Anddenex

Sadly it can, but not in the sense immediately. How does the adversary work against the elect? By small and simple means towards apostasy. All apostates begin to support or hold beliefs (and preach them loudly often) that are contrary to truth. If the adversary is able to get the elect to support sin/error, even the smallest portion, he can then continue to tempt by small and simple means.
I don't think Kate Kelly would have ever thought she would be in the position she is now for supporting ordain women movement. So in all this, we should be very cautious in what we support, because, like the Nephites, we could fall quickly and they didn't get where they were in one day, but in a short amount of time.
P.S. I am not saying you are in apostasy, so that is clear -- hopefully.

What makes humans so willing accept Scientific theories? Do we truly have 300,000 year old human remains on Earth? I was had a debate with a logical, rational, non-religious man (as he constantly referred to himself as) who said, "We have 95% of everything already figured out. Now we are just filling in pieces." I thought the irony was a little humorous in relation to how he described himself and this comment.
Do we, as humans, have enough information (factual knowledge) to know exactly how old these creatures are?
This is one statement I find to be true. True religion (truth) and true science (factual, not theoretical) will never contradict. It is the theories of religion and the theories of science that can easily contradict.

My thought is a cautious, yes. Semantically, it might depend on exactly what we mean by "support". To draw a parallel, can a good Mormon (perhaps back in 1933) believe that alcohol consumption was morally wrong, but also believe that prohibition is/was bad public policy? To bring out the big guns, what about abortion? Can a good Mormon believe that abortion is morally wrong (with exceptions as frequently noted and for which we sometimes get criticized), but also believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would be bad legislation? Can one believe that SSM is morally wrong, but also support its legalization in the civil arena of a pluralistic society?

In a variant ripped from today's headlines: Is it possible to support same sex marriage white supremacy and hold a current temple recommend?
The answer to both questions is probably "yes".  But the recommend holder is still colossally, epically wrong.

@Anddenex I really appreciated the verse a little before the one you posted,
2 Nephi 33:3 But I, Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great aworth, and especially unto my people. For I bpray continually for them by day, and mine ceyes water my pillow by night, because of them; and I cry unto my God in faith, and I know that he will hear my cry.
This was largely how I felt as a missionary, along with verse 12:
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
As far as favourite hymns go, I like the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Onward Christian Soldiers, and I've learned to really enjoy If You Could Hie to Kolob although as a child I always felt that during all of the, "there is no end to" verses, that the lyrics were incomplete because surely somewhere in there it must state that there is no end to this song.
@mirkwood I also love Alma 48:17, it was my first favourite scripture and will remain an inspiration to me my entire existence I suspect.
New taggies:
@Mike @Crypto @unixknight

What makes humans so willing accept Scientific theories? Do we truly have 300,000 year old human remains on Earth? I was had a debate with a logical, rational, non-religious man (as he constantly referred to himself as) who said, "We have 95% of everything already figured out. Now we are just filling in pieces." I thought the irony was a little humorous in relation to how he described himself and this comment.
Do we, as humans, have enough information (factual knowledge) to know exactly how old these creatures are?
This is one statement I find to be true. True religion (truth) and true science (factual, not theoretical) will never contradict. It is the theories of religion and the theories of science that can easily contradict.

Are some of our experiences a matter of obedience rather than outcome? Just a posited thought. Example, on my mission one of my companions stopped and then went up to a guy and asked if he would be interested in hearing a message. The guy immediately, rudely, said no. My companion came back and said, "I guess I was wrong, I thought the Spirit told me to invite him to hear message." He assumed the outcome would be different if inspired by the Spirit.
Do we at times cause our own trouble by assuming the outcome of following the spirit impression, rather than accepting and asking God what next? By the way, I am asking this question to myself also.

These guys thought they had time on their side, too. 

Latter-day revelation teaches. . .
I have said it before in this forum, and will say it again.  I have no problem logically with the various seemingly rational conclusions/speculations people both within and without the Church tend to make about evolution, creation science, dinosaurs, neanderthals, etc.  However, to actually believe anything that would require physical death to have occurred anywhere on this earth prior to the fall of Adam, while potentially logical, is clearly contrary to the established doctrines and current teachings of the Church.
It might not conflict with Genesis, but it conflicts with the teachings of the Church and with 2 Ne. 2:22:

That part is 100% true!  
EDIT:  As do you, I also accept the idea of an old earth, but it and evolution are not mutually necessary events.

