SilentOne

Can I make a big end-of-days prediction, too? I'll start off with the idea that the right and left sides of the eagle are the political right and left of the United States - that vision was given specifically for people in the modern day, and the people who were around at the time were not intended to understand. Also, when the proud and they that do wickedly will burn, it's going to be because of global warming. I haven't worked out the rest of the details yet.

The only real way to know about the things of God are spiritually, by prayer.  Only the faith of the 1847 Pioneers got them across the Plains to Utah.  That faith was hard earned through Prayer.
The invitation of Moroni:
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the btruth of all things.

Pussy cat buys fish  from fish shop with leaves instead of banknotes:
 

I find it hard to talk about the judgemental-ness of others without becoming judgemental myself.
When someone asks me "Am I a Christian?" I answer yes... because I believe that answer is correct.  When someone (rarely) asks "Why do "others" consider you to not be Christian?"  and I can answer that one too.  There is a doctrinal difference that is at the foundation of the disagreement.  A lot of people like to make a big deal of the difference, but for me when I ask myself if I were to believe differently on the doctrinal point would I be acting differently.  And I have to say the answer is No.
While I disagree with the other doctrinal interpretation for many reasons I have never found the difference to make a difference in how I act.

This is clearly a sin.  Jesus commanded that our i be single.

It's all in your imagination.

"Nothing"  "Completely". 
These two words are where the liberals have a point.  But the prick of that tiny point is somehow magnified into a ballistic missile of LGBTQ justification/rationalization that MUST be accepted and imposed upon the backwards conservative dinosaur who is too steeped in ancient superstition and tradition to understand God's "true" motives.  So say the woke prophets who deign to speak to us from their protected positions of authority.
No.
Religion by its very nature is conservative.  Without that trait, it would not be a religion.  It would be a fad political movement.  If religion is to change so wildly with every generation, the purpose of any religion in society would be completely untenable.
Religion codifies "acceptable behavior" in a manner that it would be tyrannical for government to do.  But is required to be stable if it is to have any benefit.  Only slow, gradual changes across several generations even have a chance at being a credible movement.
Any major changes in religion requires prophecy (not a social movement) to justify a sudden change.
The trans movement?  It was so far off the radar that neither Obama nor Hillary were willing to allow trans to use the bathroom of the opposite sex.  And pundits were touting the fact that it would never be pre-operative transexuals.  Only post-op.  And it would be ridiculous to believe the movement would go that far.
Well, here we are about 8 years later, not even a full generation, and it is being shoved down our throats without a consideration for all the harm it is doing to our children.  It isn't even allowed to be debated in public forums open to the lay person.  Parents are arrested for addressing a school board or a PTA meeting about how their daughters are being raped by a male pretending to be a girl.
And virtually all liberal Latter-day Saints are trying to claim this is the road that the Lord wants us to go down as a Church?
Back to the original point, Yes, almost nothing is off the table.  But we obviously need to keep things that are absolutely core beliefs as sacred and undeniable.  The Atonement of Christ is central.  There is no substitute.
But when we consider some things so close to the core that most of the rest of our belief system simply wouldn't make any sense without it, we need to pause for just a moment to consider.  How close to the core does it need to be for us to require and truly demand of the Lord that we receive a divine manifestation on the order of the First Vision?
Sealing, eternal families, the roles of father and mother, husband and wife.  With the past 150 years of understanding how important these are, and to change to beliefs that have been condemned throughout all of human history, without any explanation other than, "Hey society is saying so, and we need to get with the program" do we not have a right to demand such a manifestation if we are expected to go along with it?
Where is the doctrinal and theological basis for such change?
All I've ever heard is "Society says so.  Therefore, the Church will have to change to catch up."
Is this where we are?  Society (not God) tells the Church which direction to go?  I thought the whole purpose of the Church was for us to influence society -- not the other way around.  God's law is to stand as immutable as possible.  And we don't change our values, only our priorities based on the needs of that generation.
If we choose to go along with gay marriage and trans ideologies, it is to the destruction of the family and the death of the human race.  We do this to the detriment of our eternal destinies and our utter destruction.

