Cal

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving. Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from? I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps. First, you use the term "proof". That is strawman. Scientists NEVER use the word proof. The better term would be "best explanation" or best theory. The "best" explanation for the changes that can be seen in the human fossil record is that we, humans, are decended from ancestors that were also common to Chimps, and less directly to other primates (since we share the biggest % of our genes with Chimps). You are simply wrong that there is no evidence of "micro evolution", there is plenty evidence that life forms and branches of living things have changes drastically over time. ONe thing there is NO evidence for is the idea that living things were zapped into existance in a single "miraculous" beginning. The rational person doesn't seek for absolute proof, he seeks for the best explanation for the existing evidence. Find me a credible scientist (biological) that thinks the fossil record and other evidence points "best" at some sort of instantaneous creation, and I will show you 99 others that say evolution is the best explanation. Frankly, I don't think you can name even ONE PhD Biologist that thinks evolution didn't happen. Cal: so you admit you believe in evolution because it's "the best explanation." so, you admit you don't have proof. you know what, gravity is no longer the best explanation to explain why an apple falls to the eart, gravity is now a law of science (though of course we don't know how absolute it is, einstein showed that). also, "best explanation" is such a "subjective" term. i still don't know how you can explain the cambrian explosion. in your own words, 99% of species appeared all of a sudden. also, answer me this, what was there "before" the big bang? i think we need to move more into astrophysics rather than natural science in order to really put a nail in the coffin of evolution. Before we start putting nails in anything, please don't use science to support your position if you are going to ignore it when it doesn't. Now, before there is any point in going further, you are going to have to define what YOU think "evolution" means. There are several definitions and issues involved. First, there is the issue of the age of the earth and the universe. I take it you conceed that the universe is extremely old--say 13 billion years. There would be no point in you asking me about the 'big bang' if you think the universe was zapped into existance 6 thousand years ago, since any scientific theory of the universe requires an ancient universe. Second, how do you define evolution? The mechanics of the origin of life are separate from the facts of evolution. Lets begin with: Do you hold the "young earth" view of the typical creationist? That is, that the earth, and universe were zapped into existance 6000 years ago? Actually, not even the most conservative mormon BYU scholars cling to this anymore--Bruce R. McConkie Jr, for example, conceeds that the universe is of ancient origin. And, do you dispute that plants and animals have changed over time?

Let me guess, he is a creationist. Tell me WHERE he got his degree and where he works.

Uh..HELLO! The couple decided this TOGETHER. Even if she had finished her education, after years of being out of the workforce to raise THEIR children, his income earning potential far exceeds hers. She is not being "supported." Raising a family is a JOINT effort. Partners with different functions. I can't believe you don't see that. I also think this applies to stay at home dads. If his executive wife dumps him, she should pay HIM spousal support for a period of time until he can get on his feet financially. I didn't realize you were a misogynist. I have immense respect for your brain, but I now have to wonder about your heart. Say what? They decided together? I thought that each person decides for himself/herself whether or not to get married. Since when do people decide something for the other person as important as that? If I decide to get married, of course the other person has to agree, but that is THEIR choice and theirs alone to make. Once both people decide they want to marry eachother then each has made a choice. Now, who says either one of them has to CHOSE to get married before they BOTH have marketable skills? The woman wouldn't BE in the position to so desperately need alimony if she had educated herself before she CHOSE to get married. No body forced her, they didn't "decide together", she decided for HERSELF to get married, unless she is so soft-headed that she can't make any decisions for herself, and is simply talked into getting married without getting educated first. In that case, as far as I'm concerned she gets what she gets. Wake up girls, get educated FIRST, then get married. That's exactly what I taught my daughter, and she followed my advice. Luckily she married a guy who seems as solid as a rock. But you never know, and if something should happen she could immediately start supporting herself---That came about by her OWN choice--her choice to educate herself before getting married. It wasn't "their decision together"; there was no "together" involved--it was her choice to be smart and make the right decisions. Women need to stop whinning about how it is all his fault she has no skills, and can't support herself, and how she gave all this time and effort to raising the kids, and sweeping the floor etc. Women need to take control of their lives and stop putting themselves in the vulnerable position of having no marketable skills when their night in shining armor becomes Atila the Hun, and rides off into the sunset without her. Another benefit of postponing marriage until a woman has solid marketable skills is that by the time she gets them, she will probably have a lot better judgement about who to chose to marry, rather than marrying the first guy with potential. If she does, she won't care so much about how much money he makes or what is potential is, she can make it on her own. As to my heart---on the contrary--I have a heart for these women who find themselves in dire straight after being left by some guy having his midlife crisis. I would like to see them be able to take charge of their lives and be happy. How is that heartless? The only way they can do that is to start taking responsiblity for their choices----stop thinking that they have to marry some guy right out of high school. Stop thinking that just because the guy seems to be Mr. Perfect, that she can just throw her ambitions aside and have 5 kids before she is 26. She needs to get control of her emotions and maternal insticts and get educated first. Then she can afford to let her estrogen go crazy and have as many kiddies as she wants--knowing that if old Atila splits, she can carry on economically. Why is that heartless?