I know Brigham Young taught environmental principles beginning with the trek west (care for fire, not hunting for gluttony or amusement, etc.). The Church today takes steps to conserve energy in its buildings and appreciate the natural  world. These are also found in D&C 59:16-20 and Scion 89. Of course anything can be taken to the extreme, and politicized, and often political movements join with other political movements (sometimes strange bedfellows) to apply pressure and garner funding and votes, compromising other principles one might otherwise hold dear. So I think A o F 13 should apply in our discerning which principles to follow and which political tactics to apply.

The church teaches us that we have domination and stewardship over the earth... and he will hold us accountable for how we use such.  So by that definition of the term I am a environmentalist.   Out in the world I find environmentalism to be a code word for "More government Power... less individual rights" and as such I am not a fan

I get what you're saying; but it sounds like you're suggesting that a Mormon communist can say "well, forget the abuses of the USSR and East Germany and Maoist China and North Korea and Vietnam--I'm not THAT kind of communist".
But are we sure these clowns on the alt-right can't similarly say "I'm not THAT kind of Nazi"? 
It seems to me that Communism is benefiting from a degree of refinement in apologetics (and sympathetic media coverage) that Naziism maybe hasn't experienced yet--at least, not in a publicly visible way.  But inevitably, they will.  What then?

If we accept that self-described communists can be good Mormons, I don't see how we can exclude self-described Nazis from claiming to be Mormons as well.

I'm going to share two passages.  Hope that's not against the rules.  
I love this passage because it indicates purpose.  Receiving a remission of our sins is a powerful motivator, knowing that it comes through Christ is key.
I love this passage because it highlights the truth that our sincere efforts to live the gospel and keep the Lords commandments count just as much or more than what we are able to achieve, and it can be personalized to help us see and remember that.
@Anddenex @Snigmorder @clbent04

Only those that fully embrace the gospel and choose to love it will make it.
Look at all the members of the church and then compare that to the world population.
Then look at just the active members that attend regularly and compare to total church membership.
Lastly, take all the members that are kiving the gospel fully, studying scripture daily, magnifying their callings, living worthily and repenting daily. That those and compare them to those that are just counted active.
It will likely be that last group that "makes it". That sounds like a few to me

The Telestial Kingdom also includes adulterers, fornicators, and those who "loveth and maketh a lie".  I fear it will hold the vast majority of those who lived to adulthood - at least, in 21st-century western society.
And when we talk about murder, don't forget about the west's acceptance of abortion.  We have much to answer for.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/07/the-strait-gate?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/08/on-the-straight-and-narrow-way?lang=eng
 

I would agree with those who have cautioned against an overly mechanical view of repentance.  To "repent" simply means "to change".  Change involves surrender.  The fundamental question isn't whether I checked off every one of the "seven r's"; it's whether I comprehend the way I have damaged myself and whether I am diligently using every available resource to find my way back.  That process almost always benefits from--and sometimes requires--outside aid.  Hence, the involvement of presumably-righteous bishops and hopefully-righteous parents.  Trying to do repentance alone suggests a lack of surrender; and trying to out-lawyer the bishop hints at . . . something that comes uncomfortably close to open rebellion.  
It sounds like our views of parents (and bishops, for that matter) is largely influenced by our personal histories.  And I think time does a lot to mellow the angst of youth.  But my perspective now, in my mid-thirties, is this:  My dad is a good man who was anointed to become a king and a priest in the temple of our God.  What does Dad's kingdom consist of?  Brigham Young says it consists of me and my siblings.  It doesn't seem like a stretch to conclude that my dad is, in a very real sense, my priest.  When someone stands over my grave at a future date and performs the priesthood ordinance reuniting my spirit with an incorruptible body--it's probably going to be Dad.  (No, we don't openly talk about this much in Sunday school.  Maybe we should.)  So, why wouldn't I ask for his help in untangling a spiritual mess I've created for myself?
I sure wish I thought this way twenty years ago.  Woulda saved me a lot of trouble.  