Well, we'd be happy to share our beliefs.  But if you really don't know much about our faith, it would be inevitable that we will use terminology that you're not familiar with.  So, that would pretty much be impossible.  For some concepts, there really are no other words without using several paragraphs and examples to explain things.  But if you have a question and you need a definition, just ask.
This is completely normal.  But there is a weakness with this process.  And this would be true if I were trying to learn about your beliefs as well.  If you want proof of something, say, in  a court of law, that would be the way we go about things.  But with philosophy or religion, that process is extremely limiting.  For one thing, what do you consider as valid "evidence" of anything?  Belief systems tend to be self-supporting and limiting.
We arrive at truth by abiding by the source of truth: God.  When we're talking about divine truth, He is the source of truth.  And if we're to "believe" someone else's faith, we need to be "willing" to consider that some of our beliefs are incorrect or need modifying.  If we're not willing to do that, then of course we're not going to believe something that contradicts what we already believe.  That's completely normal.
It is the exceptional person, indeed, who is able to just lay aside some of their own belief system to even possibly consider another belief system.
Unfortunately, this is a bit like asking a scientist at the time of Galileo, "Prove to me that your scientific findings are true without resorting to your experiments and data you've collected."
That said:
1. We are a Christian faith in that we believe
in God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer.  That salvation comes in and through His atoning blood and in no other way.  Through His Atonement, all mankind may be saved as we accept Him as our Savior and follow His teachings. We differ from trinitarians in that we believe they are three distinct beings who act as one mind and one heart. 2. We believe in the following principles and ordinances as the physical manifestations of our following His path:
Faith is much more than just an idea in our minds or a feeling in our hearts.  It is the motivating principle of action.  If we are fully capable of doing something the Lord requires of us, but we choose otherwise, our faith wasn't sufficient to motivate the proper choice.  Thus faith in Christ becomes something we work on throughout our entire lives. Repentance is the turning our hearts, minds, and actions away from the sin and turning toward Christ. Baptism is the first physical ordinance we perform which signifies our dedication to follow Christ. Laying on of hands is required to receive the Holy Ghost. Higher ordinances are also required as we continue. We must endure to the end.  (Faith in Christ is something we work on all our lives) We don't believe: once saved = always saved. 3. Authority
We believe that proper authority to act in the name of God, must come from God to man by prophecy (direct contact with the Divine/ visions/visitations) not simply by studying the word alone.  Then those who have such authority can be authorized by God to give some authority to other men via the laying-on-of-hands. Part of that authority is to create an organization and system of running the Church (The Kingdom of God on Earth).  And that system/structure has been provided by God to administer His will on earth. We are separate from some "charismatic Christians", but we tend to believe in miracles and gifts of the spirit as they do. 4. Scriptures: We believe in the following volumes as sources of scripture.
Bible (While we generally use the KJV as a standard and common translation, there is nothing wrong with using other translations). Book of Mormon Doctrine & Covenants Pearl of Great Price Continuing Revelation 5. Civic Behavior:
We believe in obeying the law.  We also encourage participating in the political process. We believe in freedom of religion.  No one can FORCE another to believe something religiously.  But we have the right to practice our own religion per our own conscience. 6. In the most generic sense, we tend to have a value system that is common to Catholics and the more organized Protestant sects like Methodists, Lutherans, & Pentecostals, with some differences.
10 commandments (modern interpretations). Law of Chastity: No sex before marriage and absolute fidelity within marriage. No homosexual marriage. None of the "lesser stuff" that much of society seems to accept nowadays, like pornography. Word of Wisdom:  No alcohol, tobacco, coffee/tea, drugs, gluttony, etc.  Take care of yourself.  Your body is a temple. 7. Family is a high priority.  We believe that family bonds can continue throughout eternity.  That is through a process we call "sealing."

Read Elder Holland's talk.  Or, just think of a choir (or a band).  The sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses (or the different musicians and singers in the band) are each singing / playing a different note / part, and yet when each does their part correctly, together they create a harmony that is (supposed to be) beautiful.
I see this all over.  When I was a programmer, we had our boss, who kept the department running well; the BAs, who helped document requirements and communicate with users as well as coordinate meetings and such; the programmers who wrote the code; the testers, who made sure all the requirements were met and the code functioned as expected; the report writers, who made sure the data collected by the software was output into useful formats for the users; etc.  Different skills, different jobs, done separately, and yet all working to the same end - to produce an application that would help the users.

I can only speak for myself. And I can't say for sure whether this is solidly accepted by others or not. But I can say that in my current view, I don't think this is the purpose of our mortal experience. Rather, I think it's perhaps more of a benefit/blessing than a concrete purpose. And as with all blessings, to some it is given, to some it is not.
But even IF that is one of the major purposes of morality, then the question of HOW still needs to be considered.
It seems like you're suggesting that the how of it is that we need to learn to exercise our own mortal intelligence to figure it out. Therein lies destruction.
The purpose of life is stated as a proving grounds. But the test wasn't stated as "see if they will learn good from evil", but rather to "see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them".
It seems to me that the how of the matter lies therein. We learn good from evil by doing what the Lord commands.
After all, what's inscrutable to one seems plain to another. Believing that anything I find inscrutable is the end-all control for morality is such an arrogant and prideful idea.

