Anddenex

Organic chemistry.

I like Pres. Hinckley's answer:
I agree with @DoctorLemon pornography. In addition, first world problems of wealth. Wealth in the sense of the pride cycle, the "prosperity" that comes right before the "pride & wickedness".
 

I have a beef with uncivilized creatures in restaurants.  (Some dogs are more civilized than some humans.  Just sayin'.)

Oh absolutely that was wrong.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/pray-unto-the-father-in-my-name?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-8-praying-to-our-heavenly-father?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/prayer?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/the-lord-jesus-christ-teaches-us-to-pray?lang=eng

.

"230 years ago today 41 delegates to a convention in Philadelphia, after nearly 4 months of deliberation and debate, signed the Constitution of the United States.  Some of the signers of the U.S. Constitution, including George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, later testified in their own words of the divine assistance of "providential agency", that "Almighty hand", or the "finger of God"  toward establishing the Constitution.  And we Latter-day Saints have been told  by the Lord Himself in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101:80 that He established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom He raised up unto that very purpose.  Since that revelation was given in 1833, almost every latter-day prophet and many apostles have testified of the importance of our understanding, upholding, and abiding by the principles of the U.S. Constitution. President David O. McKay said it this way: “Other than being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States." (The Instructor, Feb. 1956, p. 34)

It appears to me that Jephthah vowed what is in our Church manuals, that his daughter would live a life of "virginity" not knowing any man, thus not having any children which ended Jephthah lineage.  The burnt offering appears to be the seal of the vow, not that his daughter was offered as a burnt offering.
 

It appears to me that Jephthah vowed what is in our Church manuals, that his daughter would live a life of "virginity" not knowing any man, thus not having any children which ended Jephthah lineage.  The burnt offering appears to be the seal of the vow, not that his daughter was offered as a burnt offering.
 

It appears to me that Jephthah vowed what is in our Church manuals, that his daughter would live a life of "virginity" not knowing any man, thus not having any children which ended Jephthah lineage.  The burnt offering appears to be the seal of the vow, not that his daughter was offered as a burnt offering.
 

Yes. It reminds me of the story of Heber C Kimball and his wife Vilate. My great, great grandfather only consented to something similar after he had a dream (never recorded what he experienced) but I think the Lord is very mindful of our weaknesses and will provide sufficient witness to meet the command being given us.

I do not understand how being a man degrades G-d in any way.  Whenever someone comes up with an idea of G-d – I hold that idea up against the example of Jesus Christ.  It no more degrades G-d the Father to have been a man than it degraded Jesus to come to earth and become a man to save us all.  I think the idea that G-d is degraded if he is ever a man is to deny the Christ.  I do not understand why anyone claiming to be a Christian would do such a thing????
 
The Traveler

I submit that our mortal selves could not possibly contain that understanding nor survive the process of trying to receive it.

I have played with the idea that God was just a man part of a highly technologically advanced human race that squires immortality, then to build a perfect society, the "god's" built this simulation for all men to go down before become part of such a perfect society. Only those that pass this simulation will acquire said "God hood" and he a part of this eternally growing perfect society.
This is of course all hullabaloo and not worth spending time rationalizing
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/tad-r-callister_our-identity-and-our-destiny/
this talk was one of my first exposures to the topic and I feel it answers a lot of your questions.
this doctrine doesn't diminish god, but raises us to him. God does not intend that he will always be a mystery, but that one day we will be to fully rationalize his greatness and understand how he got there. 
Why doesn't he do it now?
a thousand years  ago if a man cured a case of polio, he would be a magician or holy man. Today he would be a doctor or scientist, far less impressive. We may have a similar reaction to god if we understood everything today.
 

Following the apostasy, or should I say during it, one of the very first doctrines of Christ that Satan attacked was man's understanding of who God is. Why? Because as Joseph Smith pointed out, if we do not comprehend God we cannot comprehend ourselves. That isn't to say we know everything there is to know about God but we do understand who he is and knowing who he is tells us who we are. The result of the post-apostasy skewed idea of God is a belief that cheapens and degrades all of mankind. We are majestic beings with so much potential we can scarcely even begin to comprehend what awaits us in the eternities if we stick to the path God has laid out for us. Raise your view of who you are and can be and the majesty of God our Father takes on epic proportions.

This verse establishes two things:
1) God the Father is the most high.
2) There is more than one being that can be identified as a god.
The spirits comprising Legion did not pass through the veil and would have maintained a remembrance of pre-mortal life.  As a result, when they identify Jesus as the Son of the most high God, this would likely not have been in reference to the Father's reality and greatness compared to the various false God's worshiped by mankind at the time.