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right? Well no, actually... I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums... As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men! I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable. Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say? Second, you said..... I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier?

Thank you, your Honor. I rest my case... Again, who told them to get married young? That is a choice, not a requirement. I think it is a mistake for anyone to get married before they have marketable skill sufficient to support themselves. If they don't the choose to place themselves at risk.

Yeah, where did women get the idea that men owe them something (alimony) when they get divorced. I hear women say "Well, I stayed home and took care of his children when he was working and making all that money"----Bull hacky! First, it was SHE that chose to have children and stay home. It was she that CHOSE not to get a career, and to look for a guy to support her. Second, who was paying the bill of supporting HER while she was at home? She didn't EARN anything--if anything SHJE owes him for supporting HER all those years--lets see, rent, food, clothing, entertainment, and who knows what else--it all cost him a fortune, and now she wants HIM to support her in style for the rest of her life? Sorry, babe, I don't think so. Cal, Maybe the relevant analysis would be the legal concept of promissory estoppel. At least in religious marriage ceremonies, the spouses promise each other mutual support for life. In reliance on a promise of lifetime support, a wife may forego educational and career opportunities that would otherwise enhance her earning capacity. Since most people's first marriages still occur when they are relatively young, this can have a disproportionate impact, because the choices you make in your twenties have a huge impact on your earning capacity later on. In other words, the wife alters her position to her detriment in reasonable reliance on a promise -- the classic definition of promissory estoppel. She is therefore entitled to the "benefit of her bargain" -- the support she contracted for in the marriage vow. Things get sticky when you add no-fault divorce laws, because in contract law, when you breach or cancel a contract, you generally can't sue the other side for what you otherwise would have been entitled to under it. A woman in a state that has adopted no-fault divorce and still has alimony available can breach the contract AND recover damages, which is unfair. Well, when you start analyzing marriage from legal point of view, several factors come into play. The simple contract analysis you made has some merit. However, a woman should know going in that she is "assuming the risk" that husbands can die, or leave them, placing them in a precarious position. Not that "assumption of the risk" is much of a defense to an equitable claim under contract, but from a practical view, a woman that marries without first obtaining marketable skills is making a concious choice to place herself at risk. Second, the law recognizes that public policy is served by providing women with alimony since the fact is that women don't have the earning power of men, generally speaking, and are often left in a position of becoming dependent on the state after divorces. It is in the public interest to have the man support them, rather than the taxpayer. It isn't just that a contract has been breached, it is that the public would rather the ex-husband support her, than have her on the welfare rolls.

Perhaps. But, the work of two full time workers is probably what it costs her husband to support her. Besides, the economic value of the type of work she does is probably not much above minimum wage. If you were to contract out dishwashing, diaper changing, cleaning etc, it wouldn't run you near per hour what an advanced degree professional in the work place makes.

