BJ64

I agree. If a white man said he didn’t have to answer to a black woman he would be called out as both racist and sexist. 
At any rate as has been said earlier, there are easy jobs that can be done assuming time isn’t an issue. 
My ward cleans every other quarter and I get asked once or twice a quarter. I have a key to every door in the stake so when I help clean I clean the stake offices as well as the bishop’s offices, clerks offices and library. All the rooms that rarely get cleaned because nobody has the key. 

No. I thought it was hilarious as well. Verstappen is one of my least favorite drivers so having him out of the race was great in my view. He has to be the most arrogant and cocky mid level drivers there is. He thinks he’s the best driver in the field and that everyone should just clear a path and let him through. When they don’t he has a long record of taking them out of the race. 
I felt bad for Ricciardo. I think he’s a good guy and didn’t deserve it. However, I don’t like the Red Bull team so I don’t mind if both cars go out of the race. 
My favorites to win would be Kimi or Bottas. Interestingly both Finns   

I gave great study on this topic years ago. First, we have been warned not to assume that the narrow neck of land in the Book of Mormon was Panama. Second, the majority of ruins in Central and South America are dated as post 400 AD. Watch Ancient Ruins of America with Jack H West.
Third, early church leaders like Parley P Pratt, who taught the school of the prophets, said that the Hill Cumorah in the BofM is the same Hill Cumorah we know in modern day New York State, and that the Nephites and Lamanites resided in what is now modern day North America. American Indians and anthropologists also teach of a massive ancient city in the Illinois area and that they taught 10 commandments or rules to live by, what we know as the Ten Commandments given to Moses. I have books on ancient sites around North America, including the mass graves dating back 2,000 years or more. Also, is it any coincidence to others that the Anasazi  in the Four Corners area disappeared around 400 AD?
Fourth, the lands in the Western Hemisphere were dramatically changed at the time of the crucifixion. The narrow neck of land could easily have been the space between Florida and Cuba. The truth is, we just don't know. 
There is a series of quotes from early church leaders affirming that North America is the geographical location of the Book of Mormon. I'll need to dig them up. Also, Central and South America are not the lands the Lord promised to set above all other lands in the last days, the same land He sent Lehi and his family to. North America is.

I am fascinated by the great lakes area. I do think it is the area where both civilizations came to an end. But, I have strong opinion that it wasnt the general area where BoM events took place. A book written in the 1800's about the antiquities of New York describes many battle fortifications around western New York. It raised enough speculation that the Smithsonian sent Esquire to document these earthworks. The author wasnt Mormon either.
http://www.archive.org/stream/antiquitiesofsta00squirich#page/n0/mode/1up
 

FWIW, I always traditionally thought of things in terms of the mesoamerican model (probably mostly sentimentally from a childhood understanding). But I have swayed towards the North American model more so in my older years, with the narrow neck being perhaps between the great lakes. Something I read once that made a lot of sense at the time.

There are certainly some records of statements made by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries which strongly suggest North American involvement. One of the most well known is the story of the discovery of Zelph the white Lamanite who was discovered in a burial mound on Zion's camp march. Joseph Smith is credited with writing to Emma about the group walking over the plains of the Nephites during this time, while the accounts of Zelph are not directly from Joseph, I believe.
Other records of interest would include Oliver Cowdery's letter vii and Brigham Young's report on Joseph and Oliver entering record room in cumorah on more than one occasion and the sword of Laban being unsheathed and inscribed on a latter visit. These have strong implications as to where Cumorah can be found and don't go along well with the idea of two cumorahs. Letter vii describes the area around Cumorah's hill where Joseph uncovered the plates as the place where the Nephite and Jaredite nations were destroyed. The record room inside the hill Cumorah poses a problem for the theory that Moroni traveled to New York alone, but had wagonloads of records deposited in a vault in the hill.
 

I don't accept the Mesoamerican theory.  I do accept that the events in the BOM are true.  That means it really does not matter to me if I know exactly where these events happened (beyond America).

