elinz

I could guess. Maybe Joseph Smith was holding a gun to their heads? "Lookey here folks, you better sign this or your brains are gunna be splattered all over da wall" "Do ya hears me?" "And if I hears you talkin to anybody about this you're gunna get it!" Okay, okay, the Italian accent could go, but it does make for some good anti-mormon fiction!

These quotes from Jesus come from Gnostic writings. This sect, and their writings, were persecuted and destroyed by the church during the fourth century. Miraculously, these writings were accidentally rediscovered in the 1940's by a peasant in Egypt who was digging for fertilizer. Preserved in clay jars for 15 centuries, these documents only reappeared at a time when they could never be destroyed again. Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." (The Gospel of Thomas Vs:2) ...and then it goes on to list the other parables. The point here is that it very well might have been true that the predominant style of public speech for Jesus was the parable. But the New Testament was assembled with most of the parables thrown away. This appears to have been a choice so that the readers could enjoy a narrative story much like today we enjoy movies. People love movies because you can sit back at let your semi-sleep brainwaves transport you away to a happy place. (or a horror film) But Jesus seemed to like these non-narrative parables. The parable is intellectually challenging. It forces the brain to struggle to comprehend it's meaning. Of course, if your goal in creating a bible is to extend Roman rule it makes sense to make it a blockbuster. Oh, by the way, "The Passion of Christ" looks to be quite a thriller. I plan to see it. Does anyone make parables anymore? Can anyone think of a modern day parable? Since I never went to BYU I wouldn't know, but do they teach parable writing anywhere? Or maybe a parable creation game? (a new party sensation! )

I won't read anything unless it's on a computer screen

Novels were for yesterday. Movies and TV are today. I've already made some home movies with my family (actually we've made scripted movies since I was a kid) and that's why I hope to get into the Mormon Movie scene. Add my technical knowledge about digital processing and I'm ready to go...

...and on and on. So let's listen some more: "Well you know, we are planning on writing some new episodes that deal with other issues" "Hey now wait a second, those original episodes are sacred. It would be a blasphemy to create anything new" "What! The show lasted for four seasons. 2003-2007 Why would you be so apposed to their being new episodes?" "Because the sacred prophet has died. We can never learn about the God unless the sacred prophet is still with us" "But we're writing the episodes to be consistent with the intent of the original creators. All we're doing is adding new issues that apply to problems we face today. We're just being alive" "No, No, No! You are possessed by Satan and deserve to rot in hell! The sacred prophet has died and we must wait for the prophet to return" "You just never get it do you? We're always trying to learn and grow and understand. What you're doing is killing off any chance for the Church to be alive again. You just make me sad" "Yeah, well you make me pissed off!" ...and on and on it goes

Your muscles will be sore, but it will make you stronger.

Now is the time. The perfect opportunity is available today and over the next 20 years or so... Prior to 911 it would have been tough, but the attack, and the reasons for the attack make it clear to many why we are in need of some internal change. But again, many will view it the opposite way and say it's religion itself that is the problem. "May you live in interesting times" as the Chinese say...

Had I not been "accidentally" introduced to a group of local Mormons I never would have known about them. In California (as everywhere in the US) they are made to appear to be dangerous freaks. That's why a stronger media presence would be the best thing the Church can do. The US is the "Beast" as they say, so it's hard for us to understand that we are our own worse enemy. But consider this: Things are now so radically screwed up, and the truth is so well concealed from the many, that if the LDS media began to show itself more as a RADICAL alternative to the corrupted status quo it might start to sell. Post 911 there is an opening. The "bad guys" will "spin" things the other way and claim that all religion is evil. So there is a battle. The "bad guys" are selling a lie that will eventually collapse, but try to drag all of us down with them. The Church needs to lay the ground work for future enlightenment.

