azazel420

Edit: NM I'll take it to the other thread since it's really not about the church.

As to the original question, here's the facts as I see them. Inbreeding generally increases the possibility of inheriting genetic defects which are recessive. It's more likely that children of the same parents will carry the same recessive traits and so they are more likely to be inherited through inbreeding. I don't see an apparent conflict with the biblical account of Adam and here's why. It's unlikely that God would have created Adam and Eve with these recessive traits present. It's likely then that if things happened in this fashion such traits developed later as a result of genetic mutation. Given the rarity of these mutations in general it's unlikely that they would appear in any frequency for several generations. When they did appear it was very likely localized within specific gene pools and the offspring would very likely die before reproducing, thus eliminating those dangerous genes from the gene pool. If such defects had developed prior to the flood you again face a problem with inbreeding, but this is only problematic if such defects occured within Noah's line. By the time they would reappear with any frequency it's likely that inbreeding was no longer a biological necessity (though there is significant evidence that inbreeding remained a not so uncommon practice long after Noah, especially within royal lines, this is only a small part of the world's population). Any defects that resulted from inbreeding would simply die off but the world could be populated without much issue. In fact it must have since whether you believe evolution or the bible or both you ultimately face the conclusion that the earth became populated from a rather small initial human population. Inbreeding would of been common in early humans either way. On a side note to the "yuk" factor.. incest aversion is a cultural phenomenon. If your sisters are the only viable mates it's unlikely it seems weird to you at all.

I would say it's generally accepted by the church that there is but one man who is infallible and his name is Jesus Christ. All other men sin, all other men can be wrong. Unless something is spoken from direct revelation from God it's only as true as it holds from experience, or agrees with the teachings of Jesus. I find that people leave for many reasons. Sometimes it's because of the attitudes of members they deal with (man is fallible and this applies to any organization). Some leave because they find fault in some doctrines of the church. Many who are born into the church and raised as an LDS member grow up to find they lack faith in the teachings of the church. Certainly many people leave because they don't want to uphold the lifestyle preached as necessary by the church. One would be hard pressed to make this a universal constant.

Azazel (Aramaic: רמשנאל, Hebrew: עזאזל, Aze'ezel Arabic: عزازل Azazil) is an enigmatic name from the Hebrew scriptures and Apocrypha, where the name is used interchangeably with Rameel and Gadriel. The word's first appearance is in Leviticus 16, where a goat is designated "for Azazel" and outcast in the desert as part of Yom Kippur. Azazel (Sayan) (‘ăzaz’ēl) is believed to mean "God has been strong" or "God strengthens" from Hebrew ‘ăzaz, third person singular past participal form of ‘āzaz, "to be strong", and ’ēl, "God".[1] Another theory uses ‘āzaz in its metaphorical sense of "impudent" (i.e., strengthened against someone) to mean "impudent to God". Azazel is also known by the variant spellings "Azael" "Aziel" and "Asiel." (These names also translate to 'Angel of Death)

MyDogSkip: Religious zeal is fine. It shouldn't supercede living in a free society. One of the principal tenets of the LDS church is respect for the law of the land. As a US citizen one should consider the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and thus it should be respected above all other laws of the land. Religious freedom is an interesting beast. When you start denying the right of another based on your "right" not to be religiously offended you open the door for others to limit your actions based on the right to not be offended. Homosexual union clearly offends you religiously. Well what if God offends me religiously? It doesn't but suppose it does. Am I right in limitting your free exercise of religion because I'm offended by God? You have been given the right of a free man or woman to worship and believe as you choose. You have not been given and can't morally assume the right to force others to believe what you do, or to accept a compromised status because they don't. There are over 1000 federal laws in which marital status plays a part. Marital status is a considerable factor in tax codes. I'm not a homosexual but I will defend their right to believe and act on their beliefs to the death. Just as I'm not Mormon but I will defend your right to worship your God to the death.

First some Background on me. I'm 24 years old and was born into the LDS church and raised Mormon. I began to tend towards agnosticism/atheism at a young age. At this time I hold no religious beliefs but I continue to study many world religions. I've become curious as to the nature of God(s) within the Mormon doctrine based on the principle that man has the capacity to reach godhood. I'm curious as to the insight that can be gained on the governing of gods through Mormon doctrine/revelation. Here are my specific questions. Admittedly while I've heard of the doctrine I understand very little about how it's taught within the church. Is our God part of a governing body of Gods? Does he have free will to govern or must he follow a set body of laws? Is there a Supreme God or are all Gods considered equals? Is there a cut-off point at which one becomes unable to achieve godhood or can the process be achieved by anyone through continual development? Can one achieve godhood and then subsequently fall out of it?

The most common and generally indeed only argument levelled against homosexual union is the defense of the "sanctity of marriage". This defines the issue purely as a religious objection to gay marriage. The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S. citizens the freedom of religion. Ultimately whatever your religious belief this is an issue of allowing the government to ban a practice based on a general religious repugnance. The deeper issue here is should we, as Americans, allow our government to impose a standard moral and/or religious code. If you believe we should then you need to reread the Bill of Rights.