JohnsonJones

Regarding we are closer to God today, then other generations. You only have to look back to two times in scripture to see that there were people who were much closer to God then we are today: City of Enoch and Nephites and Lamanites after Christ came for a short period of time. We have not as a people come anywhere near what they achieved.

Generally, it is my impression that few understand very basic principles.  Take the concept of covenant and ownership as an example.  There is a difference between purchasing a home over time and renting or otherwise using the same home temporarily.  If someone enters into a contract (covenant) to purchase a house by making regular payments, then when the contract has been completed they will own the home.  Someone else may observe someone so coming into ownership over time by making payments and then think that if they live in a building and pay rent that they will eventually own that place as well.
Although this is a somewhat simplified example – hopefully it makes the point.  If we want an eternal family, we must make an eternal contract to that end.  Doctrine and Covenants section 132 gives some details specifically concerning eternal contracts which include an eternal marriage contract.  Just because someone is living in a place does not mean that they can suddenly think to change the rules and claim ownership.  Just because someone rides in your car (if you are an Uber driver) and pays you some money does not; now mean that they can claim your car as their property – even if they like or love your car an awful lot.
If someone intends to have an eternal relationship (marriage) they, at the very least, must understand and apply the principles (rules if you will) that will cause such a thing to happen.  If they are not even willing to seek out such principles – if is utter foolishness to think the universe is ordered such that it will just happen for them because they want it to. 
It is my observation that ownership requires that we take care of our possessions or they will not serve any useful purpose.  If we do not put gas in our automobile it will cease to serve the purpose of why we own it and it will become useless to us regardless of how much we like or love the car – likely sitting at some faraway place awaiting someone that understands the principle of making car go to put gas in it and properly maintain it.
 
The Traveler

By whom. And where's the question mark?
10/10 and a gold star for good referencing.
0/10 and "see me" for grammar and punctuation! 
 

Oh yes, and the second way Woman can hold the priesthood...
Give their significant other a hug.
 
Yes...it is sort of a joke...sort of...but hugs are nice.

When was the picture drawn and by who...if the French, it is understandable why it is a leopard.
See, instead of just answering straight, I even found a source (however dubious) on the INTERNET!!!
In reality it probably depends on whether you are English and take the English side of history or French (well...some Europeans).
Wikipedia has a different answer...
Wikipedia regarding leopard heraldry
 

1.) I'm finding it annoying when women are still treated as the 'lesser sex' in today's world and in the church .
In the USA and in the LDS Church worldwide, they're not.
2.) Also on the same note, how come there aren't as many women Sunday school presidents or councillors etc,
Sunday School Peesidencies are the responsibility of the Priesthood in the same manner that Gospel teaching is the responsibility of Fathers in the family.
3.) likewise men on primary presidencies,
The rearing of children are the primary responsibility of women in the same manner that the rearing of children are the primary responsibility of Mothers in the family.
 4.) what about 'non practicing' Temple recommend holding gay men teaching, or being on a primary presidency or auxiliaries ? Or non practicing gay women in auxiliary presidencies ?  Mixed presidencies in non priesthood callings .
Male Presidencies - Elders Quorom, Young Men, Sunday School
Female Presidencies - Relief Society, Young Women, Primary
Gay men are males, Gay women are females in the Church.  They are not barred from callings.
 5.). Also why do sisters still have to 'vail their faces' in a certain part of an ordinance in the Temple I always feel it very discriminating towards women when that happens. 
If you're looking for discrimination, you will find it everywhere including places where it doesn't exist.. I suggest you go through the temple again paying close attention to the symbolisms and what they symbolize.  If you're not sure about a certain symbol, like the veil, you can ask any of the temple workers to explain it to you.

Actual woman here.
I find it annoying when people try to tell me I have to be just like a man in order to be not be the "lesser sex". 

Like, for example...men holding doors?
Are you a Social Justice Warrior in training? Because you certainly take profound offense on behalf of others just like one. To answer your questions:
Women are not Sunday School presidents or counselors because the Handbook specifies, "Members of the ward Sunday School presidency are priesthood holders." Ergo, no women. Men do not serve on Primary presidencies because the Handbook specifies, "The bishop calls and sets apart a sister to serve as Primary president." Women serve on presidencies with other women, not with men. Gay men are called as teachers and to serve on auxiliaries. You are simply wrong on these points. It is possible that a bishop may decide not to call a homosexual man to teach children, because he wants other modeling. That is the bishop's decision to make. Gay men are men. (You might have missed that.) They do not serve on presidencies with women, including on Primary presidencies.

And a marriage counselor.  Even if you go by yourself.

These tests are day to day life.  Who lives a life devoid of problems?  Not even the very wealthy have this luxury.  Steve Jobs with all his wealth could not prevent dying young, although he tried.
 