It's the year 2143 and this is a meeting of the Church counsel of the "The Church of Joan of Arcadia" or JOA for short. Let's listen in... "Many people are unhappy with the way God shows up without proper introduction. God is the supreme being and so he should be made more obvious than it is in the episodes" "But that will completely ruin the story, the whole idea is that God is not easy to see" "In order to Reform the Church we want to see God encased in a bright yellow halo all the time and all those around them must bow. Plus, we want new music" "But that's all wrong. The story is wonderful and it gets the idea across very well. God is a subltle thing that requires a special connection to the universe to see. If you make everything obvious like that then people with think that life is like that, which it is not" "Oppressor! You just want to repress our freedom to view things the way we want to see them. We don't care if you don't like our changes, it's the way we like it and we want to break away from the Church" ...and the story goes on and on

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this because I'm not really that "experienced" in the church, but isn't everyone ultimately supposed to make up their own testimony? There are lots of doctrines. Some you might learn from others you might wish to set aside. It's only when you actively seek out to destroy doctrine that gets you into trouble. What's wrong with having "surplus" doctrines laying around? Are you some sort of obsessive compulsive freak or something? So what if there are errors. It's all education in the end isn't it? Knowledge is the goal. True knowledge, which is hard to learn directly. You need to read between the lines to really grasp anything significant anyway. Or are you clueless as well? Clue - less, it's a clue, not the actual thing. The teaching is only the "clue" you need to provide the rest. Am I making any sense here?

We can all get back to the "gay gene" thing if everyone wants to. But in a sense this topic doesn't generate as much controversy. It's so sober to look at it clearly. What fun is that? The gay groups loves to create an emotional firestorm where the "good guys" are defying the oppressors and liberating themselves toward "freedom". The foolish conservative takes the bait and allows themselves to be drawn into and cast as the homophobe that hates and criminalizes gay people. "Gays are evil!" they say. Well, yes, gays are evil, but not in the sense that most non-gays imagine. They are as evil as someone that can't quit smoking. They're hooked and can't get out. And then along comes the "gay gene" myth to add fuel to the flames. (flamers ) What better way could there be to make your cause seem valid? What an ultimate rationalization! It's no longer even a choice... They are BORN that way! But you never know, maybe the jokes on me because maybe down the road we really will discover a medical reason for the behavior. It's just that the sober eye is very skeptical. (and I lived next to and worked with gays for years)

I grew up in a wealthy area of California and was really spoiled with my parents house. After years of struggle I managed to buy a small fixer upper and remodel it. Then I sold everything and moved to Missouri. Here you can buy a mansion for peanuts. So I have to sell my 4 bedroom, 4 bath home first. (okay, you can laugh now, single guy in big house ) It was always a dream, so I fulfilled it. Plus since I paid cash it's almost like living for free. Add in the profit from appreciation and I'll be close to even. Plus, I want to get out before interest rates climb. Also, I've got a home repair project that will add value and it has to be above freezing for me to do it comfortably. So probably May, June, July?

I'm pretty good financially. No problems. The Mormon Movie business looks very interesting. I can always get back into the programming field, but if I had the choice I'd prefer to get into movie making. Hollywood needs competition! Get the "other" side out! I love Joan of Arcadia, maybe they will see that making conservative programming can turn a profit. What's the "word" on the street about "Joan of Arcadia"? Is it accepted as a welcome thing or not? I'm looking forward to moving...

This was supposed to be about whether or not there is a "gay gene". It wasn't about people, politics or religion. Either there is a "gay gene" or their isn't. If there isn't (which many would now consider a big surprise) what would happen? What if there is no "gay gene"? It's more of a science question than anything...

Wow, and I thought I was getting off topic! The issue was about the future proof one way or the other of a "gay gene". If it's found that a "gay gene" is INVALID what happens? I never said anything about religion. This was a science only discussion. (even though I went off topic myself! :) )

I think they basically abandoned SLC. But the Utah Valley seems good. That happens a lot. The main city rots from the inside and so people move to the suburbs. The new people in the city trash it until it gets so bad that the land is basically free. Then it's called "Urban Renewal" and they rebuild. The concern I have about the power of the church is that they seem to be pursuing a policy of spreading out. It's sort of like a company going "global", they lose interest in maintaining the boring stuff like streets and buildings. The money might still be rolling in, but if the focus is still on building temples around the world the local issues might be neglected. As an ironic note, that was the kind of attitude that I saw in Berkeley. They were so obsessed with world issues that no one ever fixed the potholes!

The mountains are still beautiful I hope. I'm a big mountain bike rider and hiker. Do you think the church is dying?

