Anddenex

When I think about this for a moment, my mind first thinks:
1) What are prophecies in the Book of Mormon (and scriptures) that are being fulfilled? This would give evidence toward the work. One for sure is that we are small in comparison to the great and spacious building, and yet we are truly filling the whole earth. Even more so, we will be referred to as a global church.
2) Scriptures highlight the people of God being temple builders and worshipers. God commanded, at least since Moses (that we are aware of), to build temples. Temple work is active. Temples are being built.
3) Scriptures highlight the calling of apostles and prophets (the New Testament specifies the importance of such). We have prophets and apostles.
4) Prophets and apostles have been ridiculed continuously by the spacious building, the mother of abominations, and the mother of harlots (the finger of scorn). This remains the same today.
5) Missionary work
6) The Holy Ghost is evidently inspiring local leaders and those located in Salt Lake City
7) Temple built in East Germany. The Church leadership enticed its people to obey. If I am remembering stories correctly, members were able to leave East Germany to go to the temple because the government trusted the Church leadership when they said if our people leave they will come back, and since the Church had done nothing to show otherwise they allowed members to leave. This is evidence to me that God is in control, and that he is guiding our leadership.
8) We are the only restoration branch (truly the natural branch) that is able to fully say we are fulling prophecies, all others are stagnant to their geography, solitude, or have removed prophets and apostles (irony - first sign of apostasy - to reject prophetic servants).

@clbent04,  What Grunt said in his post is accurate.
If we can agree that the Holy Spirit will only testify of the truth as is clear even from only using the Bible, then we can determine if the LDS Church is true by one simple measure.  That is first seeking and receiving a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and then, upon receiving that witness, applying the following:
Once you have the witness that the Book of Mormon is true, you can also ask to receive a confirmation that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth".  Once you have that confirmation, then it is no longer needed to ponder on your initial question.  If the Spirit will remain present as you testify and claim in your mind and heart that the LDS Church is true as it claims to be, then you have your answer.
I would actually disagree with this statement on a technical note.  I personally have never known the Church to ever make the claim that we have the greatest prominence of the Holy Spirit.  The claim made by the Church is that the Holy Spirit will testify that it is the Lord's true Church.  While those claims seemingly go hand in hand, they are in fact independent.  Anyone can come to know the Church is true through the prescribed methods, yet that same person may hear a talk on Sunday that is not immediately pertinent to their gospel path, and as a result not have a great burning witness of the Holy Ghost.  This could continue for unknowable lengths of time, depending on the topics studied in classes, in private, etc.  That same person could go to another church and hear a preacher preach a doctrinally accurate sermon on any true principle, such as faith, repentance, tithing, etc, etc, etc, and receive a powerful witness from the Holy Ghost because the things that were taught are both true and applicable to that persons spiritual needs at that time.  Based on your initial inquiry, you would be tempted to presuppose that the other Church held a greater measure of the Holy Spirit, because you felt the spirit during the sermon at that church.  However, your method will have led you to an inaccurate conclusion, because the spirit testified of the words of the sermon, not the truthfulness of the Church itself as a whole.  This is, perhaps, why we do not make the claim in the way you have suggested.  It is way too easy for someone to come to an incorrect conclusion based on such a claim.  Therefore, our claim is much more direct in saying not that we have the greatest prominence of spiritual influence, but that the Holy Spirit will testify of the truthfulness of this Church.

Accepting arguendo the premise of the question; I think that--at the moment the prospect of converting is upon you--the question isn't necessarily whether Mormonism is better than everything else; the question is whether Mormonism is better than whatever I'm practicing now.  Staying in a faith/philosophical system I know to be inferior just because there may be some unknown philosophy out there that is better than another superior philosophy I know does exist, doesn't really get me anywhere.
But, the question isn't just the quantitative portion of the spirit we enjoy (though that's a *huge* part of it).  We can use the Spirit's confirmation or rejection of doctrinal tenets, to narrow our search.  If I have a spiritual manifestation telling me that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be, that immediately rules out thousands of religions that hold the Book of Mormon to be a fraud.  And so on.
Find me another Christian church that teaches the Book of Mormon, and the presently-constituted Doctrine and Covenants, and something approaching the form and function of LDS temple worship and soteriology, and that allows for Tom Monson to be a true prophet and Dallin Oaks, Jeff Holland, Todd Christofferson, et. al. to be true apostles--and sure, I'll be happy to go visit to see what degree of Spirit they enjoy!  But the list of churches that meets that set of doctrinal criteria was awfully skinny, last time I checked.

