LeSellers

Great question!

D&C 132:18 says the following:

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

2 Nephi 9:41 says this:

 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.

I think these verses somehow give us an insightful clue about the ‘why’ of the signs and tokens we receive in the temple and the afterlife.

If so, he hasn't made the point. He continues to attack the morality of God, not whether morality can exist without God. If God establishes a morality for us (love thy neighbor), and applies it in ways we do not understand, or even establishes a different morality for Himself (which is not a claim, just a hypothesis) makes no difference to the announced position, i.e., that morality can exist without God.
He claims to have written an explanation of how the two moralities differ, but I haven't seen it (not looked at each post all that carefully, mind, but then, I have had five eye operations, and sometimes miss things).
But he has not, nor has anyone else, established how anyone knows what "morality" is without an outside power that defines it.
Lehi

This is the kind of thing we need to see more often if Muslims are ever going to be seen as assimilating into Western Culture:

Lehi

I definitely agree.
But based on my personal experiences, I believe it is so. And not being able to "prove" it does not bother me in the slightest. That's mostly God's problem. I share my experiences and thoughts and do as God asks and expect him to take care of most of the rest.

Another good book is Voices From the Dust....https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Dust-Comparative-Evaluation-Archaeology/dp/1881825507   some very interesting points made.

Saying I believe in the Bible or the Book of Mormon is not saying I worship it.  Can you point to where I said that?  I distinctly said that my belief in God is not parceled out like a cafeteria.  The Bible is His Word.  So is the Book of Mormon.  If I worship God, I accept His word, right?
If someone sees me carrying my Book of Mormon and asks me if I believe that is the Word of God, I will not lie....even if it costs me my life.
Are you saying you would lie?

I would die for it...not because it is a book, but because it is part and parcel to my beliefs.  I would not believe the Book of Mormon or the Bible if I did not believe in God.  How can I separate God from His Word?  He is the Gospel....the Good News.  
I doubt anyone would threaten my life over the Book of Mormon that was not also threatening it over my belief in God.

No one knows where to look, so the archaeological remains are wherever the Lamanites and the Nephites, and the Jaredites left them. 
As noted above, I believe Joseph when he said that the Lehite colony was originally in what he knew as "Peru". Based on that, we can deduce that the Jaredites and the Mulekites were south and east of the Yucatan Peninsula. There's not a lot of archaeology complete down there.
But, as @Traveler notes, 100% of Lehi's Arabian trek is in accordance with the narrative we have from the small Plates of Nephi. That ought to receive more than a knowing wink or nod.
Lehi

Emma did not want this. After the Battle of Nauvoo, when the apostates and antis had largely left her alone, she wanted little to do with religion. She rebuffed the RLDS apostles when they came to importune JSIII to become their prophet. It was only after several attempts on their part that she allowed it.
Lehi

Their platform is still evil, united or disunited as they may be.
Lehi

Hello pot, please meet kettle.

The article isn't trying to prove anything. It's addressing critics who think DNA disproved the Book of Mormon - by, as you've said, showing that DNA studies related to Book of Mormon people are inconclusive.

Where did you get that idea?  That list was compiled by Trump with advicement from several people including The Heritage Foundation.  This was deep in the Republican Primaries (mid-May).  At that time, the "establishment GOP" was making it known that if you work for Trump you just hope and pray he wins because you'll never get a job with anyone else.
Here's Rush Limbaugh's commentary on it:
RUSH: I've read a bunch of different conservative blogs on this.  In some of the conservative think tanks, you find some people upset that he didn't pick from prominent judges and jurists that they would have picked.  From Ivy League schools, yeah.  But aside from a few people in think tanks, apparently across the conservative sphere out there, there was universal applause for this list that Trump put together, and it's epitomized here by Dr. Krauthammer last night on Special Report with Bret Baier.
KRAUTHAMMER:  I think it'll have a dramatic effect in doing that.  The one thing holding back people who've resisted supporting Trump, or at least the major thing, is the fear of what a Clinton presidency would do to the Supreme Court and how it would change it for a generation.  Now you get a list of 11 who are quite sterling, three of them clerked for Justice Thomas, two of them for Justice Scalia, the six federal judges all appointed by George W., which means they are conservative and they are relatively young.  So this is a future-looking list.
RUSH:  Dr. Krauthammer excited about the list.  Other conservatives, some at National Review, were as well.  As I say, some of the think tanks, I can't think off the top of my head, but some think tanks were upset that some of the older jurists that they think are really good -- Patrick Kavanagh is one.  But some of the jurists that they like actually have voted to sustain parts of Obamacare.  And so others in the conservative movement said it's a good thing Trump did not -- we don't need anybody else on the court that thinks Obamacare is okay, no matter what else they are, we don't need anybody else that thinks that. 
And they pointed out, as Dr. Krauthammer did here, that all these names on Trump's list, they are young.  If they got on the court, they'd be there for decades, which is a factor given their lifetime appointment.  

