. He appeared to various witnesses as recounted in the NT. His death and resurrection provide a substitutiary atonement. Those kind of things. Since we readily and willingly agree with these most basic declarations of Christianity, many, including ourselves, consider us Christians.

You've put this as a poll question. If I were to vote for myself, I would probably vote "Yes, we are Christians", but sometimes I don't know -- mostly because the question has a lot of other baggage underneath it. To illustrate the baggage that I see, one of the transformative moments for me in regard to this question was the day I put "Are Catholics Christian?" to Google. Naturally, Google found several Protestant counter-cult ministries' pages asserting that Catholics are not Christians. The reasons were interesting, but, when all was said and done, I concluded that, if it is that easy to completely dismiss arguably the oldest and largest Christian denomination from Christianity, the answers must be flawed in some way, and perhaps the question is flawed as well. I think, if I could write the available answers to the poll question, I might answer something like "I don't know, but I think it's a bad question, because the answer says more about the beliefs of the respondent than it says about the beliefs of any given church.

You've put this as a poll question. If I were to vote for myself, I would probably vote "Yes, we are Christians", but sometimes I don't know -- mostly because the question has a lot of other baggage underneath it. To illustrate the baggage that I see, one of the transformative moments for me in regard to this question was the day I put "Are Catholics Christian?" to Google. Naturally, Google found several Protestant counter-cult ministries' pages asserting that Catholics are not Christians. The reasons were interesting, but, when all was said and done, I concluded that, if it is that easy to completely dismiss arguably the oldest and largest Christian denomination from Christianity, the answers must be flawed in some way, and perhaps the question is flawed as well. I think, if I could write the available answers to the poll question, I might answer something like "I don't know, but I think it's a bad question, because the answer says more about the beliefs of the respondent than it says about the beliefs of any given church.

Perhaps the title was a trigger. Many Evangelicals, and perhaps others, accuse members of not reading the Bible 'in context.' Frankly, most of us are guilty from time to time. We have our pet verses and our favored passages--the ones that seem to prove our beliefs. My simple suggestion for understanding any scripture in context:  Read it through quickly--even by scanning. For example, try reading the Bible for 10-chapters a day. Skim over the so-and-so beget so-and-so, go quickly over the elements including in building the tabernacle--just get the big picture of what is happening. You will finish in about 3-4 months. Afterwards, when someone comes a long and brings you a "magic-bullet" verse, supposedly proving something that seems odd, there will be a sense. They may seem to have a point. You may not have an immediate answer. However, Holy Spirit will shield you, and you will just know that this "proof" doesn't fit the big picture of scripture.
Thoughts?

I disbelieve this. Abusive women may not be as common as abusive men—MAY not be as common—but I am sure they are well within an order of magnitude of each other. The idea of the world's women as longsuffering angels who carry on bravely while putting up with abuse at the hands of their evil husbands should offend any reasonable human being.
I don't know. Maybe in some places the stereotype is true. Not in my life experience, though. If anything, the opposite is true. In my own close circles (family and friends), I have witnessed probably five times the abuse from women toward men as from men toward women. I have never seen an adult man physically abuse a woman in my own circles, not once. But I have seen women physically abuse men on several occasions, not even bothering to disguise their attacks: slapping, throwing things, pinching, even punching or kicking. (Nota bene: My female blood relatives have never been the physical abusers, but some male relatives have been the victims of such abuse.) As for verbal and emotional attacks, I have seen many times more incidents of women abusing men than vice versa.
I understand that my personal experience is not representative of the whole world. But then, neither is yours. The media have been grinding their axes on this topic for my entire life, so I don't trust their take on the matter. Abused women are much more likely to go to the cops, press charges, and seek asylum than are abused men, so the police blotter argument is largely a non-starter. My best source is my own experience, and in my own experience, the idea that men are the abusers and women the abused is simply false, and the above-quoted statement wrong.
Most of the women in my life, by which I mean the women that I am personally intimate with on an emotional level, are wonderful people. My closest female acquaintances are among the most Godly people I have ever known. I have no problem admitting to myself that in many ways, my wife is simply a more selfless and Christlike person than I am. My daughter is a delight to me and a source of pride—but no more so than my sons.
The worship of females as the embodiment of the divine is dangerous. Women are people, with all the faults and problems that people have. Considering how many women get sooooo bent out of shape at any suggestion that a man might be better than a woman at some career, job, or task, i would think that such people would be first in line to call shenanigans on the women-worship tendencies so often manifest by certain men, both the feminist-deceived Goodthinkers and the religiously motivated virtue-signalling self-abasers. God save my sons (and my daughter) from the false claims of both such types.

Motivation is probably the major driver.  And yes, that can, at times, be difficult to discern.  But an abuser's motivation is for control.  Not just controlling an outcome, but specifically for the thrill of having control over another person's life, decisions, and mental state.  A woman who "henpecks" her husband to take out the trash, or paint a room that he's be saying he will paint for six months is not an abuser. She just wants something done. Very likely, a woman who self-deprecatingly jokes about her henpecking is not an abuser, because she can recognize that her behavior is potentially problematic. Abusers generally do not see any problem with their behavior.
To directly answer your question, true abuse from women is rare.  It happens, but is nowhere near as prevalent as is abuse coming from men.
Below, I'm including a letter that was sent to bishops in my area from the regional LDS Family Services representative.  It's a good read for understanding how abusive relationships work. I've redacted the name of the author, as she hasn't exactly consented to having her name plastered on the internet.  If you're genuinely interested, I have a PDF I can forward.
 