The "limited" Mesoamerican Model doesn't appear to be complete (IMHO). The reason why I say this is that we do have a quote or statement from Joseph Smith regarding Nephites in North America (United States), or at least I thought we do.
The one thing that is nice about these "theories" though is the concept that not everyone has "faith" (or different degrees and levels of faith) and some of our brothers and sisters require "physical" explanations for the spiritual to begin to believe.
As for me, I appear lately to like the word "intriguing" and I find all the different theories intriguing. The new discovery of the Mayan population is awesome.
As to "an exceedingly great distance" if I walked from Provo to Orem I would consider that an exceedingly great distance to walk or ride horseback, because we know the Book of Mormon had "horses"

I would have thought that the 'One Major Flaw" would simply be that all the currently available scriptural sources that offer any sort of specifics indicate North American locations in reference to the Lamanites.  Seems to me like a bigger flaw than anything related to geographical distances.

I suppose you believe that the translator of the Book of Mormon was too stupid to know what he was talking about when he pointed out locations. 

I gave my first ever talk in sacrament meeting last Sunday. I've been a member for just over 3 months. I was terrified but I agreed.
I felt so inadequate - never spoke in any church before, nothing from primary or youth to draw upon, I was scared I would say something wrong like someones title in the church or misinterpret some foundation belief or something.
My talk was basically about me going to the temple for the first time and it took me ages to think about what to include. I prayed about it. Even then I felt what I had to say didn't hold much worth - 99% of the people in the room had more experience of the temple than me. Ultimately maybe it was boring to a lot of people who have been to the temple a million times.
I hate public speaking - on the whole I'm not good at it. Having anxiety does not help. So I had to do a whole lot of praying about that also. I thought about jumping ship before sacrament meeting. I only had one point of reference from a conference talk to include so structurally.... not good. But I did it anyway. 
I spoke clearly, didn't go off track, didn't fumble over my words, I said everything and I didn't forget to say "in the name of Jesus Christ amen". Was it a masterpiece... probably not. But a few people told me afterwards they felt the spirit and they loved it.... maybe they have to say that because I'm new? lol 
My point is, we're all different... I had missionaries, a members of the bisphoric on hand if I needed any help or had any questions. They helped, gave me a few pointers... but I'm still just a normal member giving her first talk. Sometimes the battle and meaning is for the speaker more than the people listening. 

Honestly, if someone had come up to me afterwards and said "You did this wrong" or "that wrong".... I probably wouldn't want to speak again. So any coaching needs to be done carefully and considerately. 

Many people know the basics to giving a decent talk, but that doesn't mean they can apply them when standing in front of people.
 

I’m not here to say that masturbation is not a sin but I agree with @JohnsonJonesthat it’s not some great sin. In the words of Spencer W. Kimball “Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others whose “norms” are lower.
Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice. Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.”
Note that he does not call it a great diabolical sin but a “rather common indiscretion”
How many other common indiscretions are there which we should be free of before entering the temple? How about envy, jealousy, hate, contention, gossip, listening to inappropriate music, watching inappropriate movies and disobeying traffic laws.
Then there are the greater sins of lying, coveting and taking the name of The Lord in vain which are also rather common. 
I do not equate masturbation and pornography. Although the two can be done at the same time, they are separate things. Pornography I beltis a more serious sin because you are focusing on the sexual acts of others. 
Some people act as though the two are always connected but for millennia people masturbated without internet porn or printed pictures. Though I will admit that porn has always existed. 
Certainly I had no access to porn as a youth.
As @JohnsonJonessaid, romance novels are pornography. Therefore LDS mothers who are reading them should abandon their habbit along with teaching their children to avoid pornography.       
Which is the worse sin? Touching yourself for pleasure (M) or gossiping to your best friend about something the neighbor lady did? M or running a red light and potentially killing someone? M or failing to be of assistance to someone in need? M or arguing with your neighbor when he complains about your dog barking in the night?
I think any of these things are damaging to the soul but M at least does not generally harm someone else in the process. 
On the subject of pornography, I in no way condone it. However I think we need to also consider the effects of other things we read or view. For example violence. I reluctantly took my family to see the new Avengers movie. I hated it. All it was was two and a half hours of fighting. There was nothing uplifting about it. The same goes for much of what we watch. 
While some might say that if you view pornography you should not attend the temple. I won’t argue with that however, a few years ago the speaker (I don’t remember who it was) at a BYUI devotional made the statement “If you are struggling with pornography you should attend the temple more frequently because the temple is the best washing machine for the mind. I think the point would be that regular temple attendance will help us to keep away from unclean things. 
To sum thing up, while I think it is best to avoid masturbation I think wise counsel might be “he who is without sin first cast a stone”.