OHMYGOSH!!!!! I actually found a topic that I can completely disagree with Cal on! Okay, I don't completely disagree, but most definitely partially. It was not necessarily SHE who chose to have children and stay home. Good heavens man--are you really that sexist? Two people get married and plan out their life's course. He is the more ambitious of the two and will first get a good education. He goes to college and law school. She forgos completing her education to work to support him. Children come along. They agree that the children deserve a fulltime parent and so she WORKS AT HOME raising them while he works fulltime AWAY FROM HOME and together they provide a nice home for their children. She cooks, cleans, gets up in the middle of the night with sick children or babies. She runs the kids to their lessons, volunteers in their classrooms, helps them with their homeworks, runs errands for her husband, makes sure his needs at home are met, etc...Somewhere along the line, he decides that his wife isn't glamorous enough for him and decides to trade her in for a new, younger model. (Seeing that Jon Derrick traded in Ursula Andruss for Linda Evans, and then Linda Evans for Bo Derek, it doesn't stand to reason that men only do this when the wife "lets herself go.") So here's the wife. Divorced. She has no marketable skills to make a six figure income because she's been WORKING at home all these years. Since you only put a monetary value on the work the husband does since a paycheck is attached to it--how much would it have cost him to have hired someone to do all the things for him that his wife did? To raise his children and run his household? Also, what value is put on the loss of marketable skills she suffered by giving up her education and paying job? Obviously no one should receive spousal support for the rest of their life, but I think it's definitely warrented for a time in many cirumstances. It is extremely complicated and to put absolutely no value whatever on the job of a stay at home mom and then call her a freeloader makes you sound like a very UN nice person, and I think I'm mad at you.... Well, Curvy, that response definitely spices things up a bit First, who told the woman to get married before she had any marketable skills? That was HER choice, wasn't it? Second, are you suggesting that a woman can live with out any expense of support? Of course her work is of value---about the same value as what it would take to support herself in a nice house, with plenty of nice stuff. Why shouldn't she do the house work etc in exchange for being supported? Sounds like about a "wash" to me. Third, I'm not in favor of men leaving their wives just because they get "frumpy". I'm just saying that men are more likely to leave for that reason than women are, for the simple reason that economics mean more to women than looks do; and to men, how a woman looks is more important than what she makes economically. I'm not advocating anything, Curvy, I'm just stating some generalities for discussion.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)? I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel. I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule. Who says which is the exception and which is the rule? The general rule is that women are more concerned about what the guy does for a living, than guys are interested in what a woman does for a living. Do I have to dig out the surveys for you? Lots of sociological studies show that women as a rule are more concerned with what a potential mate does for a living than are men.

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?

The second comment was right on.The answer to your first paragraph is simple. A 50% correlation simply means that environment may well play a part, but the in at least 1/2 of the gays, the genetic component is strong.

The Minnesota studies showed a 50% correlation, not a 100% correlelation. Clearly, there can be exceptions. But the fact that identical twins are 50% correlated and the general population is 2% or so, leaves no doubt about the genetic connection. I don't think it proves a thing about the genetic connection. I think it is entirely emotional in this sense. Then you are no scientist. I'll leave it at that. It might help if you did a little independent thinking instead of just parroting the prejudices of your mentors. There have been more studies in reproductive behaviors among various species than is realized among those biased toward homosexuality. These studies have been carried out in efforts to save endangered species and to maintain wild populations in captivity (like zoos and wildlife parks). The most common denominators to explain variant behaviors (in the case of our discussion – reproductive behaviors) are social interactions and individual learning capabilities. The statement that homosexuality in 50% of Identical twins separated at birth can only be answered as genetic, completely escapes me. It would seem to me to prove that homosexuality cannot be genetic. Identical twins are by definition genetically identical. How could they display variant behaviors based on genetics? The scientific definition of an intelligence species is a species that is capable of learning through experience and altering behavior. The assumption that homosexuality is a result of lack of intelligence (in other words stupidly) because those involved cannot possibly learn by experience and alter their behavior is to me the bigoted view. If sexual behavior is not learned why should we ever make any attempts to rehabilitate the problem of adultery or a rape, child molestation, or those that derive sexual pleasure in murder and cannibalism. In fact if we really believe genetics are even remotely involved in determine sexual behavior should we not at least sterilize the relatives of such offenders to preserve the gene pool? The Traveler Trav--I thought you had a back ground in science--no offense, but this is some of the most unscientific thinking I have encountered from a person educated in science. First, a 50% correlation for any biological trait is considered STRONG evidence of genetic correlation. Second, you make the mistake of equating homosexual orientation, with homosexual behavior. Obviously people can learn to control their behavior. That has nothing to do with what it means to be homosexual. You are talking about the individual's very sense of biological identity. We're not talking about just a tendency, we are talking about an unalteable characteristic. Think of it this way: Could you, as a heterosexual, simply change your sexual orientation because society told you you had to? or that it was evil to be hetero and you had to change that. Could you?

I think this comes up so often because homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc; concern sexual attraction outside of the natural course. Good answer! What natural course? If it were outside the "natural course" then one would not expect to find it in NATURE, right? Well, wake up and smell the coffee--gayness is all over the NATURAL course--found among all the primates and other mammals. You don't get much more "natural" than that.

