Anddenex

I am going to say they can

Wish I had a quote. It was said prior to the 'official' part but those that were there heard it and someone also heard a seventy confirm that the seal is open. Looking over those scriptures should shed some light though as well.
(the 6th and 7th overlap btw)

If I had to guess I would say that we will experience something like the Nephites and Lamanites did where they were all converted at the sign of Jesus' birth because the evidence was so great. After Jesus' appearance in Jerusalem all the world is going to know what happened. There will be a huge rush to know the truth but after a while people will begin to lose interest and return to their wicked ways. They will then be left without excuse when the Savior comes. But that's what He wants, a world full of people who have made an educated decision on where they stand. Just my opinion though on how things transpire.

The Lord actually makes several appearances. As I understand it the first will be at Adam-ondi-Ahman to designated Church leaders. Then at Jerusalem to save the Jews from their enemies and then the official Second Coming to all the world. These events are not necessarily close together though. For example, as I understand it it will be after the Savior's appearance at Jerusalem that the gospel will be taken to the heathen nations. To me this makes a lot of sense. If you consider the Jew's enemies consisting to a large degree of non-Christian people such as from the Middle-East and Asia and they see a Heavenly Being save their enemy the Jews. How many people on both sides of the battle are actually converted and then return home to share the gospel in their homelands? And how many years does this take to spread the gospel to all the people in these nations? Could be a while. My point is that the official Second Coming may actually be quite a ways off but that doesn't mean some very interesting events aren't getting very near.

I think the key in understanding the half hour of silence is to consider it in the context in which it is given. In Revelations 8 John the Revelator starts off by saying that the seventh seal is opened with a half hour of silence. He then goes on to say that after the half hour of silence angels will begin to blow seven trumpets in succession, each bringing some sort of destruction or calamity in order to cleanse the earth preparing it for the Second Coming. So the silence would seem to be a period of time at the beginning of the seventh seal before the trumpets sound and the destruction begins. Silence = no trumpets sounding. My guess is that this is a preparatory period for us to get done whatever we need to get done. Could that be the reason for the hastening? Maybe. The one problem with the half hour of silence is that there is no definitive event to let us know when it has begun, unless the Prophet reveals it I guess. Maybe there is another way to know but I don't know it. I'm torn over whether the half hour means a set period of time like the 20.833 years or if it just means a relatively short period of time.

In my post above I said it was 41.66 years, that was a mistake as it was taking 1000/24, it would actually be 20.8333 years for a half hour if we take it literally (as two cents posted above already).  Of course, that doesn't change that it could also be symbolically, and thus even if the year 2000 did open the 7th seal, we would have no idea what the year would be.  Of interest, no man knows the hour or day, but we have some really clear indicators from Revelations and other books.  We know that there will be temple built (which I'm still waiting for) and that two prophets will be sent to the Jews who will be there for around 1000 days...and then they will be slain.  If we watch and see these, we will then know almost the exact day because we know how long they will approximately lie in the street and then they'll be raised and the Second Coming will be at hand as Jerusalem is overrun (I think that's how it's written).  The people will be fleeing and the Lord will appear as their Savior, they'll ask about the wounds in his hands and feet and then after he answers, I believe they carry him to the temple.
On the above, I have heard the rainbow thing before.  I've never read the source document on it though.  Are we certain that's a Joseph Smith thing though, I could swear that I've also read or heard about it from other religious commentary on the second coming and such.

Hmm, a few things here. One of my friends who is a lawyer for the church worked out the Roman Calendar days (there were only 350 days in the Roman calendar so every decade the seasons were reversed in Rome) and the year the globe ceased using the Roman Calendar. He then worked out the leap years and a few other miracles where the sun/moon were stopped. He then factored in the prophecy that Christ would come at the end of the 4,000 years and then there'd be 2,000 years before the beginning of the seventh... now, if you work it all out -and I can't show you his math because I don't have it here with me-  it places the beginning of the 7,000 at the year 2027-2028.
What I also found interesting was that President Hinckley in London in 1987 was interviewed for the Church News and asked why 'the church's lease on Hyde Park Chapel runs out in 2036 and the church has no provisions to renew the lease of the most expensive piece of real estate the church is holding?' Pres Hinckley replied in print that "The savior would be returning long before then". You can find that quote for yourself in the Church news of the era.
What I don't get though is that in one of the recent firesides, the congregation were told 'the clock's hand had moved' and it was "only one minute until midnight". Given that back in the 80's we were being told it was two minutes to midnight, it would put the year of the Saviors return in the 2030's. Yeah, the clock metaphor is obviously an imprecise measurement, I know. 
And before someone screams "no man shall know the date", a date is a day, not a year. All we know of the date is that it is on 'HIS DAY'. Does that mean his birthday or the day of his resurrection, or perhaps the anniversary of the day of atonement?
 