It's what one does about one's problems that define who one is.
Recently some have dealt with tropical storms, flooding and total loss of family, friends and every kind of material goods!  Many, if judging by the news have dealt well with these problems.  Others probably not so well.

Opinions seem to vary wildly on these things.  This is also why College Football tends to be more popular in my household (though they now have NFL games on weekdays as well). 
In regards to the Sabbath, I think one reason it was so harsh may not merely have been for the typical lay member, but for those that employed others.  It takes a harsh penalty to force an employer to stop forcing their employees (or in the ancient times, slaves) from working on the Sabbath.  A death sentence most likely put a stop to what we see as a flagrant disregard for the Sabbath today in favor of profit and gain.  Of course, if no one would go out on the Sabbath to those companies, they probably would soon close down and would not have the disregard to keeping the Sabbath day holy.
On the otherhand, we have the example of the Savior and the idea that when the ox is in the mire...
I tend to look at it on the basis of first...are we supporting anyone else working.  We don't take it to an extreme (we still use electricity and such necessities), but things that we do not necessarily need, such as TV channels and shows.  I think watching any network TV (with the exception of Conference...which I think could be labeled as a necessity for LDS saints...maybe) is something that is not necessarily keeping the Sabbath day holy.   I don't go shopping or out to places which require people to work on Sunday unless it is a necessity (so utilities like water and electricity are necessities, medical personel to staff hospitals are a necessity, an amusement park is NOT a necessity).  So, listening to the radio or watching TV normally requires someone to be there, it is not something that is a necessity in life and in watching or listening to those, we are causing someone else to need to work on the Sabbath.
Watching movies which require no one at a channel or otherwise...that's a little more tricky.
The second focus of the Sabbath is that it is a Holy day and the Lord's day.
I had a son visiting recently, and he asked if he could play his video game thing on sunday.  I told him he old enough to make his own decisions, so he could choose what he wanted to do.  Then, he wanted to get some of the younger nephews and such playing as well, which I then told him they could not as long as I was watching them.  I said, he could choose for himself, but for us, we wouldn't play those video games on Sunday.  That does not mean we don't do ANY video or video games, but it is within the confines of the following which I think should at least attempted to be kept.
As I said above, first is the consideration of whether we are causing others to unnecessarily work.
Secondly, is within ourselves.  The Sabbath is the Lord's day, and our thoughts and efforts and relaxing probably should have some relevance in focusing on him.  Will such a video game have any relevance to the lord or keeping the Sabbath day Holy.  In this, it is a HOLY day, nor just necessarily a day to relax (though there is that as well...so I love to take naps on Sunday).  I obviously visit this place occasionally on Sunday (I don't think it requires anyone to work...if I am wrong please tell me) and feel discussion such as I find here normally a worthwhile thing on Sunday (if I have time...ironically, Sunday for me can sometimes be excessively busy...but not with normal work but in regards to the Church and things I do in it).
So, I think it is two fold.
First - Are we allowing others to keep the Sabbath day holy in our activities on the Sabbath.
Secondly - do we remember that it is the Lords day and we should approach it with the proper attitude in respect for him.

Opinions seem to vary wildly on these things.  This is also why College Football tends to be more popular in my household (though they now have NFL games on weekdays as well). 
In regards to the Sabbath, I think one reason it was so harsh may not merely have been for the typical lay member, but for those that employed others.  It takes a harsh penalty to force an employer to stop forcing their employees (or in the ancient times, slaves) from working on the Sabbath.  A death sentence most likely put a stop to what we see as a flagrant disregard for the Sabbath today in favor of profit and gain.  Of course, if no one would go out on the Sabbath to those companies, they probably would soon close down and would not have the disregard to keeping the Sabbath day holy.
On the otherhand, we have the example of the Savior and the idea that when the ox is in the mire...
I tend to look at it on the basis of first...are we supporting anyone else working.  We don't take it to an extreme (we still use electricity and such necessities), but things that we do not necessarily need, such as TV channels and shows.  I think watching any network TV (with the exception of Conference...which I think could be labeled as a necessity for LDS saints...maybe) is something that is not necessarily keeping the Sabbath day holy.   I don't go shopping or out to places which require people to work on Sunday unless it is a necessity (so utilities like water and electricity are necessities, medical personel to staff hospitals are a necessity, an amusement park is NOT a necessity).  So, listening to the radio or watching TV normally requires someone to be there, it is not something that is a necessity in life and in watching or listening to those, we are causing someone else to need to work on the Sabbath.
Watching movies which require no one at a channel or otherwise...that's a little more tricky.
The second focus of the Sabbath is that it is a Holy day and the Lord's day.
I had a son visiting recently, and he asked if he could play his video game thing on sunday.  I told him he old enough to make his own decisions, so he could choose what he wanted to do.  Then, he wanted to get some of the younger nephews and such playing as well, which I then told him they could not as long as I was watching them.  I said, he could choose for himself, but for us, we wouldn't play those video games on Sunday.  That does not mean we don't do ANY video or video games, but it is within the confines of the following which I think should at least attempted to be kept.
As I said above, first is the consideration of whether we are causing others to unnecessarily work.
Secondly, is within ourselves.  The Sabbath is the Lord's day, and our thoughts and efforts and relaxing probably should have some relevance in focusing on him.  Will such a video game have any relevance to the lord or keeping the Sabbath day Holy.  In this, it is a HOLY day, nor just necessarily a day to relax (though there is that as well...so I love to take naps on Sunday).  I obviously visit this place occasionally on Sunday (I don't think it requires anyone to work...if I am wrong please tell me) and feel discussion such as I find here normally a worthwhile thing on Sunday (if I have time...ironically, Sunday for me can sometimes be excessively busy...but not with normal work but in regards to the Church and things I do in it).
So, I think it is two fold.
First - Are we allowing others to keep the Sabbath day holy in our activities on the Sabbath.
Secondly - do we remember that it is the Lords day and we should approach it with the proper attitude in respect for him.