I wish.  This very thread you have people comparing it to things one would get excommunicated for in many instances (for example, this is NOT equivalent to cheating, nor is it spiritual cyanide anymore than any other lesser sin one habitually commits nor many other things far worse).  It is this type of attitude that frightens people into thinking never to repent, or that they are doomed because the think the sin is far to large for them to ever repent of. 
That's the real nonsense that I see, and it's an absolute terrible thing that we tell people such nonsense, when in truth, it is FAR more minor than that.  Is it a sin.  Absolutely...but generally (there are always exceptions) it's not anywhere close to adultery (though many spouses think that and this thought process leads to the other problem of members using it as an excuse to divorce their spouses at times), or fornication, or even heavy petting (IMO on that one).  It breaks a commandment of the higher law, but normally it is not breaking a commandment regarding the lower law.
This one sin brings around so much unnecessary grief and  hardship, and in my opinion, part of it is because people many times label it far more harshly than they should.  In this, the words they use are far more harsh in expression, rather than showing love and support for the one who needs it.
We talk about it so much because the problem is so prevalent, but many people lose sight of how it is just like many other minor sins.  Unfortunately, many will ignore other sins of equal magnitude, or even sins of greater magnitude (for example, habitual shoplifting or one I saw that still confounds me...outright grand theft) and focus solely on this one.  I am particularly harsh on this and what I consider pornography (for example, most romance novels In my opinion are straight up pornography), but it seems many who should be supportive of an individuals road to repentance instead seem to question me soon after on WHY I did not level a harsher punishment or do something far more drastic than what I did.  Instead of feeling the relief and the burden lifted as the individual dealing with the problem hopefully feels, they seem to want to have some sort of vengeance exacted.
Unfortunately, I see this all too often.  Perhaps I just deal with this type of thing so often that it has slanted my view in regards to the general LDS view...I've heard that can happen.  My experiences though, indicate that people judge it far more harshly than what it really is.
Anyways, this is a pretty uncomfortable topic to discuss for me anyways.  I deal with this too much as it is, and I don't even feel comfortable in a private setting talking about this stuff with those who confess or bring it up (where it is necessary in many instances and I have to discuss it whether I really want to or not), much less on a forum with many individuals. 

My purpose for posting the scripture references was to point to where the “theory” of the curse of Cain and the black skin comes from in the scriptures, not to attempt to prove the theories correct. 
As I said in a previous post, considering how flimsy the evidence is for the black skin being the curse of Cain I’m not surprised the church would be anxious to disavow such theories. 

They aren't? 
Are you certain?

The book of Genesis does not talk about a "global" flood. The global nature of our planet was probably unknown to the author of Genesis, and almost certainly unknown to its audience.

You are right. I believe Brigham Young was/is a prophet called and directed by God. I also believe he understood the reason for the ban. 
On the topic of revelation it would be good to know what qualifies as a revelation to the prophet for the church. Is it a vision or hearing the voice of The Lord or is it a spiritual prompting or merely feeling good about something? 
In the days of Joseph Smith when he had a question he would ask then receive a revelation which would then be recorded to become the Doctrine and Covenants. However not all of his revelations were published, such as those dealing with plural marriage, and I suspect not all of his questions were answered by revelation. 
I feel that The Lord does not micro manage His Church. I feel He calls wise men whom He allows to direct His church, giving direction and guidance through spiritual promptings or whatever when necessary.
Joseph Smith once said that he taught the members correct principles and then let them govern themselves. I suspect The Lord acts in a similar manner. 

What bothers me most is speculative comments. We aren’t to have speculation in a class discussion. 
An example of teaching a gospel misunderstanding is when in my son's Aaronic Priesthood quorum the instructor said that it’s okay to drink coffee as long as it’s not too hot. My son recognized that it was a false statement but I was left wondering why a member of the bishopric or another adult adviser did not correct the teaching. 