Really? I know that the Salt Lake City area has completely been taken over by scum. The crime rates are just terrible and on my way through I nearly got my car stolen by Russian organized crime. (it's a long story) But I was under the impression that the Utah Valley (near Provo) was 90% Mormon and as a consequence has virtually zero crime. Exactly what type of wickedness are you talking about? (and we are way off topic)

"Abstract perspective verses the Microscopic perspective" or even "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" The spiritual side is the abstract way of describing a very real and concrete physical reality. In Scientific American this week they have an article on Addiction. It's very interesting. The effect of the "high" feeling is that your minds brain chemistry gets all screwed up. And the worst part is that this damaged brain does not repair itself very quickly. Addicts can still feel the desire many years after they quit. This would likely transfer over to homosexual experiences as well. Once deeply addicted they will always have the brain damage. Though it would heal over time. (slowly) One thing they mention too is gambling. They can actually measure the brains response in the "pleasure center" of a gambler when they hear the sound of coins dropping into a bucket on payout. I'm living in Missouri (10 miles from the Temple Lot) and they show commercials on TV here that advertise the local casinos. They use the coin sound. Now that seems just downright sick to me. It's known that the gambling addict automatically responds to the coin sound and they're slipping it onto the airwaves to call all their addicts to "give up the money". Just sick. I'm planning on moving to Utah this spring My brother here works in a casino I was born a third generation Californian And I worked in High Tech in San Francisco

I personally doubt the existence of a "gay gene". It doesn't make sense, because if a gene like that were in the natural selection pool it would have been selected out thousands of years ago. It's almost the definition of natural selection, any gene that effectively kills (reproductive death) the host does not pass itself on to the next generation. But let's assume that a small percentage of the population was carrying this defect. Would that account for the apparent rise in the number of people who identify themselves as homosexual? It's simply too unlikely to be true. By now you should have realized that the gay agenda has little to do with anything but making their definition of "carnal fun" a legitimate thing. The whole idea of a "gay gene" was invented by them so as to put a scinetific "spin" on their group. But, hey, I'm willing to wait for the results. Until the final results come in there is a level of doubt that they can inflict on all of us. Only through your own wisdom can you make the observation that it's an addiction. (that's how I see it) They are using lawyers tricks

Since at this point there is not enough information to definitively prove one way or the other if there is a "gay gene" what will happen if the result is NEGATIVE? What will happen? Are the groups that exist today that promote a life that is now ASSUMED to have a genetic basis going to simply let knowledge put them out of business? On the other hand. If the final verdict is POSITIVE, then would it be legally required for someone to have a "gay gene" test in order to be recognized as having that trait. What about someone that fails to carry the gene who ends up performing same sex acts? We seem to be assuming that the lines will be clear, but we might find that, say, 75% of gays carry a specific gene and the other 25% do not. That's going to be really funny. Can you imagine? Some guy (or girl) is sure they are gay and then discover through genetics that they are not. Now that's REALLY being screwed up!

Ah, the lawyer comes out. I had a stepfather that was a great lawyer. He taught me a great deal about screwing with the words of an argument so as to divert attention from their true meaning. If I took the bait, the focus would shift. Nice try. But you'll have to do better!

Because regular sex might involve messy complications like children. As long as the person believes that they can do it without anyone knowing they will give it a try. It's the forbidden "fruit" ( ) argument. Not that difficult to imagine!

And let me add. People point to the fact that homosexuality has always existed. True. Have alcoholics always existed? Yeah. Are there plenty of smokers? Yeah. Do people commit adultery and murder? Yeah. So what's so confusing here? Why don't we simply accept homosexuality as yet another bad decision? Why attempt to give it a separate life other than the normal life? In a sense: "Homosexuality is the great MYTH of our age" (unless one day a "gay gene" is proven... but don't hold your breath )

Anyone want to bite on my posting? Homosexuality seems (from historical evidence) to be a learned behavior. The Spartans actually had both types of sex. The "gay gene" idea does not have solid evidence yet and is best described as an early stage scientific theory. (and I'm a subscriber to Scientific American) Basically, most homosexual behaviors have to do with addiction to a pattern of behavior. People smoke and can't seem to quit, why expect homosexuals to be able to quit with ease? It would be very difficult to beat that addiction! The proper view should be that they are sad fools that are trapped in a really bad sin and it's really only when they try to make it "cool" that we need to step in and point this out. (one might recall that smoking was once fashionable) All this "gay gene" stuff is probably not valid. (it might be 10-20 years before we know for sure) Science does not support the "gay gene" argument! B)