There is this thing called the law of witnesses.  When a revelation is from God, it will not come to just one individual, it will be confirmed by a another person with a stake in the matter receiving the same revelation. 
So please do bring it up with your husband.  He may be having similar feelings, or if he gives it some thought and prayer he may get a confirmation and then the two of you can move forward united in faith.  Or he may receive a different prompting and you can have some comfort that you are not violating God's will in waiting a bit as you plan.  Just say 'Honey, I need to tell you something I've been feeling and get your thoughts on it...'  you aren't dictating to him what will happen, you are trying to work something out together.
I proposed to my wife 6 weeks after I got back from my mission, we were married 6 months later.  I was in school full time and she had a job at a retail store so we didn't have a lot of money.  We didn't wait however, she was pregnant a month after the wedding and over the next 10 years our first 5 kids were born.  Yes there were financial challenges and sacrifices, but we kept paying tithing and it worked out.  We did have to have a friend babysit for a couple years while she was at work and I was at class, but after I graduated she was able to be a full time mom up.  Our kids are older now so recently she was able to finish her degree.  She has a career and I do too and I can work from home so even though our youngest in in high school he still has a parent at home.  My wife says it is better to chase kids when in your 20s and do home work in your 40s than the other way around.
Now that might not be the right path for you guys, but just because you are young poor newlyweds doesn't mean starting a family is impossible or wrong.  You both need to take this to God and then act in faith on the answer.  It doesn't matter if it doesn't seem logical, if you feel peace and confidence from the spirit over it, go with it and trust God to clear the path before you. 

I'm going to go a different route than others have, but I'm generally not one to listen to so keep that in mind.
Your husband has a porn addiction.  This is no indication of how he feels about you.  It is no indication of how he views you.
He's an exceptional husband and father.  He treats you like a queen.  You have self-image issues, presumably because of how you think he views you due to his porn addiction.  You nag him about his porn addiction.
Have you considered the possibility that you're  the reason there is no passion in your marriage?  Have you considered that your reaction to his addiction is hurting your marriage more?  Now you've cheated on him?  You're concerned about the punishment?  Do you think you should be concerned about how you violated your marriage, your children's trust, and your covenants with God?  Honestly, you sound as though you're more concerned with yourself than your family.  

Since you came here for advice, here it is.  Be an adult.  Adults have responsibility.  Go see your bishop.  Now.  Do what he tells you and hope your husband forgives you.  Due to the fact that you said he will, it sounds like you take him for granted.  Stop.  Be the wife and mother you committed to being.  Help your husband through his addiction,  Stop being selfish.
I wish you the best.  I wish your family the best.  I truly hope you work this out for the sake of yourself, your family, and your relationship with God. I mean that sincerely.

This is a judgment for the bishop. None of us here can speak authoritatively to that issue. Sacred covenants were broken; this is not a light matter.
I  disagree that this is a judgment we're qualified to make.
I see nothing even remotely helpful about such a statement in this situation. The husband is to be commended for his kindness, gentility, and expression of love, not backhanded with, "Sure, taking out the garbage is nice, but let's not forget what a horrible person he really is!"
In general, I don't think it's useful to compare which sin is more grave or if they're equally horrid. But if a comparison is to be made, it should be as accurate as possible. To wit:
Looking at pictures of naked women out of prurient interest is wicked and soul-destroying. Making out with a guy who isn't your husband and exchanging feel-ups with him is worse. If you're not convinced, consider your reaction if the husband had had a feel-up session with his girlfriend. Wouldn't you agree that's much worse than the porn usage?
This is not a commentary on the OP, but a metacommentary on how we respond to people. I wish I had useful advice for the OP. But minimizing her wrongdoing can't be good.

