Anddenex

Thank you for replying to my question! What I mean is; is there any evidence to support the Book of Mormon? In the way that there is evidence from both Christian and non Christian sources that confirm that Jesus walked this earth?  I have great faith in Jesus as my saviour; I just feel that outside that it's very difficult to figure out which church is true to God!  

Human archeologists can say that a dude named Jesus was around Jerusalem ~0 AD.  And also that a dude named Mohammad was around Mecca ~600 AD.  And some dude called Buddha when and where he should be.
But human archeologists can never prove to you that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.  That knowledge you have comes from God.  And God likewise is the one to grant you the knowledge of which church is truly His.

Here are thoughts from other members of the Church that they feel gives evidence to the Book of Mormon.
1) http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
2) https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/archaeological-evidence-and-the-book-of-mormon
3)
4) http://bookofmormonevidence.org/
In sharing these though, the greatest witness we can receive is from God through our own personal study and prayer.

Welcome, @Wondering_orchid!   I hope you stick around and we can enjoy many conversations.
As already mentioned, all the facts in the world, all the evidence in the world will not be nearly so convincing as the Holy Ghost.
As evidence of this principle, I offer cigarettes and potato chips.  All the evidence you need that these are bad for you is printed right on the outside of the packaging.  And yet, some people still smoke cigarettes, and even more people (myself included) enjoy far too many potato chips per annum.
@DoctorLemon, was it you who recently listed a boatload of evidentiary reasons to believe in the Book of Mormon?
(Firefox, in case you were wondering, needs to add legal and financial terms to its dictionary.)

Same with the most important fact: that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God and Savior of the world.  No archeological evidence or man is ever going to scientifically prove that to anyone. 
 
 

Factual evidence?  Absolutely.  Conclusive, convincing evidence?  No, not much.  
Factual evidence includes the testimony of the three and eight witnesses (the more people claim to have seen an item, the less likely it is to be made up or fraudulent).  And also a host of other things that, while absolutely not conclusive or even convincing, constitutes factual evidence.  Here's a decent summary of them: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
It's important to remember that evidence is not proof.   The millions of Mormons didn't get convinced by looking at the archaeological record or anything like that.  The Book of Mormon promises a spiritual confirmation - direct communication from the Lord that it is what it claims to be, and the church is what it claims to be.

Hi @Wondering_orchid, welcome to the forums and checking out the Church!
Which types of evidence are you wanting?
I would suggest that the best type of evidence comes straight from asking God and listening to His Spirit testify of Truth.  After all, God is the source of all Truth and it is through His witness that we know the Truth of all things (like that Jesus is the Christ).  
 
 

One parent, who did not want to be named, said ...
let's shut the whole programm down because one parent wants promiscuous kids.
 Teaching kids to say 'not yet' is healthy.  
Kids doing it anyway is not new.  
Shame and guilt are natural responses to sin.

This comes from the online edition of the main daily newspaper in Australia's second most populous State. Typically, Year 8 students would be 14, which is 2 years under the age of consent here. I'm surprised and disappointed to see parents complaining about receiving an email from their kids school promoting sexual abstinence.
A state high school in Victoria has set a controversial goal to "delay sexual activity in school-aged youth".
Parents of year 8 students at Officer Secondary College were shocked to receive an email on Tuesday promoting abstinence as part of the school's Respectful Relationships curriculum, a state government initiative aimed at stamping out domestic violence.
Officer Secondary College parents received an email promoting abstinence as part of the school's Respectful Relationship curriculum.
"Our shared goal is to delay sexual activity in school-aged youth," it read.
One parent, who did not want to be named, said the school was sending students a "damaging, archaic" message by telling them to abstain from sexual activity until they graduated.
"It sets up a culture of shame around sexual desire and feeling, and a culture of secrecy when students are in relationships," they said.
Another parent said that while they didn't want their children having sex early, it was inappropriate for the school to promote abstinence. This created shame, and stopped children from getting help, they said.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-school-under-fire-for-telling-students-to-delay-sexual-activity-20170809-gxsmij.html
 

We are a bad influence!

I tried to explain to the Bishop why I refused to be baptized.  I think I'll just send him a link to this thread.  He'll understand.