Another myth:
-- In order for God to be "good enough" He must forever be completely unknowable, mysterious, and beyond human comprehension.  This is blatantly anti-scriptural.  Rather, the Gospel teaches: "3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."  (John 17:3)

Yes, that is scriptural.
I'm just going to dismiss a couple of myths here that don't originate from the Gospel--
-- In order to be "Godly enough" God must have created ex nihilio.  Just no.  Ex nihilio is not a scriptural concept and we don't need to add non-scriptural concepts to make the True God "good enough".
-- Likewise: In order to be "Godly enough" God must get to do whatever He wants.  Totally unscriptural.  Being God is not about being a gaint toddler and doing whatever you want.  Rather it's about the True freedom that comes from living Perfect Righteousness.
-- God is not simply a techno-wizard.  Just no on so many levels.  For example, no technology level grants Perfect Love.  
-- God is simply a sufficiently progressed man and remove the majesty of the divine.   No.   I can't even bring myself to humor this misconception.
Yeah, a giant toddler that needs pagan philosophy to be good enough.   No, such being is the product of man's imagination and is not God in the slightest. 
True LDS theology in NO way 'lessons' God.  Such is impossible.
I would recommend a scripture study session for you to remember who the True God is.  He's not a toddler, not a pagan byproduct, not a techno-wizard.  He is a loving Perfect Father.  I would recommend starting with looking at His Perfect love, justice, and mercy: traits sorely missing from all these myths.

I think it only partly removes the mystery and doesn't remove the majesty at all, if you think about it.  Which is more majestic, someone magical you cannot begin to comprehend, or someone who has already worked harder than you or I ever wanted to in the first place, for longer than we can imagine possible, and more selflessly than we ever dreamed?
Presumably both described versions of God possess all knowledge, the only difference is that one had to learn it and one somehow magically always had it.  I find more impressive the one who had to work for it.  Someone who has spent their entire existence on easy street (so to speak) just doesn't seem that impressive to me.  It's pretty easy to just be who you are; it's amazingly difficult to become something better.  When I look around me, the people who impress me are those who keep going long after I would have given up.
PS: Welcome to the forums!

As far as I can tell from history, Joseph Smith didn't seem to move forward without a very convincing angel in front of him. He asked a question. He received an answer. He was commanded to live it. Now, was this compulsory means; however, I think God is in a different position then you and I (possibly ). This bring to my heart and mind Abraham 3: 25.

As far as I can tell from history, Joseph Smith didn't seem to move forward without a very convincing angel in front of him. He asked a question. He received an answer. He was commanded to live it. Now, was this compulsory means; however, I think God is in a different position then you and I (possibly ). This bring to my heart and mind Abraham 3: 25.

This concept of requiring approval from the prior wife/wives before marrying another wife, is probably the "Law of Sarah" mentioned in D&C 132.  It goes both ways--prior wives are supposed to consent to the action, if done in righteousness; but if no consent is given, that's the end of it and the wedding can't go forward.  D&C 132 gives one exemption to the "Law of Sarah", and that's in the case of a man who holds the keys of the sealing power (i.e. the President of the Church, and arguably members of the Quorum of the Twelve)--in that case, the Law of Sarah doesn't apply.

As a matter of definition, marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. This is always the case. Plural marriage is not a marriage consisting of one man and multiple women; rather, it is multiple marriages, each between one man and one woman, where the man is the same in the various marriages. I find this distinction important; my great-grandfather's marriage to his first wife was separate from his marriage to my great-grandmother. Plural marriage was not some sort of communal  polyamorous marriage idea. I do hope that that point comes through in the lesson.

In the dating realm here are tidbits if I had the opportunity to go back this is what I would do:
1) Relax -- we create to much anxiety in our lives by the illusion of outcomes.
2) Honor agency -- always remember to honor the agency of the other person. They have every right to say "No," or appear to be "confused," or appear to be stand offish. Honor whatever their response with love and charity.
3) Confidence - confidence is increased by increments, "Do the thing that you fear, and the death of fear is certain." (don't remember author) The more you approach the easier it will become, and the more relaxed you will be. Some women actually are impressed by the awkward approach of a man trying to make an honest approach to get to know her. Some are not. Return back to #1 and #2 if so.

Pretty soon, all that anxiety will dissipate, or be within levels that are easily maintained or controlled and you will be going on more dates.

For what it's worth, this is how Elder Talmage described that picture:
 

Or for that matter, before 1990.