It depends on the translation and the translator.  Normally, the preferred method (as the Book of Mormon states about Anton), you have to see the source of the material.  This allows for various translations so that you have differences of opinion.  You cannot translate something that cannot be seen and handled (or a sealed book).  A great example is the New Testament of the Bible.  The books there are not the primary sources of the documents, and most of the earliest ones we have are not the originals.  It can be a source for the time period as we have multiple sources of it, but there are other primary sources which many historians probably would consider first before those. 
Joseph Smith, unfortunately, at the time had no certifying things to show that he was actually able to translate, nothing certified that he was actually translating something.  In this instance, we need to see the source document that he was translating from so we know it is a valid source.  A second opinion on it, or translation to verify his accuracy would also be preferable, at least in part so that we could acknowledge that he was translating it accurately.
Another example that may be familiar to Mormons, it is lot like some of the early recordings of the speeches and talks of Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith stated something in a talk, and we have someone who wrote it down...supposedly word for word.  However, at times, another person who recorded the same talk will have it written differently.  Which one then is accurate?  What did Joseph Smith actually say at that talk?  Although Joseph Smith himself is the primary source, those who transcribed it apparently didn't get it as his original talk was written or perhaps delivered.  At least one is inaccurate, possibly both...
Primary sources CAN be a translation, but the sources should be verified to be authentic.  Unfortunately, for the Book of Mormon, the source cannot be verified by scientific means.  Hence, as we cannot compare, we cannot accept that the translation is actually a word for word, or even pure translation.  It may be a translation with the own translator's own ideas and writings tossed in, or other items.
A basic thing to ask yourself, if you were a historian and could not take in personal testimony or the faith of someone as evidence, what would differentiate a book of fiction that someone claimed they translated, but could not provide any source documents or anything else, from any other piece of fiction?
After that, ask yourself, if you accepted a book someone stated they translated as evidence, how do you verify it is an accurate translation rather than an interpretation of the book.  In fact, from what some sources stated, the Book of Mormon at times is more an interpretation of what it states instead of direct translation (for example, the passages that reflect the King James Bible, as they were more familiar to Joseph Smith at the time and hence are written in that form).  Others state that some parts are direct translation to joseph Smith spelling out words.  It's impossible to tell, and hence, it has to be accepted that it is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon wrote.  In this instance, the stuff directly relating to Mormon's own history would be a secondary source, while the stuff he wrote about from others (his abridgement) is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon said in his words what someone else wrote.
This is NOT to disparage anyone's testimony.  What happens in history has to be verified and vetted.  With the Book of Mormon, that is basically impossible.  That does NOT mean it is not true, it means that as far as historical records and evidence goes, without the source document, or other historical records to back it up, accepting it as a history is not going to really go over that well.  Even if there were two or three other records it would go over better (and by that, I mean records that back up the history told in the book of Mormon).  Unfortunately we lack even that.  Once again that does not mean it is NOT true or historical, just right now, we don't have anything to validate it...hence, as such it is as good as a work of fiction in regards to actual history.
Now, Ancient American history is NOT my field of specialty, and I think most of those who do study it are more into archaeology, as written records as far as I know (again, not a specialist in this arena) are scarce if any at all for some cultures and civilizations.
Also, this is a case where you have to separate what is the art of history from one's religion.  Our faith is NOT history, and history should not be what we base our faith off of.  The interpretation of history is constantly changing and in flux with revision, retakes, and varied opinion.  If you base your faith or testimony on history, be prepared to lose that testimony right off as what is accurate today, may change tomorrow.  You can never tell in history when some new theory will throw off an old one, or challenge one that's been held for a while.  (for example, leprosy.  It was thought that in the Middle Age lepers were outcasts, but some new research suggests that up until the renaissance, they were actually held as more religious than others and incorporated into society.  They were seen as suffering more due to their faith in the Lord, and blessed to go to heaven...or at least that's one suggestion from some new research.  Very different than some of the understanding from just a few years ago in many ways.  It's not completely accepted, and there are various opinions, but that is an example of how things can change).
History is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS TRUTH.  I think it is in Indiana Jones where he states something like this, though in regards to archaeology.  He is a fictional creation, but I think that holds true.  History is based on what we can establish as facts from what we currently know in our perspective, but it is NOT necessarily true, or truth.  For that, the Holy Ghost is probably a much better guide.
Fact...not truth