Oh, and I forgot to mention there's a revelation from Joseph Smith relating to Matt 24 where we are told that the Lord returns in a year without rainbows globally- it's not that the symbol of the promise (the rainbow itself) is removed but the scripture points to there being no rain as it's a time of global famine. So, you would still be able to create a rainbow with a squirt from your garden hose however, you may not have the water to waste like that- according to revelations, one third of the sea will be dead after a massive volcano around the same time.
 

I get that but when the wife of the president of the quorum of the 12 is saying this at a worldwide devotional, it should get people's attention:
"So, now a question as I conclude: What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth—that He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings13—gatherings about which the world, including CNN and the blogosphere, knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth, what would you desperately want to do today, and what would you be willing and ready to do tomorrow?"
- Wendy Watson Nelson, An Evening with President Russell M. Nelson Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults • January 10, 2016 • Brigham Young University–Hawaii

Also anonymous but something to consider: 
The signs are happening in such rapid succession, there can be no doubt we are in the last few years.  We know He will come and work on the earth helping to build the New Jerusalem and be in Adam Ondi-Ahman and the Old Jerusalem several years before he officially comes in His Glory.
I'm not an expert or here to convince anyone of anything. I also realize people are at different levels of readiness for this information but again, there are people studying and paying attention and noticing the subtle clues Church leaders have and are giving. 

There are different stages to the Second Coming.

I"ll keep this person anonymous but there are people who've studied this quite a bit and say that Pres. Hinckley indicated the seal opened at the dedication of the Palmyra Temple: 
April 6, 2000 was the prophesied temple dedication from Revelations 7 & Joel 1 where all members would attend. Not possible in our day if not for technology which allowed ALL worthy members to watch as Palmyra was the first (of only two temple dedications) that were televised world wide. And immediately after, in Rev 8:1 the 7th seal was opened, and the space of 'half an hour' (or 20.83 years in the Lords time) began.
As far as where I stand, I think it's better to think things are closer than to think we still have a long way to go.

Well, after the seventh seal opens I believe there is supposed to be 30 minutes of silence from heaven.  Postulation would indicate that this is a period where nothing is really heard from above...which could be interesting in regards to LDS modern thoughts on the matter.  It could be that individuals can receive revelation but no one actually hears directly or is visited directly???
However, if one does the math it also indicates that if we are using a LITERAL translation that would mean we have to wait around 41 2/3 years before the actual second coming in that regards...though in truth the half hour of silence could be symbolic.
I find it interesting all those that claimed the second coming in the year 2000, because as per the scriptures, even if we take them literally, we still had the half hour of silence after that, if I recall right.

1) Moral agency (enticed by the one or the other) + obedience = righteousness
2) Moral agency (enticed by the one or the other) + disobedience (in our sin) = wickedness
3) Moral agency (enticed by the one or the other) + disobedience + repentance (saving from our sin) = righteousness

Laman and Lemuel were lying.

Just to keep pressing the issue: Can't the same be said of the Church? If the organization, doctrine, and policies are revealed and not received exactly the way God intended, the First Presidency and Apostles are diligently listening to the will of God to direct this church as He would if here in person.

But the gospel, while revealed by God, is revealed through His valiant, yet imperfect servants. So where does that place the gospel on the error-perfection scale?