The linear logic seems to follow that if the Book of Mormon is true than Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the church is true. What assurances do we have specifically from Joseph Smith's time that the restored church would not be led away. What evidence do we have to support confidence in the notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true church restored through Joseph Smith and not a wild branch.
When confronted with this concept as far as dealing with fundamentalist groups and so on who also claim the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and prophet status of Joseph I typically find myself thinking of Joseph talking about how the church will fill North America and fill the world. To my knowledge only one LDS off-shoot does that and it is the mainstream Mormon church.
What other evidence can you think of to support the position that the church has not fallen away?

@SpiritDragon
Is this what you are looking for?
The Lord Will Never Permit the Living Prophet to Lead the Church Astray
President Wilford Woodruff declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).
President Harold B. Lee taught this same principle: “You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533).
I suppose that one could fast & pray about these statements?

You are correct. It was confirmed in section 132 and confirmed by Joseph Smith that spirits are generated by sexual union.
 

I would actually love this from a logistical view.  However, while this would be appealing if the Church were just a club for people of a high moral standard, it can not happen in a church that wants to truly help people come unto Christ.  Additionally, it could potentially have the effect of causing prophecy to go unfulfilled as the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is not representative of the world, but is representative only of the Church and its membership.  Furthermore, it would likely lead to the annoying uprising of another (false) branch of the Church.

The very term “feminism” indicates a bias concerning gender.  For those that honestly believe in “equality” of the sexes – I suggest that you come up with and use a gender neutral term to tout and identify your belief structure – otherwise you will be or at least should be - identified (by definition) as a sexist.  And if you believe (to any degree) a sexist is a bigot – you can add that to the terms to describe such thinking and use of terms.
 
The Traveler

If feminism is really about equality, than theoretically could I form a major Maleism movement without any backlash from feminists?

Sigh.
The article is mostly good, but with a lot of bad.  It's frustrating.
The bad part is common among young people.  EQUALITY does not mean the same.  Why are women interrupted more than men?  Is that because they're disrespected?  Do you know that women interrupt women just as much as men interrupt women? 
If you are REALLY a feminist, you will at least try to understand why Men do the things they do and why Women do the things they do.  They are DIFFERENT. 
Women get interrupted because they speak and think differently than men.  They instinctively communicate with an appeal/regard to feelings.  Men instinctively communicate with an appeal/regard to "Git R Done" effectiveness.  The woman takes a longer route to convey the message.  Men instinctively want to prod the conversation on because that's how their brains function.  When a woman goes into a manufacturing/technology field - fields that are "Git R Done" environments - they learn to talk with "Git R Done" effectiveness.  So they start interrupting women too.  THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DISRESPECT.  It's one of those things where Men and Women are different so instead of calling men out for disrespect, Women and Men need to work through these differences when they are in mixed company and meet in the middle.  Men need to learn to listen with a nod to feelings and Women need to learn to speak with a nod to effectiveness.  THAT'S FEMINISM.  Pounding men as disrespectful for trying to align the conversation to the male brain IS MISANDRY.
And what is bad about people close to you advising you to put Motherhood as a priority over a doctorate in Medicine?  Do you know that in Poster-Children-of-Feminism countries like Sweden they see a reduction of women going into STEM fields?  Wow, what a surprise - women actually do prefer having more time for families than becoming doctors and engineers when they have the utmost freedom of choice.
And what Church is teaching modesty only to Women?  Surely not the LDS Church!  Yes, men can go to the beach shirtless.  That's not immodest.  It's a different BIOLOGY.
Women are more scared to go anywhere alone because fact of life - they are weaker.  Women can be overpowered easily, even by other women.  Men can't.  They have this thing called physical strength.  Again.  Biology.  Being scared is a GOOD THING - that means your instinctive sense of self-preservation is completely intact to compensate for the lack of strength.  Domestic abuse is not exclusive to women.  Men get abused, you don't hear about it much because it is more difficult to overpower them with strength.  Rather, they are emotionally abused and manipulated.  Scars are hidden.  They tend to respond with violence as is their natural instinct... which makes these male victims of abuse get counted with the domestic abusers.  Double whammy.  A woman thinking she is scared to go anywhere alone because MEN ARE CRUEL... again... MISANDRY.
Yes, children are growing up misunderstanding the proper role of women... and this article is spreading that misunderstanding.
But yes, there are good points there.  But the good things lose their impact because we have to wade through the bad stuff.