I don't see the church stating this.
Here's a little lovely that Brigham Young delivered politically though...
Printed in Vol. 3 of the Teachings of Brigham Young Colliers Press.   Speech given to the Legislature in 1952 reported by George D. Watt (as per the book).
Perhaps the most famous Eulogy used by people in regards to Brigham Young's thoughts on the matter.

So out of one side of your mouths you say that whatever the prophet says is doctrinal, but out of the other side of your mouths all the stuff that happened in the past doesn't count and wasn't doctrinal. ?????   Pick a side guys.
For the record I think the Ban on the Priesthood was a matter of policy established by Brigham Young later rescinded via "revelation" because it was a bad policy.  The tough part is explaining away 100 plus years of bad policy. Which I suppose has been done by writing and essay and saying don't question it.

The difficulty I have with much of this is how fervent people are in regards to various issues (race and the priesthood, or the literal flood of the earth).  WE have the historical record and the essays from the church reflect that to the best knowledge we have.  I know (especially viewing this thread) that there are those out there who are in denial about certain aspects of the historical church that is written by historians (which is what the essays reflect...NOT CHURCH DOCTRINE)...but why does it bother people this much?
If one has a testimony from the Lord about the church, then this is not something that should worry them.  Instead, the focus should be on the here and now.  The flood that Noah survived is a lesson we can use today in obedience to the Lord and listening to the Lord...but it's not something that we are going to need to build an ark to survive.  For us, the value is in the story and it's application to our lives, regardless of whether you believe it is literal (like I do) or not.
The same with race and the Priesthood.  It is in the past.  Today...all men can hold the Priesthood and all men can go to the temple.  WE are not living in those times anymore, and today is where we should be centered.  If we focus too much on the past and try to figure out if something was or was not a mistake it invariably may hurt what is important today, which is having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his atonement, Repenting of our sins, and Enduring to the end.  All things should be focused on the Lord and his atonement in our steps to our salvation and exaltation.
History is a fascinating thing (and I should know, I love history), but when we focus on what is important, then that is more pertaining to the here and now, and learning from the past and it's applications to us.  In this way, the story of Noah and the flood has great importance to any and all in this day and age where men constantly mock the things of the Lord and ignore his gospel.  From it we can see the importance of doing what the Lord instructs, even if the entire world mocks us.  The Lessons from Noah hold importance no matter whether you think it actually happened, or is a parable, because regardless of which it is, the lesson is still the same for us in our current time and age.

If you want to know if the doctrinal reason for the ban on the priesthood it only takes a few seconds of searching to find countless quotes from prophets and apostles on the doctrinal reasons for the ban. The reasons for the band were preach from the pulpit for 130 years. However none of that matters anymore because in the words of Bruce R. McConkie “There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

When I read Brigham Young’s discourses on the subject of the blacks and the priesthood I get a distinct impression that the doctrinal basis for a ban was clear in his mind. 
I won’t ask anyone to accept my opinions of his discourses but anyone can read what he said and get their own impressions. 
Again whether the ban was doctrinal or not and I think the essay leads one to believe it was not, makes no difference because we are told to forget anything Brigham Young said on the issue.
We are to accept what our modern prophets have told us. I would include the essay race and the priesthood which surely must have been given their approval.

Race and the priesthood gospel essay from LDS.org
From the essay itself.
In regards to the essays, they are written in the context of a historian writing about the church.  They are not actually written as doctrine or from a doctrinal viewpoint.  They are written to expand those interested in church history and facets of the church's topics from a more academic viewpoint.  They can be integrated into various church classes and lessons and often members are encouraged to do so.  As I stated previously though, the historical essays are written from the viewpoint of men and scholarship using the best methods that the church history department has determined they should use.  It is not supposed to supplant doctrine, but to supplement the doctrines taught in the church.

Directly from the essay itself in reference directly to what Brigham Young's actions and stated...
.
PS: You should probably read what you quoted from me.  Without context, what you said is strangely out of place in regards to what I wrote....