Here's the thing about obedience: you can't get away from it in the gospel. It seems like some want to separate it out, as if it's some kind of lower law, the higher law being -- typically stated as love. But that just plainly doesn't work because the higher law is a LAW. The commandment to love God with all our heart, mind and strength is a commandment and obedience to that law/commandment is still requisite. Sure, I understand the concept behind why some want to downplay obedience -- it's about motivation. Do you do things because you're mindlessly obeying, scared of punishment, hoping for reward, or simply because it is your character? But as we are commanded to make our character as God's, getting to a place where our motivation is right is still a matter of obedience, and no one gets there without making a conscious choice to put off the natural man, humble themselves, and obey God, no matter what the starting motivation. There is no disobedience that equates to righteousness. There is no filled with love and therefore obedience may be disregarded. Moreover obedience is the criteria the Lord set as our probationary model here on earth. "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;" (Abr 3:25). It is not possible to be obedient and unrighteous. It is not possible to be disobedient and righteous. Righteousness is doing as the Lord asks us to do.
"He's obedient to the gospel but he's not Christlike", or "She may be obedient but she doesn't care about her fellow man," or (as @Vort suggested) "Laman and Lemuel may be obedient but they sure complain alot and tried to murder their brother several times." None of these ideas are accurate. Not being Christlike is disobedient. We've been commanded to be Christlike. Not caring about our fellow man is not obedient. We've been commanded to love our neighbor. Complaining is not obedient. We've been commanded not to murmur. Not to mention murder.
Every so often this obedient-but-not-righteous idea will arise concerning the scribes and Pharisees, somehow forgetting, missing, or ignoring that Jesus explicitly said they were "laying aside the commandments of God." and fully rejecting them. (Mark 7:8-9).
As to whether salvation comes by obedience? Well, just look at Abinadi's explaination:
"And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law [...]." (clipped out "of Moses" by way of modern day application).
@zil addressed this above as well. Christ saves. But the conditions upon which he saves are obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
I tend to view it thus:
Faith is the first principle of the gospel by way of order. Without faith the rest doesn't follow. (Though it should be pointed out that we have been commanded to have faith...so...obedience).
Repentance is the primary principle of the gospel...or, in other words, the matter of obedience with which we must predominantly be engaged .
Love is the greatest commandment or principle and should be the reason/motivation why we obey, what we repent of failing to do, and the foundation of our faith.
But obedience is the core principle of the gospel. Everything else is encompassed therein.

My first thought is to question the validity of Laman and Lemuel's assertion, to question their ability to know to what the people should be obedient and what that looked like.  The rote, external performance of rituals by the Jews of the time does not necessarily mean they were obedient to God, it only means they were making an outward show of being obedient in ritualistic ways.  We know through Lehi and Nephi that the Jews were not obedient to God.
Willing obedience may well be the definition of righteousness, but that doesn't mean obedience brings about salvation.  See Article of Faith 3, however - though salvation is a gift, it is a gift given to those who have proven through obedience that they are willing to receive it.  Righteous is not the same as saved or exalted, but might make one willing to receive salvation or exaltation.
Dictionary definition of "righteous": "morally right or justifiable; virtuous".  Does that not sound like doing what is right?  Is not "obedience" the same as "doing what is right"?
My second thought led to this list, which is just a starting point and subset of this topical guide entry.  I've mixed and jumbled them up and my headache is now getting worse, so I'm thinking I should just give up and go to bed.  But these are my initial thoughts.
Hebrews 5:8, John 8:29, Romans 5:19
Isaiah 1:19
Matthew 7:21, 24
Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, D&C 84:44
1 Samuel 15:22
D&C 64:34, 93:1, 105:6
D&C 130:21, 138:4
Abraham 3:25
3rd article of faith

Hey, let's have another debate about what is and isn't "doctrine".

Truth is truth, whether someone defends it or not.  That said:
And my personal favorite answer:
Is all that answer enough for you and your brother?
     

I think the answer depends on what you mean by defending. I suppose on a macro sense it doesn't, it's true and everyone who fights against it will one day find out their wrong and will take a knee before the Savior. But I would argue on a micro level, in our day to day interactions, it can and should be defended. There is no need to allow falsehoods to be spread in our presense, and I always looked at defending the Gospel as standing up for what's right. I would even argue that it's a form of testifying of the Gospel to defend it's truthfullness before others. I do believe we need to be careful how we do it though. I remember being a young and foolish missionary getting into a shouting match with someone on their doorstep because they said I was going to hell. After 15 minutes or so of screaming at each other, and him slamming the door in my face, (over one of my scintillating ripostes of logic I'm sure☺), I felt miserable. I realized I had invited the spirit of contention in by taking his offensive comment and throwing it back at him and had done both of us little good in the process. After that, if I felt myself reacting in anger rather than boldness I would take a step back and leave. I believe it's the spirit in which we are defending the Gospel that matters most in whether we should do it or not in any given situation.

