Midwest LDS

I think it just depends on the recipe. I made some Mexican Street Tacos last week with steak, red onions, cilantro, and lime that was honestly (not bragging I'm still pretty new at trying to make stuff like this) was as good as the stuff I get at my favorite Mexican places.

It's sad that they have to come out with a statement like this. The level of hatred, disregard for other's life/property, and just plain evil in this world is just awful.

Thanks for the site recommendations. I am giving a talk on missionary work using social media and I was looking for extra options to mention besides the obvious Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc.

Authentic Mexican food in a restaurant will taste different than "Americanized" Mexican food from a restaurant.  And that tastes different than "Tex-Mex."  And all of them taste different than home-made.
The only real differences between "authentic" and a really good "Americanized" Mexican restaurant are
A) The lard content (as @NeedleinA said) and
B) The way they treat cheese). 
C) Some things that we traditionally think of as "Mexican" is really American food based on Mexican dishes.  And the Americanized restaurants will serve these.
At least, that was all I could tell.  And TBH, I prefer the Americanized.  But the authentic is ok.
The difference between homemade and restaurant is just a matter of recipe and cooking style.  Different ovens.  Different spices.  Different blendings of what to put into the salsas, etc.  The way things are cooked make a big difference.  If you grill onions vs sautee them or oven bake them, they taste very different.  This goes for all sorts of ingredients.
My wife make stuff out of boiled, shredded chicken. Then she puts the seasonings and so forth on them.  The Mexican restaurant marinades, then slow cooks, then shreds, then adds some additional seasonings, then bakes.  Your restaurant's mileage may vary.

Thanks for the site recommendations. I am giving a talk on missionary work using social media and I was looking for extra options to mention besides the obvious Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc.

I tend to think that there are several categories of people who:
1) Believe in ONE TRUE GOD.
2) Do NOT believe in ONE TRUE CHURCH.
Here are the categories that I'm personally aware of.
Many do believe in ONE true church.  But they basically think that all (at least most) sects of Christianity are true.  But they simply emphasize one aspect or another. Many do believe in ONE true church. And theirs is it. Many do believe in ONE true church.  But it is not on the earth. Many do not believe in one true church because worship is personal, not collective.  And we receive salvation through our personal relationship with God. Many do not believe in one true church because church is a manmade construct and we rely on Christ, not man. I can sympathize with each of these philosophies.  But having known the truth, I simply can't accept them.

I totally agree with @Carborendum's answer above for the OP.
However, I don't think that this particular part was addressed.  I'm interpreting the quoted part as "doesn't everyone think that their God (LDS Christian or not) is the True and Living one, whom we can know and worship?".  I'll break my response up into two parts:
True: ok, I can't think of a person whom doesn't believe their views are the most true / correct.  That's why they do hold those views after all.  Though, I do know people whom believe in openly relativist truths.  
Living: *Jane tries to figure out how to phrase this the best* .... I do know people (Christian and non) whom believe God distant.  Non-participatory in our lives, non-approachable, non-knowable, etc.  One thing I love about the LDS Christian faith is the stress that God IS involved, is approachable, and is knowable.  If you seek wisdom, then just go ask Him!  It's that simple!    He lives!!!  Go talk to Him and have the real active relationship with Him!!!  

I've mentioned before that one meaning of "true" is "it points straight", as in truing a rifle. A gun that shoots true hits what you're aiming at, assuming you can aim a gun correctly. I think this is a valid and important meaning of a "true Church".

The phrase "true and living God" is a reference to idols which were neither true, nor living.
The "true and living Church" is likewise a reference to churches that do not have "the Spirit" which gives life to the body.  And they are, likewise, not true.

Thank you everyone for your help.  
After a lot of prayer, prescription has been filled and I'm taking my medication, I wouldn't say it's guilt free, but I'm working on it 😊

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's not for me, or you, to say.

"Based on the above statements"?  What an odd thing to say.  You're not quoting scripture, you're quoting church policy, based on God's commandments.
Plus, nothing about the above statements you quoted, say anything about the number of children.  The closest is "Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple."
So I'd have to say no, based on the statements you quote, a couple who has children is not violating God's commandment to have children.
Color me perplexed at the question.

Mormons—like most groups bound by a common ideology—often fail to live up to our highest principles.  But we are told, in no uncertain terms, to avoid unnecessary judgments of others who are outside of our “stewardship” (even more so when we don’t have the facts); and I think dealing in hypotheticals like this comes uncomfortably close to the line.
If the player were me:  I’d probably have more kids.  If the player (or his wife) were someone close to me, I’d probably try (if they were willing to talk about it) to get a fair sense of their considerations and thought processes, and if a suitable occasion presented itself I might perhaps gently encourage them to consider the possibility of having more.
But then, I have six kids as it is; and I don’t make anywhere near five million bucks.  

The policy description under Birth Control was updated just a few weeks ago.  The current policy is in the General Handbook, section 38.6.4
This does not represent a major change from the previous policy; with the only noticeable difference being that the previous policy explicitly encouraged members considering surgical sterilization to seek counsel from their priesthood leaders. The new policy implicitly removes priesthood leaders from the decision making process.

Hi @marge, great to see you again?  How has the crazy year been treating you?
LDS Christians believe that the timing of children is something to be prayerfully considered between a husband and wife.  There's nothing inherently sinful about condoms, birth control pills, medicines to help conceive, pre-menopause medicines, etc.   Children are indeed a blessing from the Lord, but we should also be good stewards of our households.  I myself have been recently involved with doctors investigating why hubby and I haven't been able to conceive. 
Things LDS Christians do passionately disagree with: elective abortion.  If a child is for some reason not welcomed to that family, it is HIGHLY encouraged to pursue adoption.
Cases of rape or medical endangerment: these are nightmare circumstances that nobody wants to be in.  In such cases, a person is highly encourage to seek the best medical advice and prayer possible, both for their decision and general well being.  It's also an important time for friends/family/church family to be there to support each other.