I realize this question may result in answers that don't work for everyone, but I feel compelled to post.  Possibly because making shortcomings public is a form of accountability.  I'm horrible at prayer and staying in the scripture.  I need to make it a priority to pray productively daily, read the scripture, and live the Word of Wisdom.  I don't know why I feel the urgency to do this, but I suppose it doesn't matter.  
How do you keep yourself on track?  Because it isn't a habit, I don't even think about it until it's half-way through the day.  Do you physically read the scripture daily?  Do you use an ipad or listen online?  Does that count?  It seemed fine to me the first time through, but now it doesn't seem like quite enough.  
I should start a struggling investigator support group.  If the moderators would like me to keep my rantings in my missionaries thread, please move this or just ask me to repost there.  I just stuck it here because it seemed like a side focus, not my main journey.  Although, now that I'm ready to hit submit, I may be wrong.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is scary that people think the church will just change its views and stances simply because the world is. The church and its members will likely be the last group standing up for many of the things we still take for granted as "common sense". We must defend the unit of the family, even when it becomes unpopular or even offensive to the world.
This was an absolutely wonderful talk and it was amazing to hear Elder Dallin H. Oaks give share his memories on how the Family, A Proclamation to the World was inspired and written. It truly is an inspired work, and like Elder Oaks said about how obvious the truths that it proclaims were at the time, we have seen and watched as world's view has drifted substantially. 

Thank you; however, this doesn't answer the question proposed, and the question does not attempt to qualify the two as the same. To identify as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) or other women (hetero).
We are identifying a person who would identify themselves as "homosexual" in comparison to one who identifies as "heterosexual." We agree there is a difference between a boy/man who is pursuing a woman (hetero) and even holds hands (who is single), vs. a boy/man who is pursuing a man (homo) and eventually holds hands. The latter is contrary to the will of God, the first is not.
A man who identifies as "homosexual" (he recognizes his attraction to men and does not "act") is not the same as one who identifies as "homosexual" (recognizes his attraction and does "act") as he pursues his interests. These are not the same, and to do so demeans a brother or sister that should not be reprimanded when they are indeed controlling their attraction the same as a hetero who controls their actions within the bounds the Lord has set.
 

Are the Powers of Godhood inherited? In Christ is the fulness of the Godhead. I would argue that that fulness was given to him in the beginning, before the foundation of the world was. When He came to earth, he either a) maintained these powers because he retained his godhood throughout, or b) was granted them by His Father as He grew from grace to grace similar to how He granted them to His prophets as they grew from grace to grace.
Christ had the power to lay down His life and to take it up again. The scriptures are clear on this. What they are not clear on is how He received this power (except that it was from His Father). I'm willing to allow that it was inherited, but I would also note that Paul ties it theologically with His sustained guiltlessness. There's no reason why both can't apply in His case.
With specific regard to the Resurrection, the New Testament in some places says Jesus raised Himself from the dead and others say the Father raised Him from the dead. So I think there's doctrinal wiggle room here that self-resurrective powers are not found in a dominant gene.
Was godly endurance inherited or was it one of the "graces" He grew into and was granted by His Father because of His specific mission? Talmage notes that it's a superhuman ability to bleed from every pore and not pass out. But if His physical strength to endure only comes because of His birth Father, isn't it a bit inconsiderate that He chastises His apostles for not staying awake? 
Where does this put us with the doctrine that Christ is our Exemplar? If Christ withstood Satan's temptations because He inherited physical and spiritual traits from God, then why am I told to follow Him? Shouldn't I follow post-exilic Adam instead? Imagine a Rockefeller telling you that if you do exactly what he did you'll double your wealth too. All you have to do is follow him. nevermind that he inherited his first 100 million, you can also be a billionaire! It strikes me that either the doctrine of Christ's physical inheritance needs to be revised or else the doctrine of Christ as exemplar. 

Let's review the highlighted portions of the quotes:
1) The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents
2) Jesus inherited the ability to endure suffering during His atoning sacrifice ‘such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible
3) inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father
4) From His Heavenly Father He inherited immortality and the power to resurrect.
The first quote emphasizes "physical, mental, spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers from his parents. God the Father was Christ's earthly Father. What physical, mental, spiritual traits, and powers did Christ inherit from his Father?
We know he inherited at least three things: 1) Powers of Godhood and divinity. 2) He was the only "human" who could say no to death. He was immortal. No one could take his life. He had to freely give it. 3) He had the "power" to resurrect himself. No other human who ever lived or died could resurrect (the combining of body and spirit in glory never to be separated again) anyone, let alone himself/herself. Only Christ could resurrect himself, inherited power because God the Father was his earthly Father. 4) He could endure suffering that no other human could endure due to his parentage.
I assume the powers of Godhood and divinity would umbrella "immortality" and "resurrection." So "immortality" could not have been the only thing he inherited. None of us are able to perform any miracle by ourselves. All the miracles we perform are through Christ and his priesthood, which he has bestowed upon all who are his followers. All miracles we perform are in his name (divine). I would assume these are also inherited powers of Godhood and divinity that none of us have in and of ourselves. It is only through and by Christ we can accomplish what we accomplish. When the Savior performed miracles they were performed by him saying "be healed." When I, or any other son or daughter of God (spiritually) performs a miracle it is in his name whose priesthood we hold.
I would say the quotes focused on more than just "immortality" from God. Are these the only things he inherited? I don't know. I haven't done any in-depth study to say anything else.