I've only skimmed through this thread and haven't read it all. Speaking in very general terms, my opinion is that the most important goal in this life is to shape one's character/personality in such a way that it is consistent with what is required to live in the celestial kingdom. The further away one falls from achieving this outcome, the further away they will be frome the celestial kingdom in the next life an the less happy they will be. Moulding one's character/personlity to the required mould can be done under almost any set of circumstances or set of religious beliefs and practices and is not in any way dependent upon membership in a particular church although I believe the process is far, far easier in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Once one has the required character, it will be as easy and as obvious and as natural for that person to accept the vicarious ordinances that have been done on their behalf as night follows day. I see acceptance of the ordinances as akin to adding one's signature to a document that one agrees with. Those ordinances are only available through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but thanks to the obedience, righteousness and hard work of temple attending saints, those ordinances can be, must be, will be performed by proxy for everybody. Failure to accept the ordinances will result in spending eternity somewhere other than the celestial kingdom, as acceptance of those ordinances is essential no matter how well one has shaped their character in mortality.

The lost tribes live inside the earth, which is actually hollow with another small sun that lights the inside.  You access it from somewhere near the north pole where there is a hole in the ground that leads into to Shangri-La.

I don't remember ever feeling this way. On a personal level, I have faith that my ridiculously imperfect efforts to gain the Lord's grace will nevertheless be sufficient. And if I don't survive the judgments preceding the Second Coming of the Lord, I might as well be dead and in spirit prison as living in my debauchery here on earth.

Also assuming we’ll wear . . . anything.  :Satan:

Apparently so!  Just look at these four, running about without a stitch on!   (And no, the bells don't count!)

I snapped the photo below on my daily drive to my office in downtown Provo.  It is offered here without further comment. 
 

I hope that the Church isn't always on the "wrong" side of EVERY issue. I hope our discernment is more nuanced than "the World (TM) says X so the Church must say the opposite". When the World takes up a rallying cry against sexual assault and abuse, I hope the Church has and will take up the same cry, for example.
Perhaps the main problem I have with something like this, that I think my example illustrates, is that we always talk about "the World" without ever really defining who or what the World is (other than some idea that the World is those who are opposed to us). Of course, that kind of tautological "we are always on the wrong side of the World's issues because we define the World as those who are on the opposite side of our issues" may be true, but it doesn't help with discernment.
In the end, I hope the Church is always on the right side of what God wants. The real challenge is the discernment part -- knowing what God wants. And, accepting the fallibility of prophets and other Church leaders, is the Church always in every detail on the side that God wants?

@prisonchaplain  Yes, there are certain ordinances/sacraments and covenants that are only found in the Church. I might have to think about revelations -- not sure. Maybe I will use Iggy's skeleton of D&C 76 to illustrate my thinking here (and invite my correligionists to comment)
vs 51 "They are they who have received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name..." I don't see any reason to doubt that there are non-LDS Christians who have done so. "...and were baptized...according to the commandment." As small as the Church is, there are certainly many more Christians who have not received this ordinance by authority acceptable to the Church. However, if it doesn't happen during a Christian's lifetime, we believe that it can be performed by proxy after death. Sometimes, I see debate over whether we believe that everyone will receive this ordinance by proxy or not -- I tend to believe that everyone will eventually receive the ordinance whether by their own initiative or by proxy. 52: "That by keeping the commandments..." Again -- I think obedience is necessary, and Christians can be obedient to what they know. "...They might be washed and cleansed..." result of obedience. "...and receive the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands..." Another ordinance that, if not performed in this life, can be performed by proxy. 53: "And who overcome by faith..." I'm not sure all of what is overcome, but I expect that Christians can overcome by faith. "...and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true." Promise for those who overcome. If the sealing here includes elements of the other temple ordinances, remember that they, too, can be performed by proxy if not received in life. rest describes outcome of these steps -- being resurrected to celestial glory. As I see it, the parts that are unique and specific to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can all be received by proxy if not received in this life. The stuff that is not done by proxy can be done by all Christians.
I will mention that a person can choose to accept or reject the proxy ordinance work, and I am certainly not in any position to know or judge who will or won't accept or exactly how that works in final grand scheme of things. My impression of the proxy work is that, for those who accept it posthumously, it is not different than if they had performed those ordinances themselves in life. Perhaps there is room to talk about whether that is true or not.
For my correligionists -- am I way off base here?

Lawyers are commonly represented as hypocrites, even in scripture. Though this is certainly a broad and unfair generalization, there is a good reason for this stereotype: Many lawyers first decide what outcome they want, then find a logical path to establish that predetermined outcome.
That's backward. That's wrong. That's dishonest.
I see this happen very often in religious discussions. Someone has decided that Principle X is true. As a result, he (or she -- women do this as often as men) cites scriptures that he thinks justify this idea. He quotes General Conference talks that seem to him to buttress his point. If he is capable of using logic to some degree, he will often construct logical arguments, sometimes quite intricate -- and often quite flawed -- to convince others that he is right.
This is backward, wrong, and dishonest.
We should read and study scripture, and then ask God and let the Spirit teach us what those things mean. We should listen intently to our leaders at General Conference and elsewhere, and use their words as a yardstick to determine whether our beliefs are on track or whether we're off in the weeds. We should use our logic and reason, and we should use them vigorously, even mercilessly, to critique our own beliefs and suppositions. Having a religion based on faith and spiritual experience precludes a too-rigorous logical paradigm, because we will always have too few well-established and specific premises to base a strong overall logical model on. But logic is a powerful tool, one we should be willing to use when we can, and the results of which we should be unafraid to examine -- even (ESPECIALLY) when it violates our paradigms and preconceptions.
tl;dr -- We should use our scripture study, prophetic teachings, and life experience to seek understanding, not to justify what we already believe.