It depends on the translation and the translator.  Normally, the preferred method (as the Book of Mormon states about Anton), you have to see the source of the material.  This allows for various translations so that you have differences of opinion.  You cannot translate something that cannot be seen and handled (or a sealed book).  A great example is the New Testament of the Bible.  The books there are not the primary sources of the documents, and most of the earliest ones we have are not the originals.  It can be a source for the time period as we have multiple sources of it, but there are other primary sources which many historians probably would consider first before those. 
Joseph Smith, unfortunately, at the time had no certifying things to show that he was actually able to translate, nothing certified that he was actually translating something.  In this instance, we need to see the source document that he was translating from so we know it is a valid source.  A second opinion on it, or translation to verify his accuracy would also be preferable, at least in part so that we could acknowledge that he was translating it accurately.
Another example that may be familiar to Mormons, it is lot like some of the early recordings of the speeches and talks of Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith stated something in a talk, and we have someone who wrote it down...supposedly word for word.  However, at times, another person who recorded the same talk will have it written differently.  Which one then is accurate?  What did Joseph Smith actually say at that talk?  Although Joseph Smith himself is the primary source, those who transcribed it apparently didn't get it as his original talk was written or perhaps delivered.  At least one is inaccurate, possibly both...
Primary sources CAN be a translation, but the sources should be verified to be authentic.  Unfortunately, for the Book of Mormon, the source cannot be verified by scientific means.  Hence, as we cannot compare, we cannot accept that the translation is actually a word for word, or even pure translation.  It may be a translation with the own translator's own ideas and writings tossed in, or other items.
A basic thing to ask yourself, if you were a historian and could not take in personal testimony or the faith of someone as evidence, what would differentiate a book of fiction that someone claimed they translated, but could not provide any source documents or anything else, from any other piece of fiction?
After that, ask yourself, if you accepted a book someone stated they translated as evidence, how do you verify it is an accurate translation rather than an interpretation of the book.  In fact, from what some sources stated, the Book of Mormon at times is more an interpretation of what it states instead of direct translation (for example, the passages that reflect the King James Bible, as they were more familiar to Joseph Smith at the time and hence are written in that form).  Others state that some parts are direct translation to joseph Smith spelling out words.  It's impossible to tell, and hence, it has to be accepted that it is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon wrote.  In this instance, the stuff directly relating to Mormon's own history would be a secondary source, while the stuff he wrote about from others (his abridgement) is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon said in his words what someone else wrote.
This is NOT to disparage anyone's testimony.  What happens in history has to be verified and vetted.  With the Book of Mormon, that is basically impossible.  That does NOT mean it is not true, it means that as far as historical records and evidence goes, without the source document, or other historical records to back it up, accepting it as a history is not going to really go over that well.  Even if there were two or three other records it would go over better (and by that, I mean records that back up the history told in the book of Mormon).  Unfortunately we lack even that.  Once again that does not mean it is NOT true or historical, just right now, we don't have anything to validate it...hence, as such it is as good as a work of fiction in regards to actual history.
Now, Ancient American history is NOT my field of specialty, and I think most of those who do study it are more into archaeology, as written records as far as I know (again, not a specialist in this arena) are scarce if any at all for some cultures and civilizations.
Also, this is a case where you have to separate what is the art of history from one's religion.  Our faith is NOT history, and history should not be what we base our faith off of.  The interpretation of history is constantly changing and in flux with revision, retakes, and varied opinion.  If you base your faith or testimony on history, be prepared to lose that testimony right off as what is accurate today, may change tomorrow.  You can never tell in history when some new theory will throw off an old one, or challenge one that's been held for a while.  (for example, leprosy.  It was thought that in the Middle Age lepers were outcasts, but some new research suggests that up until the renaissance, they were actually held as more religious than others and incorporated into society.  They were seen as suffering more due to their faith in the Lord, and blessed to go to heaven...or at least that's one suggestion from some new research.  Very different than some of the understanding from just a few years ago in many ways.  It's not completely accepted, and there are various opinions, but that is an example of how things can change).
History is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS TRUTH.  I think it is in Indiana Jones where he states something like this, though in regards to archaeology.  He is a fictional creation, but I think that holds true.  History is based on what we can establish as facts from what we currently know in our perspective, but it is NOT necessarily true, or truth.  For that, the Holy Ghost is probably a much better guide.
Fact...not truth