Hi Marge, here you go.  Good luck on having less guilt!
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng
 

I've not used Brave, so unfortunately I couldn't explain how they are different. Dissenter is from the creators of Gab. 
The creators of Gab have been working to make an entire system 100% separate from big tech Silicon valley.
They are not only working on the software end, they are also creating the hardware...a smart phone 100% free of Google and parts made in China. 

Ultimately a competitor on all levels. 
 

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles released a statement:

Jesus is the great high priest. The Priesthood, at least from our perspective and for our purposes, is Christ's. The Priesthood is, in effect, Christ. It is the very word of God, as Jesus is the Word. It is the power through which creation took place, both creation of things around us and creation of us ourselves. That a man, no matter how holy, can be given the very power of God is itself one of the greatest miracles I can imagine.
The Priesthood is one, as God himself is One. In the large sense, there are not two "Priesthoods". There is exactly one true Priesthood, and it is called Melchizedek. The name "Melchizedek" means "King of righteousness", and thus is a name of Christ. The man named Melchizedek was the greatest or best-known high priest (meaning a holder of the high Priesthood) of his time, and typified the righteous Priesthood holder. Thus, we have the "Priesthood of Melchizedek" standing as a name for The Priesthood, the only true Priesthood that exists.
But wait! If the "high priest" is a holder of the "high" Priesthood, that suggests there is more than just one! There must be a lower Priesthood or Priesthoods! Yes, it does suggest that. The suggestion is not quite true. There is indeed a lesser Priesthood, a Priesthood given to Aaron and his sons to serve the lesser Law of Moses after the children of Israel had rejected the greater law God sought to give them. This so-called Aaronic Priesthood is not really a different "priesthood" at all. Rather, it is a subset of the holy Priesthood, which concerns itself with outward ordinances and performances. Aaron's sons held this "lesser Priesthood", and through its authority they could conduct the temple worship of animal sacrifices that the Lord had revealed to Moses and other prophets before him*. These sacrifices served to atone for the sins of the people and bring them back to God, ultimately representing the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God which would truly accomplish those goals. The children of Israel quickly lost track of the underlying meaning of those ordinances, but the righteous and perceptive among them understood the meaning of the law of Moses.
*Note that the leader of the priests of Aaron was designated the "high priest", e.g. Matthew 26:3. This "high priest" is not to be confused with a holder of the high Priesthood. In normal conversation today, Latter-day Saints use the term "high priest" to refer to a man who holds the office of high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. So the term "high priest" has at least three meanings among Latter-day Saints: (1) a Latter-day Saint man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood office of high priest; (2) any holder of the "high" or Melchizedek Priesthood (e.g. Alma 13:9); and (3) the leader or chief priest during the time of the law of Moses.
Even today, the outward ordinance of baptism by water and the blessing of the emblems of the sacrament in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice are delegated to the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood. So the Aaronic Priesthood continues to serve its function as a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. But the greater law as restored by the Son of God (and as brought back to us today through the agency of Joseph Smith and other prophets) must of necessity operate under the auspices of the higher or complete Priesthood, which we commonly call Melchizedek. Thus, a couple of weeks or so after the resurrected John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, the last presiding leaders of Christ's Church, namely Simon Peter, James (the greater), and John the Beloved restored to them the Priesthood of Melchizedek. With this authority, they were enabled to restore the kingdom of God on earth once again.
This is an incomplete explanation, and I invite others to add to it. But I hope it helps answer your questions about how the Latter-day Saints understand the place and purpose of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

You know... there is as a super popular alternative to Facebook, it is called MySpace... you should check it out. 

I, for one, have no intention of creating an account on some alternative to Facebook. My Facebook presence is primarily to keep in touch with loved ones, not to participate in political discourse or keep up on the news.
Frankly, if any of the leaked Parler info turns out to be legally actionable and leads to arrests, then I say—good.  I’m not loving the idea of speech actually being shut down, but I’m very in-favor of prosecuting people who use their free speech make death threats, coordinate the invasion of public buildings, gloat about getting physical with cops, and the like. 

This is a difficult situation.  Because frankly—IF similar allegations were true, it probably *would* justify armed rebellion.  And if they are false, then they are the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater—the people behind such allegations deserve a special place in hell; and I can sympathize with Twitter not wanting to play into their hands.
But, “open forum” is “open forum”; and if social media companies want to enjoy the privileges and immunities that go with that status, then IMHO they need to leave the policing of their forums to . . . the police.  

The bakery issue is valid.   The giant media platforms are inches away from becoming common carriers.  Probably happened a few years ago, we're just some legislation away from recognizing it. 

Guess I'm just a recalcitrant stick-in-the-mud. I can't help raining on the joyless parade of those who bemoan 2020 as "Worst Year EVAR". Well, I actually COULD keep myself from snarky comments; I just choose not to. But no need now! The Babylon Bee has done it for me!
https://babylonbee.com/news/2020-rated-worst-year-ever-provided-you-never-lived-at-any-other-time-in-history

It is sad to see that a few people in power are now saying "enough" after 5 people died, seriously? People had to die to say enough is enough? It makes me even more sad to see many people supporting and justifying what happened in the Capitol, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Some of these people act like they are part of a cult, a  dangerous cult saying the President is the Chosen One, the Messiah.He has become their religion.
Having said that, I always try to be fair, I don't think for a minute that MOST of his supporters are like the ones we saw Wednesday.