We're losing the War on Drugs?  :-)

Because I am LDS today.  Not RLDS or anything else.  How do I know that the Catholic Bishops are in apostasy and not Joseph Smith?  Same answer.  How do I know that Jesus Christ is the son of God and not just a prophet?  Same answer.
Polygamy was a step in the restoration of Eternal Marriage.  I see it clear as day.  Catholic teachings even led me to it.

Who did she accredit as the author of D&C 132 if not the Lord?
If she didn't accept it as scripture or from the Lord, what reason did she give for even "trying to accept it" at all?

I can't. I can no more prove that my personal experiences determine truth than I can prove that I am not dreaming (think.. The Matrix). But my personal experience is all I have to go on.
Its like... if you had never seen an Aurora Borealis, and cameras don't exist. I cannot prove to you that Aurora Borealis exists. I can tell you all about it... What it looked like. Maybe even where when and how I saw it. But unless you go and see it for yourself, you have just my word to go on. Maybe I made it up. Maybe its just a figment of my imagination. But I can invite you to go and see. Maybe you go and don't see. Maybe you didn't see it when you looked. Maybe you did see it... but maybe you think its a figment of your own imagination. Maybe you see it differently than me.
None of this changes the fact that I have seen. And I can invite you to go and see. And that is all I can do.
Just because I cannot prove it exists, does not therefore mean it does not exist, or that I have not experienced it for myself.
And this goes for more things than God. Our entire perception of life is this way. Does this mean nothing is real? Not necessarily.
But I have felt God's touch in my life. And as I have done as I believe he asks, I have become happier. I have increased in my trust of him. Is it a figment of my imagination? Maybe. But it makes me happy, and I believe God to be a solid basis for my morality. So thus I trek onward in my belief. And I one day hope to join God in heaven, and one day fully understand absolute truth and morality.

Yes, within the parameters Moroni laid out: if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.
It matters a great deal. Either it is what it claims to be or Joseph Smith either lied or was deceived. Either one makes the Church he Restored false, its Priesthood void, and its promises and covenants useless.
Lehi

Why weird? does it matter who of them lied?
Well, no, we don't. There are millions of us who know Moroni visited Joseph that night and the next morning and the following anniversaries. But that won't satisfy you, I'm sure.
Nonetheless, there were three men who also saw Moroni: David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris.
Lehi

People often bring up the DNA question in a thread like this. So here, read this:
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies

As others have said, we don't know where it took place. I personally think most discussion of "Book of Mormon geography" is a waste of time, because of this.
I don't think we know much of what was happening in the world 2000 years ago. We have sparse records and most everything else is buried. How can we even know how much we don't know? 
One of the most famous civilizations - the Greeks - for them we have an estimated only 5% of the records that they wrote.
However, if it all took place in the jungles of Yucatan, then in that case I would't be surprised we haven't found much. Wood, etc will have rotten away. Iron and steel would be rusted away. Everything else could be covered with jungle. And maybe some of the stuff we've found is BoM stuff, who really knows.
Swords, horse bones, etc - I think we do have some evidence for that kind of thing. Here's some speculation:
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/archaeological-evidence-and-the-book-of-mormon
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/horses-in-the-book-of-mormon
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare/Weapons/Swords
In the end, though, it's obvious to me that the Lord wants to try our faith, regarding the Book of Mormon. So we put our trust in him, we feel the witness of the Holy Spirit that it's true, and we learn form the teachings in the book. Full scholarly-type evidence will come later - it's not the most important thing for now.
 

And the editor was a military general.

This actually has relevance to the current discussion.
If you read the BoM carefully, you will note that there are several places where the author re-states or repeats himself - exactly like you would do it you were writing on metal plates, and could not easily hit Backspace and edit like we can on our computers.
Critics like to focus on how we don't have the metal plates anymore. However, what we do have is the text itself. There are many internal evidences of authenticity. For example, listen to Nibley's Lectures on the Book or Mormon, or read his books such as Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites.
None of this will convince determined skeptics, or prove to them anything. However, there is evidence on the "true" side of the scale.

Yes. There are at least three different questions in the OP - 1) Did the Book of Mormon exist as and actual document written on metal plates, as Joseph Smith reported, 2) Did Joseph translated it accurately and 3) is the information in the book accurate?
Yes, Yes, and As accurate as any such account would be. 

Yes, within the parameters Moroni laid out: if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.
It matters a great deal. Either it is what it claims to be or Joseph Smith either lied or was deceived. Either one makes the Church he Restored false, its Priesthood void, and its promises and covenants useless.
Lehi