I'm a historian.  In the art of history, there are things that can be accepted and things that cannot be accepted.  Right now, as far as historical evidences go, the Book of Mormon has none.  Much of the Bible really does not have evidence for it.  We cannot simply say the earth is flat because we read it in a book of scripture like they used to, that's NOT what history (or science, or other academic pursuits) are about.  My personal beliefs and faith are not valid enough for the professional field.  Anyone who tried to do so professionally would not be taken seriously (basically, laughed out of the field and called a quack). 
The secular history is NOT a fraud, it is based upon many written accounts.  History is WRITTEN, archaeology is not.  History NEEDS to have WRITTEN history which corresponds with the flow of events to define whether it is fictional, or actual history. 
For example, we have written journals and other items from the Revolutionary war that correlate with one another.  They back each other up and verify that the events actually occurred.  It Is not just in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but HUNDREDS of witnesses.  If someone came up with some sort of weird history that had nothing to do with what we know from hundreds of accounts of the Revolutionary war...and stated something quite the opposite...they would have the preponderance of witnesses against their story...and likely, without anything to back it up, would be considered fictional, or a false history if nothing else.  One or two voices that say something different than hundreds (or thousands in some instances) cannot rewrite history by itself normally.  Obviously the further back you get, the less writings you get...and once you get to a point where there is no writing...that becomes pre-history...and the realm purely of archaeology or other sciences that try to piece together what happened without anyone writing about it.
The preferred source for a Historian is what we call a primary source.  That means someone who actually was there and experienced the event wrote about it.  Someone who relates something that someone else experienced or heard is relating it second hand, hence is a secondary source.  Someone who writes about someone who knew someone who experienced it (or quotes another source) is normally a tertiary source, and is the LEAST preferred.
With the Book of Mormon, even if Historians considered it authentic enough for evidence, it is still a rather bad source (same with the Bible in some parts).  It is a tertiary source when it comes from Joseph Smith who writes what Mormon wrote abridged from prophets prior to his time.  A tertiary source is a bad source, and you normally CANNOT base history off a tertiary source.  When it is Mormon's actual account with Joseph Smith's words, I might say it could be a secondary source.
Since none of it is a primary source at all, we then have to rely on something else, some sort of evidence (and almost any RELIABLY STRONG evidence would count, and unfortunately for many who may claim there is...in reality, there is NOT any other evidence out there) to back it up.  Feelings, emotions, etc. do not count.
Professionally, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test in regards to being considered written history.
My personal feelings are different than my Professional feelings, but professionally, there's no way I could count the Book of Mormon as evidence at this point in time.

Now something to add...in regards to MY PERSONAL belief.
I am a literalist.  That means I take the Book of Mormon to have literally happened as it is written.  I believe the Book of Mormon to truly be a historical record and accurately accounts what happened with peoples on the American Continent.
No, this is not integrated into my professional ideas, one has to know where to separate how the art of history works vs. the things of the Lord.
However, personally, I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible...as literal and accurate. 
It's funny that as a Historian, with a perspective of what history says, I believe this...and yet there are many who have no study of history at all and have no idea what they are talking about that think it is figurative or otherwise (and admittedly, there are historians out there that have a great amount of faith and feel that way as well in regards to these things being figuratively).
However, I, feel the Book of Mormon and the Bible are both literal and accurate in what they say about the creation, the history of the peoples, and the things they tell. 
Just one of those interesting observations.