I suppose then James E. Talmage was a heretic then:
Invite a student to read aloud the following statement by Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:
“That Child to be born of Mary … was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman” (Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 81). (emphasis added)
Further from Talmage, "Elder Talmage also taught that through Jesus’s mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to ‘lay down His life voluntarily.’ But from His Heavenly Father, Jesus inherited the ability to endure suffering during His atoning sacrifice ‘such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible’ (Jesus the Christ, 613). Since this suffering would be ‘more than man can suffer, except it be unto death’ (Mosiah 3:7), only a Being with power over death could endure it” (New Testament Student Manual [Church Educational System manual, 2014], 141)." (emphasis added) Obviously more than just his obedience and virtue. Without the power granted to him from the traits inherited by being God the Father's son. Without this inherited ability, even if he was virtuous he could not have endured the suffering he endured.
Yep, make no mistake, it isn't a heresy, but yours is definitely a personal opinion on the matter, and a wrong opinion -- make no mistake.  Darn lds.org teaching heresies again: https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-luke/lesson-43-luke-1?lang=eng
Mormon News Room: "We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty road of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death." (emphasis added) http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ
Even more evidence that this thought of Christ inheritance from God the Father, "Matthew 1:18–23. Jesus Christ is the divine son of Heavenly Father and Mary. From Mary He inherited mortality, which allowed Him to die. From His Heavenly Father He inherited immortality and the power to resurrect." (emphasis added)

Would you consider your last statement a false dichotomy? A question that presents only two options while ignoring other alternatives? You provide, "It strikes me that either the doctrine of Christ's physical inheritance needs to be revised or else the doctrine of Christ as exemplar," which only allows for "inheritance" or Christ no longer our "exemplar." I would propose there are alternatives being missed. I will come back to this.
The first question, "Are the Powers of Godhood inherited"? According to the Church newsroom the powers of Godhood are indeed inherited, "inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father." James E. Talmage from a book the Church sends every missionary with (or at least did) specifies, "But from His Heavenly Father, Jesus inherited," giving a second witness (from an authoritative sources) to the notion of the "Powers of Godhood" are indeed inherited. Ours now becomes the responsibility to seek to understand this truth.
In the first paragraph, two options are once again provided that appear to create another false dichotomy? Or, possibly you had others on your mind but felt to focus on these two. We know, besides Christ, that others reached a similar level (e.g. Holy Ghost). When the Holy Ghost receives a mortal body will he also have the fulness of the Godhead? Or in order for the fulness of the Godhead to manifest in the flesh does God the Father need to be the mortal Father (inheritance and also maintaining Christ as our exemplar)? We have to admit that Christ was already different -- to some degree -- because of his parentage in contrast to ours.
I would propose that there isn't any wiggle room regarding resurrection. His birth, his immortality, his endurance, and his resurrection are all witnesses to his divinity which our lives (all other humans) have no witness to. The Church's manuals give witness that his "immortality" and "resurrection" were inherited from his Father (source:https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-teacher-resource-manual/the-gospel-according-to-saint-matthew/matthew-1-2?lang=eng). His ability to endure is not inconsiderate to me in any way, just as it wasn't inconsiderate to ask his apostles to "stay awake" for one hour. Am I inconsiderate when I ask my children to "stay awake" during one hour of sacrament? I would propose I am not. As a basketball player I would often hear my coach request greater endurance from those whose endurance was less than mine. Would this be inconsiderate of a coach to request stronger endurance upon those whose genetics were less than other players? There is nothing inconsiderate from a request, or disappointment, to extend ourselves.
"Where does this put us with the doctrine that Christ is our Exemplar?" I don't see any incongruence with Christ being our exemplar and what has been expressed. If Christ being the only begotten son of the Father doesn't inhibit him from being our exemplar, then I don't see how any other inherited power inhibits him from being our exemplar also. If the concept of him being an exemplar is maimed by inheritance, then it was maimed the moment he was born as God's only begotten son, which already separated us from him as we have two mortal parents. Then the question remains, "then why am I told to follow Him?" The answer still remains the same, "because he is the way back to the Father." We do follow "post-exilic Adam" in the same sense we follow President Monson. Nothing changes. I have not shared this before, and I hesitate to do so, but from my experience with you I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding this verse in Alma 13, "Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
I would maintain that Christ's inheritance, as being God's only begotten son, and his obedience and virtue (which obedience and virtue were maintained via moral agency), is definitely what allowed him to accomplish his mission. If any of these were not maintained he would not have been our Savior.