The "Jesus never condemned homsexuality" argument is a familiar one. Leaving aside the fact that Christian doctrine is set forth more comprehensively by Paul (who did include homsexual acts in his lists of sins) than in the Gospels, this argument has at least a couple of flaws. First, you're presuming that the Gospels are a comprehensive collection of Jesus' teachings, or at least the important ones. In fact, at least one of the Gospels (Mark, I believe) refers to additional teachings that were not recorded. Is it likely that Paul, who warned in Galatians against teaching "another gospel" that went beyond the gospel of Christ, would have done doctrinal free-lancing a la McConkie? Maybe so, but it's at least as likely, to my way of thinking, that his teaching reiterated Christ's. Second, Jesus explicitly condemned fornication -- defined as sex outside of marriage -- and described marriage as the making a man and a woman into one flesh. The legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- to express one thing is to exclude the other -- would imply that all sexual relationships other than male-female marriage were not endorsed by Jesus. I wonder whether "evil" is the proper word to use for homosexual conduct, or any sexual immorality other than rape, incest, child abuse, etc. I generally don't hear garden-variety, consensual sexual immorality described in those terms among religious people; they tend to use "immoral," "sinful," or even "wicked," which to my way of thinking are milder terms than "evil." (Liberals, on the other hand, invariably put the term "evil" in the religious side's mouths.) Coming from an evolutionist with a decent knowledge of genetics, this is not a good-faith argument. You don't believe that God directly "created" gayness, any more than He created sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, or peach tree borers, all of which I have no problem calling "evil." We live in a natural world, and have to play the cards we are dealt. Whether gay attractions are innate is irrelevant; many impulses that a decent person must restrain may also be innate. Your stronger argument is that gay sex doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore shouldn't be considered sinful -- essentially, the "one simple principle" argument of John Stuart Mill. I think there are problems with that argument, too, and I'll be happy to make them as soon as it's clear that is the basis of the debate. Stop clouding the issue with "innateness" arguments that have nothing to do with whether God may disapprove of something or not. First, your argument that "Jesus must have meant to condemn homosexuality because Paul did" is really stretching things. Did Jesus also think that it would be preferable not to marry just because that was Paul didn't think it was a good idea, or other goofy things that Paul believed.The fact of the matter is that Jesus did not mention it, and that was my simple statement of fact. If you want to squirm around it by saying that he must have meant it as to be included in fornication, that is simply a presumption. The fact is he didn't mention it specifically. For us to insist that he must have is simply a reflection of our own prejudices and assumptions. Second, I was hoping you might know me well enough to realize what I was doing when I said "God created them that way". I am coming to the logical result of thinking that says that "God created man in his own image", which is the belief of many of the people that are condemning gays for being what their own God must have created them to be by their own logic. Actually, you do seem to know me well enough to know that I don't believe God created the condition at all. I think it is an evolutionary quirk--for which no one in particular is responsible. But since the gay critics here seem to think God created everything, I am appealing to the logic that must follow their assumptions. As to the need to control impulses, the only reason gays "need" to control their impulses is because of the prejudices imposed by society itself. There in no inherent need for gays to control their impulses any more than heteros. And I will say that they should do so to the same extent as heteros. I'm not sure what your point is about my use of the word "evil" It is symply my catch-all for the way that many on this board view homosexuality. Call it immoral, against God's law whatever; condemn it any way you wish. My argument is that it is MAN, not GOD that created the "evilness" of homosexuality. Nature or evolution doesn't recognize "morality" that is something created by man (or man speaking for God--if they are). As to what is inherently bad should be evaluated by the balance between the rights of people to be who they are, and societies need to prevent infringment on others by the exercise of "being who we are". In my opinion, the persecution, societal sanctions, religious sanction (what ever you want to call it), is simply a reflection of our inherent fear of that which is different or foreign. It is not unlike racial prejudice.

Depends what you mean by predisposed? But first of all, being violent toward anyone is malum en se. Do you know what that means? It is behavior that directly and wrongly impinges on the rights of others. It directly damages others. Whether it is genetic or not, society can't tolerate it.Homosexuality, on the other hand, poses no such threat in and of itself. The dangers alluded to in this thread are dangers that are the result of the very prejudice created by others against gays. Being gay, in and of itself, poses no threat to anyone. Let me also address the argument that gayness will somehow reduce the size of the population. First, if gayness were that detrimental to the survival of a population, then Chimps, humans and many other mammal species would have died out, bacause they all have a small percentage of gay individuals. Also, in any population only a small % are born gay. There is no evidence at all that a societal acceptance of gay people will lead more people to be gay.