It depends on the translation and the translator.  Normally, the preferred method (as the Book of Mormon states about Anton), you have to see the source of the material.  This allows for various translations so that you have differences of opinion.  You cannot translate something that cannot be seen and handled (or a sealed book).  A great example is the New Testament of the Bible.  The books there are not the primary sources of the documents, and most of the earliest ones we have are not the originals.  It can be a source for the time period as we have multiple sources of it, but there are other primary sources which many historians probably would consider first before those. 
Joseph Smith, unfortunately, at the time had no certifying things to show that he was actually able to translate, nothing certified that he was actually translating something.  In this instance, we need to see the source document that he was translating from so we know it is a valid source.  A second opinion on it, or translation to verify his accuracy would also be preferable, at least in part so that we could acknowledge that he was translating it accurately.
Another example that may be familiar to Mormons, it is lot like some of the early recordings of the speeches and talks of Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith stated something in a talk, and we have someone who wrote it down...supposedly word for word.  However, at times, another person who recorded the same talk will have it written differently.  Which one then is accurate?  What did Joseph Smith actually say at that talk?  Although Joseph Smith himself is the primary source, those who transcribed it apparently didn't get it as his original talk was written or perhaps delivered.  At least one is inaccurate, possibly both...
Primary sources CAN be a translation, but the sources should be verified to be authentic.  Unfortunately, for the Book of Mormon, the source cannot be verified by scientific means.  Hence, as we cannot compare, we cannot accept that the translation is actually a word for word, or even pure translation.  It may be a translation with the own translator's own ideas and writings tossed in, or other items.
A basic thing to ask yourself, if you were a historian and could not take in personal testimony or the faith of someone as evidence, what would differentiate a book of fiction that someone claimed they translated, but could not provide any source documents or anything else, from any other piece of fiction?
After that, ask yourself, if you accepted a book someone stated they translated as evidence, how do you verify it is an accurate translation rather than an interpretation of the book.  In fact, from what some sources stated, the Book of Mormon at times is more an interpretation of what it states instead of direct translation (for example, the passages that reflect the King James Bible, as they were more familiar to Joseph Smith at the time and hence are written in that form).  Others state that some parts are direct translation to joseph Smith spelling out words.  It's impossible to tell, and hence, it has to be accepted that it is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon wrote.  In this instance, the stuff directly relating to Mormon's own history would be a secondary source, while the stuff he wrote about from others (his abridgement) is Joseph Smith stating in his own words what Mormon said in his words what someone else wrote.
This is NOT to disparage anyone's testimony.  What happens in history has to be verified and vetted.  With the Book of Mormon, that is basically impossible.  That does NOT mean it is not true, it means that as far as historical records and evidence goes, without the source document, or other historical records to back it up, accepting it as a history is not going to really go over that well.  Even if there were two or three other records it would go over better (and by that, I mean records that back up the history told in the book of Mormon).  Unfortunately we lack even that.  Once again that does not mean it is NOT true or historical, just right now, we don't have anything to validate it...hence, as such it is as good as a work of fiction in regards to actual history.
Now, Ancient American history is NOT my field of specialty, and I think most of those who do study it are more into archaeology, as written records as far as I know (again, not a specialist in this arena) are scarce if any at all for some cultures and civilizations.
Also, this is a case where you have to separate what is the art of history from one's religion.  Our faith is NOT history, and history should not be what we base our faith off of.  The interpretation of history is constantly changing and in flux with revision, retakes, and varied opinion.  If you base your faith or testimony on history, be prepared to lose that testimony right off as what is accurate today, may change tomorrow.  You can never tell in history when some new theory will throw off an old one, or challenge one that's been held for a while.  (for example, leprosy.  It was thought that in the Middle Age lepers were outcasts, but some new research suggests that up until the renaissance, they were actually held as more religious than others and incorporated into society.  They were seen as suffering more due to their faith in the Lord, and blessed to go to heaven...or at least that's one suggestion from some new research.  Very different than some of the understanding from just a few years ago in many ways.  It's not completely accepted, and there are various opinions, but that is an example of how things can change).
History is NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS TRUTH.  I think it is in Indiana Jones where he states something like this, though in regards to archaeology.  He is a fictional creation, but I think that holds true.  History is based on what we can establish as facts from what we currently know in our perspective, but it is NOT necessarily true, or truth.  For that, the Holy Ghost is probably a much better guide.
Fact...not truth

I'm a historian.  In the art of history, there are things that can be accepted and things that cannot be accepted.  Right now, as far as historical evidences go, the Book of Mormon has none.  Much of the Bible really does not have evidence for it.  We cannot simply say the earth is flat because we read it in a book of scripture like they used to, that's NOT what history (or science, or other academic pursuits) are about.  My personal beliefs and faith are not valid enough for the professional field.  Anyone who tried to do so professionally would not be taken seriously (basically, laughed out of the field and called a quack). 
The secular history is NOT a fraud, it is based upon many written accounts.  History is WRITTEN, archaeology is not.  History NEEDS to have WRITTEN history which corresponds with the flow of events to define whether it is fictional, or actual history. 
For example, we have written journals and other items from the Revolutionary war that correlate with one another.  They back each other up and verify that the events actually occurred.  It Is not just in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but HUNDREDS of witnesses.  If someone came up with some sort of weird history that had nothing to do with what we know from hundreds of accounts of the Revolutionary war...and stated something quite the opposite...they would have the preponderance of witnesses against their story...and likely, without anything to back it up, would be considered fictional, or a false history if nothing else.  One or two voices that say something different than hundreds (or thousands in some instances) cannot rewrite history by itself normally.  Obviously the further back you get, the less writings you get...and once you get to a point where there is no writing...that becomes pre-history...and the realm purely of archaeology or other sciences that try to piece together what happened without anyone writing about it.
The preferred source for a Historian is what we call a primary source.  That means someone who actually was there and experienced the event wrote about it.  Someone who relates something that someone else experienced or heard is relating it second hand, hence is a secondary source.  Someone who writes about someone who knew someone who experienced it (or quotes another source) is normally a tertiary source, and is the LEAST preferred.
With the Book of Mormon, even if Historians considered it authentic enough for evidence, it is still a rather bad source (same with the Bible in some parts).  It is a tertiary source when it comes from Joseph Smith who writes what Mormon wrote abridged from prophets prior to his time.  A tertiary source is a bad source, and you normally CANNOT base history off a tertiary source.  When it is Mormon's actual account with Joseph Smith's words, I might say it could be a secondary source.
Since none of it is a primary source at all, we then have to rely on something else, some sort of evidence (and almost any RELIABLY STRONG evidence would count, and unfortunately for many who may claim there is...in reality, there is NOT any other evidence out there) to back it up.  Feelings, emotions, etc. do not count.
Professionally, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test in regards to being considered written history.
My personal feelings are different than my Professional feelings, but professionally, there's no way I could count the Book of Mormon as evidence at this point in time.