Why does this author feel the need to use feminism as a vehicle to achieve equality?  Why aren't we simply advocating for equality?  By focusing on one special interest you are ignoring all the others.  This is no different than those who claimed they were of Paul, or of Cephas.  It is the incorrect and falsified application of true principles.  There is only one truth; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.  Similarly there is only one true equality in the Lord's way.
Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. both advocated for civil rights; except Malcom X and the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam group at the time believed in and taught the inferiority and satanic nature of the white race.  Martin Luther King simply sought for equality.  The title of feminism alone sets itself apart as an "ite" as @NeuroTypical wisely conveyed.  This is more of a problem than many of the things they seek.  It also gives them a wall to hide and cry foul behind when something is not according to their liking.  We all should seek for truth and equality, the poster in the article laid out many wise and righteous things.  However, to say feminism is needed in order to achieve or educate about those things, is false and wrong.

I shall reword it. Men and women in the church should submit themselves to the eternal truths which have been revealed, and lay hold upon all truth from all sources (because all truth in the earth originates from God.) And thereby walk the sunlite uplands of Eternity, untainted and undeceived by the philosophies of men.

Do you see a problem with this, MBKnabe? It's a sort of inverse no-true-Scotsman claim. Consider the following claim:
"Every fair-minded person is a Ku Klux Klanner, whether you call yourself that or not."
Do you agree with this? If not, why should anyone else agree with your statement above?

Often men are looked on as second-class citizens, unworthy of their wives. This is actually quite common in the Church. Are you therefore a masculist?

The tension, as I see it, is that fundamentally the Church is teaching a variant of "separate but equal" to a society that has rejected such a concept for over sixty years.

Equality is socially and politically typically understood in two ways, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome (depending on which side of the left/right scale one falls upon). However, the church teaches equality of value. Men being given the priesthood and therefrom the rights to keys, which is the right to preside, distinctly and literally creates a difference in the opportunity and outcome potential for women as related to men.
In other words, the fact that a woman can never be president of the church IS inequality. Obviously.
The real debate should be whether inequality is always bad. It's not particularly helpful for we LDS to redefine the meaning of the word equality and then claim equality in the church.

Prove it.
So the answer is to go outside the gospel?
Haven't seen it, read it, or ever heard anything of the sort preached by the scriptures, the brethren, or otherwise.
That's because Mormon's are people who need to repent too.
Ah, and incidentally, Christ loved, valued and respected the men in his life. Many Mormons don't.
Explain. How does current "Mormon" culture have any bearing on the matter whatsoever?
No. All we need to do is follow Christ and His gospel.
Wouldn't the obvious answer be then to persuade people to listen to what the gospel teaches about how we treat our fellow human beings?

No. The gospel is.
No. When women are righteous and Christlike they will not willingly kill their children.

The claim is one or the other. You'll have to take it up with the study making the claim if you see otherwise. The claim is that women (or men) who choose to pursue that which makes them happy makes for better parents. I tend toward the idea that women (or men) who choose sacrifice and a willingness to give up their own interests in the favor of their children's interests makes for better parents.

I do. And yes, we are a shrinking minority. But we are still right. And if we die out completely, it will not be because we are wrong. It will be because the world rejected truth.
By the way, men also belong in the home. As President McKay taught, no success -- NO success, however glorious -- can compensate for failure in the home. It is the one area where we can make an eternal difference, that ten million million centuries from now, when our sun is a cool, dead cinder, will still have enormous and lasting impact.
Those people, male or female, who choose their work career (or anything else) in preference to nurturing their family -- meaning spouse and children, siblings and parents -- are trading their eternal birthright for a mess of cold pottage. Please do not allow anyone using sophistic arguments about female emancipation or career building to deceive you. What they are telling you is a lie, even if they honestly believe it to be true. It is not true. It is deception, even if everyone believes it.
Choose what is right; let the consequence follow. Peter stayed true to his faith even as the Romans crucified him upside down. Peter instructed the Saints who were in imminent danger of the same fate to take courage and do what is right, regardless of the consequences. Let us, who are threatened not with death, but merely with the scorn and derision of a wicked world, show the same courage.

Along with that, it's unconvincing that having a self-centered, self-fulfillment, me-me-me, role model gives children a better chance at success than a selfless, sacrificing, humble role-model.

D&C 121 strikes me as sufficient. Which makes this potential (and questionable) aspect of feminism useless.

Correct, I am only saying "divorce" would be an option in the scenario provided; however, this would be something that would be between the couple and the Lord. The question provided in the OP, as I understood it, was asking if "divorce" would be an option, and I provided a reason for how it could be.

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.
If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.

The bolded portion of NeuroTypical's comment is where the line would be drawn for me. If the spouse is actively still living the gospel, fighting the good (hard) fight, then I don't see any reason why divorce would be on the table. We all struggle with something, as long as we are moving forward we should allow the atonement to work for our spouse.
If the spouse comes out and is not willing to continue forward, then divorce would be on the table.