@Blossom76,
The KJV is not used because of being the most accurate version.  There are many reasons it is used.  Possibly some most important reasons in my mind are:
It more accurately conveys the honorific language that ought to be used in communications to and about God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Book of Mormon translation was done by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith, and the language used in the Book of Mormon most closely follows the more formal wording format.  If we were to use an alternative version of the Bible as a primary source,  it would not flow in verbiage with our other scriptures as revealed by God. When Joseph Smith received revelations addressing errors in the Bible, those revelations did not change the tone or language, they merely provided missing information. The First Presidency has issued an official statement that we will use the King James Version. It is not that we believe that other versions are wrong or bad or incorrect, all books, including the Book of Mormon, contain errors of man.  However, I also believe the prose of the King James version of the Bible most accurately conveys the spirit of the intent of the messages contained within.

Theres a story by Elder Orson F. Whitney that is found in the beginning pages of "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder."
Also, for what it's worth, Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible and believe it to be the most correct version of the Bible available on earth today. It's kind of like trying to use your grandmother's recipe for stuffing when the measurements are in pinches and she never wrote it down. You'll get it mostly right, so there's no need to change everything.

For what-ever reason most think of the great Apostasy in terms of doctrine.  The actual apostasy was the usurping of the “Authority” of G-d on earth to establish holy or divine covenants.    The most obvious indication of the Great Apostasy is the ending of the authority to write holy scripture – which is a record of covenant obedience and apostasy (creating a false covenant).  The real meaning of Apostasy is not heresy (as many Traditional Christians claim) but the ending of the power on earth to record (create) covenants which are wirtten in the book of life which is used at the Judgment of G-d.   This power of covenant proctor was given to Peter and the claims of covenant proctor succession are invalidated with the ending of written scripture.
As a side note – this is why the authority of the Pharisees and the Sadducees was that of a false proctor and void of written scripture.
 
The Traveler

It appears I never responded to this, but I think I intended to. Others (e.g. @zil, @Jane_Doe) may have already covered this ground.
The Bible is a collection of early Christian documents deemed sacred. Was the Church in apostasy well before our New Testament was compiled? Unquestionably. But a state of apostasy does not mean the sacred documents suddenly vanished, or that there were no good, sincere, reasonable people left. Good, sincere, reasonable people can treasure up valuable documents. Even hundreds of years into the apostasy, decent people of true intent can sort through those documents and choose out those they consider most valuable, relevant, and true. To the extent possible, they may well have been guided by the Holy Spirit in some of their choices.
Did they make mistakes in their choices? Without doubt. I am sure they excluded from the canon some authentic and valuable works, because the doctrine was so different (e.g. premortal life) that they couldn't rectify it with the beliefs that were becoming standardized. On the other hand, there was a lot of spurious and downright nonsensical stuff floating around, purporting to be early histories of the Church or of Jesus (e.g. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is straight-up nonsense and fairy tales). Imagine having the responsibility of sifting through dozens or even hundreds of such documents, trying to figure out which are authentic. At some point, you become very quick to exclude a document that's too far "out there". I'm rather shocked that the Revelation made the cut.
So no, the New Testament is in nowise a comprehensive record of Jesus' ministry and teachings, nor is it a complete collection of sacred documents generated by the apostles and other eyewitness followers of Jesus. But it is an invaluable collection of documents detailing Jesus' work and ministry. Its worth is beyond price.
About 35 or so years ago, an apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) voiced the view that one day, the Bible will be perfected and completed with books and revelations we don't currently have, and will be the word of God to the world. For now, the Bible exists only in the form we have it; the Book of Mormon is the scripture given specifically to our dispensation, and testifies most forcefully of Christ and his work to our modern generation. But while the importance of the Book of Mormon to us cannot be overstated, few Latter-day Saints (or others) have any clear conception of the glorious destiny of the word of God as contained in the Bible.