I'm a historian.  In the art of history, there are things that can be accepted and things that cannot be accepted.  Right now, as far as historical evidences go, the Book of Mormon has none.  Much of the Bible really does not have evidence for it.  We cannot simply say the earth is flat because we read it in a book of scripture like they used to, that's NOT what history (or science, or other academic pursuits) are about.  My personal beliefs and faith are not valid enough for the professional field.  Anyone who tried to do so professionally would not be taken seriously (basically, laughed out of the field and called a quack). 
The secular history is NOT a fraud, it is based upon many written accounts.  History is WRITTEN, archaeology is not.  History NEEDS to have WRITTEN history which corresponds with the flow of events to define whether it is fictional, or actual history. 
For example, we have written journals and other items from the Revolutionary war that correlate with one another.  They back each other up and verify that the events actually occurred.  It Is not just in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but HUNDREDS of witnesses.  If someone came up with some sort of weird history that had nothing to do with what we know from hundreds of accounts of the Revolutionary war...and stated something quite the opposite...they would have the preponderance of witnesses against their story...and likely, without anything to back it up, would be considered fictional, or a false history if nothing else.  One or two voices that say something different than hundreds (or thousands in some instances) cannot rewrite history by itself normally.  Obviously the further back you get, the less writings you get...and once you get to a point where there is no writing...that becomes pre-history...and the realm purely of archaeology or other sciences that try to piece together what happened without anyone writing about it.
The preferred source for a Historian is what we call a primary source.  That means someone who actually was there and experienced the event wrote about it.  Someone who relates something that someone else experienced or heard is relating it second hand, hence is a secondary source.  Someone who writes about someone who knew someone who experienced it (or quotes another source) is normally a tertiary source, and is the LEAST preferred.
With the Book of Mormon, even if Historians considered it authentic enough for evidence, it is still a rather bad source (same with the Bible in some parts).  It is a tertiary source when it comes from Joseph Smith who writes what Mormon wrote abridged from prophets prior to his time.  A tertiary source is a bad source, and you normally CANNOT base history off a tertiary source.  When it is Mormon's actual account with Joseph Smith's words, I might say it could be a secondary source.
Since none of it is a primary source at all, we then have to rely on something else, some sort of evidence (and almost any RELIABLY STRONG evidence would count, and unfortunately for many who may claim there is...in reality, there is NOT any other evidence out there) to back it up.  Feelings, emotions, etc. do not count.
Professionally, the Book of Mormon does not pass the test in regards to being considered written history.
My personal feelings are different than my Professional feelings, but professionally, there's no way I could count the Book of Mormon as evidence at this point in time.

No, I don't think any of the General Authorities (so also the Seventies) are trying to lead the church astray.  Much of it is their own interpretations at various times.  For example how food storage has been stressed in the past, and how that has changed over time.  It used to be taught that we should try to have at least a years worth of food storage.  It is not as big of a stress point today as it used to be (IMO).  Various different things come up as important to various individuals and we hear about those things.  Some have different takes on the same idea (for example, I think they stress having money put away and at least an emergency kit available these days more than the years worth of food storage, but they are all part of the same thing and idea).
The things that change are normally not doctrine or anything to do strictly with doctrine, but more personal interpretations.  I understand why they occur, don't always agree with some of them, but it's not something that's going to hurt my testimony at all (and I think it was 5 years ago in 2012 where the church officially came out declaring that caffeinated drinks were "okay" as one would put it), even though, as Kimball points out, technically it was never against doctrine in the first place.
However, the Word of Wisdom is THE reason I do not drink caffeinated drinks.  Personally, I'd love to have my coffee in the morning, and drink alcoholic drinks (well, more like wine and an occasional beer), and then more coffee (coffee more than anything else to be honest, probably).  I've never had a desire to smoke, so that was never something, but gosh I'd love to have coffee.  However, as we follow the Word of Wisdom I don't...and it's also the reason I don't drink caffeinated drinks.  I understand that's a PERSONAL thing though, not a mandatory or something intrinsically part of the doctrine.  I think it can be divisive in a church setting though.  Hence, putting it at BYU is probably just as bad as bringing Pepsi Cola to a church dance and having that as the only soft drink available (well, there would be water too, obviously, so two options, but one is the sugared drink and the other is not).
So, yes, as you, the primary reason I follow the Word of Wisdom isn't for any specific health benefit, but more because we are told to follow it by our church leaders.

Look I think in some ways we are arguing similiar points although I do disagree with you about marijuana. I've seen what Mary Jane does to people under it's influence, and it absolutely is a hard drug. I'm just trying to say it's not doctrine to avoid caffeine and you seem to agree with that. I think the only point of contention I have with your argument (other than marijuana) was that you appeared to me to say that our apostles and prophets would lead the church astray because of their personal choices. I reject that.