We do what we can righteously do, and then we stand still and see the salvation of God as he fights our battles, shows to all that he is God, provides means for our continued action, comforts us, and reveals his arm.  God is able to do his own work.

The problem with this illustration of principle is that the so-called Priesthood ban was of God. This is absolutely sure, at least to the level that God refused to rescind it as recently (at least) as David O. McKay. We may importune God as we see fit, but God is not required to do anything just because we ask it of him.
If there is a principle of the gospel of which you do not have a testimony. silent loyalty to that principle is your very best option until you gain a spiritual conviction of it.

I reserve the right to be respectfully vocal about whatever I want to be respectfully vocal about.  I think it is a bad move to hire someone who is publicly in support of things that run contrary to Heavenly Father's order.  It makes me really question what is going on over there.   It doesn't affect my faith or obedience and to be honest I don't give it any thought.

And I'm not saying that the concern others have isn't natural. I'm suggesting a choice of determination in response. It's something I've had to consciously do in the past 5 years or so. I am naturally GREATLY concerned by these sorts of moves. But I choose to put that aside and trust in God. That is my response, rather than my natural instinct. If that makes sense.

Lots of things I could say.  The one that seems best is: I trust the Lord Jesus Christ.  He leads the Church.  This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.

I don't believe this is the case for mortality. Obviously it's the case for the eternities.
Anyone who thinks they can see things as clearly as God in mortality is gonna get themselves in pretty big trouble pretty quickly.
We are meant to live by faith. We are meant to trust. We are meant to obey.
We are granted understanding and insight in small portions to help us with that, sure.
But the condition set forth for our exaltation is not understanding. It is faith and obedience. As far as understanding helps us with faith and obedience it's a good thing. But even the dumbest person alive has the same opportunities for salvation as the most brilliant.
I think setting up understanding as key to anything gets people into trouble pretty quickly. Obviously writing off understanding as meaningless would be wrong too. But it's so often the case that people set up understanding, knowledge, logic, and intelligence as the bases for their gospel journey.
I generally agree, but...
I'm not sure I can even accept that if someone became perfect in this life that they would/could then develop a perfect understanding of the eternities. But even accepting that as right...it's a non-starter because we can't be and won't be perfect in this life. God knew that. He set it up that way. He provided the Savior for us because he knew that.
I guess I agree with you "theoretically". It's just practically speaking...that's not the plan of salvation as I understand it. The plan was that we're going to fail and fail and fail and will we or will we not accept the Savior's atonement by way of obedience, repentance and faith. And as much as we improve in our understanding through faith, we're still going to be pretty blind overall and dependent on faith and obedience.
I mean I have no doubt that President Nelson understands the Priesthood better than me. I also have no doubt that there's a lot about the Priesthood that President Nelson doesn't understand and that he'd be the first to admit it.
I accept this is a part of it. I know it is in the case with parables, because Christ said as much. But I don't think it's the entirety of it. I think it's multifaceted.
Of course it also still fits quite nicely into the idea that God wants things blurry. It only adds a "why" (among what I assume are many whys).
But I guess what I'm really trying to get across is that we ought to be comfortable with the fact that there are going to be an awful lot of things that we may never understand in this life, and that failure to understand them shouldn't really throw us.

I think it's more a case of, God would like for things to be as clear for man as they are for him, but before we are ready for that clarity, it would destroy us.  So to prepare us to receive the clarity, he gives us parables and "blurry" versions ("through a glass, darkly") and as we choose to be led into the light, we see more and more clearly.  Etc.
(So, not so much that God wants things blurry as that in his mercy, he leaves things blurry, lest we be destroyed by the clarity.)

Why can't blurriness be a part of order?
Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.
Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

Yeah.  I can't see God wanting something to be blurry, but I can see us just not being able to comprehend it in this state.   Like eternity.  I understand it, but I can't comprehend it.

By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male.

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.

Probably should have read this thread before serving my charcuterie.

How lambs/chicks/bunnies/whatever else got associated with Easter
History of Handel's Messiah

I feel like I've always known about the dangers of turkey-stuffing. Huh.
President Bartlet on The West Wing also doubted when he first heard of the risk.

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.