@clbent04 -- I will begin my thoughts with the first question, "Are Confessions Kept Confidential by Bishops?" A truthful answer they should be; however, bishops are human and sadly there are plenty of examples where a bishop has not kept confidentiality, casually or strictly. This reminds me of a funny story in my teen years. I was busy talking to other teens and the bishop pointed us out (note, I didn't hear what he was saying before his question to us), and said, 'Raise your hand if I have." Well, as an obedient teenager, I raised my hand. The previous statement was, "Have I ever not been confidential"? By which his response to my affirmative raise of hand, "Anddenex, NO I HAVE NOT." Everyone laughed because they knew I was only being obedient to "raise your hand." Doh!
In the scenario provided, "Yes, confidentiality was kept between you and the bishop." The bishop was honoring your father's stewardship, and as steward (sealing & covenant) your actions reflect upon your father/mother. As others have mentioned, the father is supposed to be the spiritual leader in your home. In a perfect world, sons should first come to their father (as the sons of Adam would have come to him), confess and then together the father and son (an eternal bond) then go to the bishop.
As we are not in a perfect world, there are other avenues. One is the avenue you took, confession to your bishop, by which the bishop honors stewardship inviting you to speak with your father. There are other avenues, what if your bishop is your father, and you are not ready to confess to your father/bishop? Well, this scenario has already been given a avenue as well, confess to your stake president. The stake president will work with you, and eventually you (general) will speak with your father/bishop. There are proper avenues, and their are acceptable avenues.
We all hope, as fathers, that we have a relationship with our sons and daughters that they will come to us first, and then together we take them through the proper channels of confession. In every confession I have known of, involving youth, the youth is invited to talk with their parents. If they don't, then the bishop, possibly through council with stake president, will encourage parents to have a one-on-one with their child. In some cases, this is an opportunity for the parents to review their relationship with their own offspring, their heirs.

@clbent04 -- I will begin my thoughts with the first question, "Are Confessions Kept Confidential by Bishops?" A truthful answer they should be; however, bishops are human and sadly there are plenty of examples where a bishop has not kept confidentiality, casually or strictly. This reminds me of a funny story in my teen years. I was busy talking to other teens and the bishop pointed us out (note, I didn't hear what he was saying before his question to us), and said, 'Raise your hand if I have." Well, as an obedient teenager, I raised my hand. The previous statement was, "Have I ever not been confidential"? By which his response to my affirmative raise of hand, "Anddenex, NO I HAVE NOT." Everyone laughed because they knew I was only being obedient to "raise your hand." Doh!
In the scenario provided, "Yes, confidentiality was kept between you and the bishop." The bishop was honoring your father's stewardship, and as steward (sealing & covenant) your actions reflect upon your father/mother. As others have mentioned, the father is supposed to be the spiritual leader in your home. In a perfect world, sons should first come to their father (as the sons of Adam would have come to him), confess and then together the father and son (an eternal bond) then go to the bishop.
As we are not in a perfect world, there are other avenues. One is the avenue you took, confession to your bishop, by which the bishop honors stewardship inviting you to speak with your father. There are other avenues, what if your bishop is your father, and you are not ready to confess to your father/bishop? Well, this scenario has already been given a avenue as well, confess to your stake president. The stake president will work with you, and eventually you (general) will speak with your father/bishop. There are proper avenues, and their are acceptable avenues.
We all hope, as fathers, that we have a relationship with our sons and daughters that they will come to us first, and then together we take them through the proper channels of confession. In every confession I have known of, involving youth, the youth is invited to talk with their parents. If they don't, then the bishop, possibly through council with stake president, will encourage parents to have a one-on-one with their child. In some cases, this is an opportunity for the parents to review their relationship with their own offspring, their heirs.

“All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” (D&C 83:4). I think this applies to spiritual as well as temporal matters, which clearly intersect in societal legal/judicial/criminal systems. Without appropriate parental guidance and involvement, escalating experimental and bad behavior can lead to all sorts of terrible consequences for youth and all those associated with them (illegitimate birth, abortion, custody; addictions, gang affiliation, jail time; etc.), even future generations.

Perhaps this will help you, clbent. From For the Strength of Youth:
 

I believe I'll continue to pray for safety for me and my family on my drives.

I pray for safety every day before work and often while I work.  I wonder if that is considered vain repetition?
 
 

Actually, it's not.  Testimony meeting is the place to testify of the truth.  (period)  It is not the place to tell the story of how you learned the truth, or of how it was most-recently demonstrated in your life.  It is not for travelmonies, thankimonies, storimonies, preachimonies, etc.  It is for people to get up and say: "I testify that X is true".  Unfortunately, that rarely happens.  When it does, it's usually powerful.
So it doesn't become a problem?  As a means to acknowledge God's power to bless us, and our need for His blessing?
Not that people don't do what you're saying, but I'm not prepared to condemn someone who isn't the greatest public pray-er in the world.  I expect it's much harder than we imagine for many people to do this, and so, to overcome whatever fear they have, the fall back on safe things for the group to pray for.  Get a prayer in your heart and you don't need to worry about the words others are using.