Handbook, and think of stewardship and keys. The moment you move into a different ward boundaries you are now under the stewardship and keys of another bishop, and if new stake then the keys of the new stake president.
All things are done in wisdom and order. The chances are if the only reason is because you "love" the ward and callings, then you will probably be invited to attend the new ward, and make that ward a better place with your presence and love for the Lord.

For a brief moment, I thought the title of this thread contained "Middle Earth".  I was very excited.
Now back to your regular programming.

Handbook, and think of stewardship and keys. The moment you move into a different ward boundaries you are now under the stewardship and keys of another bishop, and if new stake then the keys of the new stake president.
All things are done in wisdom and order. The chances are if the only reason is because you "love" the ward and callings, then you will probably be invited to attend the new ward, and make that ward a better place with your presence and love for the Lord.

It's like people who callously fling the f-word about because it they themselves aren't offended by it. The word is a symbol, commonly understood to be offensive, and being aware of that, one who casually flings it about in front of others indiscriminately is nothing more or less than a jerk.

If you know what a symbol stands for and then produce your own "meaning" for the symbol while protesting your "meaning" of the symbol -- it shows ignorance, rather than intelligence.  The flag is a symbol of the Constitution which people have swore to protect, including myself, to protect the United States Constitution, and its symbol our United States Flag. They go hand in hand. If during war, some United States military unites started burning the flag -- you think somehow this doesn't disrespect the United States Constitution, the United States as a nation, and the people who died to protect our rights? Remember, it is just a symbol -- so who cares -- right? If just a symbol it then doesn't matter what avenue the protest -- it is just a symbol. Do they have the right -- sure -- is the showing disrespect -- yes, sure is.
I also defend the right for adults who act like "little children" in their lame and disrespectful protests. I also defend the right of any corporation to fire or remove someone from position that gives a bad name to the company. People have the right to protest. They also have the right to accept the consequence of their decisions. I feel no pity for Colin Kaepernick and his childish methods of protesting.  I also defend Trumps right to express his thoughts on the matter -- even at the pulpit as president -- as he has every right to protest other people's protest. Unless you think the President doesn't have this right, and if so, did you feel the same way with Obama who used the same method? I don't agree with Trump. I didn't agree with Obama. This doesn't cause me to even consider to disrespect the United States symbol of freedom and liberty.
We can protect "rights," and we can call an apple an apple, and an orange a orange.

That's an excellent point.  I think that could actually be accurate.  I had my uncle die in World War 2 in the Pacific Arena.  He was quite young at the time, and because of that I never got to know him.  That particular uncle would be close to the family that I was born into, and so has particularly big effects on my family as a whole.  What is interesting is that he was a member of the LDS church.  He got converted to Mormons soon after he joined the military.  His mother was particularly anti-Mormon (my grandmother), which makes it an even more interesting item.  Due to his death, it meant that his brothers and sisters did not join the church with him, but it left a big enough impression on his close family members to reverberate through the years...and hence...here I am.
I had another Uncle (an Uncle Frank I believe) who was also killed in World War 2 and a cousin, but as my family was not particularly close to that family member, it really doesn't have a major effect on me, at least right now in the physical world (who knows, he may be my guardian angel for my life thus far which means he'd have had a profound effect on me).
Looking at another relative who's spouse served and then got injured and is now disabled 100%, taking care of their spouse and living that marriage is a HARD thing for them.  I think that perhaps the greater challenge sometimes, and the greater sacrifice are those whom the veteran who dies leaves behind, or who suffer from the sacrifice of the veteran.  In that light, I imagine they too give much or all to also protect our freedom, but a different type of sacrifice than expected from those who serve in the military.

This confirms the irony, thank you. As to the last line, I don't need to wear a uniform to know what is disrespectful and what is not disrespectful. That is absurd.
As to the military connection, the flag and national anthem, <sarcasm> "Ya, I never really understood the connection either." </sarcasm>