He never said it. That was one of my points.

I can't blame my feelings on the LDS religion either.... every church I ever had a part in taught me the same thing....that homosexuality was wrong. It is YOU, not God, that defines homosexuality as IMMORAL. You still have not shown me anywhere, besides the OT that God defines gayness and condemns it. Not even the BoM says a word about it. (Maybe I'm wrong about that, and someone can show me the verse)By the way, whether another human thinks gayness is sinful, immoral, disgusting or whatever, doens't mean that God condems them for it. Get it straight--He made them that way--certainly He is aware of what he creates.

I can honestly say that I've been very tempted with Adultery. I've had women offer me sex, and it's been a trial. My family, nearly all the men, and some of the women, all the way back to my great-grandfather have been adulterers. If it is genetic in anyone's family, it's definitely in mine! What you are suggesting is that if indeed it is genetic, and that I do have the gene, then I am excused from obeying this commandment. That I need not worry about it, that my wife should be accepting of it (heck, it's just genes after all) that I need not mention it at confession, and that God will not hold me accountable (after all, he made me this way, right?)! While I understand the logic employed by those would would justify the acts thus far described, to have God instruct us to behave otherwise means, quite honestly, that we are here to suffer for the Cross of Christ. Do you truly wish to have a part in the Kingdom of God? Do you think that you can have a portion of that Kingdom without undergoing a purifying process of your own? Do you think that bearing the Cross means to sit through church every sunday and pay your tithing? I say no. On the contrary, it's meant to beat the living heck out of you. The Cross is meant to wear you down, discourage you, frustrate you, and make you want to quit. In fact, it's meant to nearly kill you. Anything less is not of Christ. You and I, Cal, don't even deserve to be with God. God is good. We are not. God didn't even have to create us, but he did. God was, is, and will be perfect with or without us. In his mercy, we, his creation, were given existence. He gave us certain obstacles to prove ourselves. To one is given adultery, to another, the abuse of drugs and/or alcohol. To another, the propensity to be homosexual. To another, the inability to comprehend spiritual things. The list goes on and on. But we are not justified in these things. We cannot be with God as sinful creatures. But do not dispair. Even though we know that "There is no one who is righteous, not even one," (Romans 3:10) we have the promise of Christ that we can be One with Him, even as He is One with the Father. This principle, known as THEOSIS, offers us something greater than we can fathom. The opportunity to unite ourselves with the uncreated Divinity. That is truly conquering both the natural man, and the fallen world we live in. That's what we're striving for, not the popular buzz words of the day. Even looking at it from a non-spiritual perspective, one could make the argument that homosexuality destroys humanity. Cal, if everyone was gay, we would cease to exist. Homosexuality is human suicide. But then, looking at it from a Christian perspective, God commanded man to multiply and replenish. Homosexuality defies one of the very first commandments given to Man. In many ways, that's unfortunately true. Let me answer your question with another question. Why would God command us to be baptized, if God allowed us to be born in a fallen, sinful nature? Why not just accept us into His presence without it? I believe that your understanding of morality has been blurred by our society. Yes, we all want to get along. No, we shouldn't hate anyone. But where do we draw the line between right and wrong? Will you let God draw the line, or do you in your self-conceit feel competent enough to do it? Cal, whether you realize it or not, YOU ARE A SLAVE! In fact, we are all slaves, Cal. The only comfort we can draw from this reality is knowing that we get to choose who our master will be. You can be a slave to sin, or a slave of Christ. For the scripture says that a man cannot serve two masters. It also says to choose this day whom you will serve. What's it going to be Cal? God bless you in your Journey. ><> Jason First, I know of know study that shows adultery to be as strongly genetically related as homosexuality. Second, if it were, YES, I don't believe in a God that would judge you as harshly as someone who did not have the gene. God judges according to what a person is GIVEN.Third, your response to my reference to God condoning slavery in the OT was totally disingenuous. You completely avoided the issue by smearing the meaning of the term slavery to mean some nebulous condition affecting all of mankind. READ the OT for yourself. It was clearly refering to the enslavement of human beings by other human beings in the common sense of the word. Next time you have no good response to an issue, try to be more honest in your approach.

Cal: Sometimes I think we grind on each other on the forum but should we find ourselves as neighbors I am not sure we would have so much difficulty. Since you like to think I am rather curious about your concern about being irrational. I have never met anyone that thought their religion "irrational" yet in almost all cases they thought most other religions to be somewhat irrational. At least they tend to think that anyone that does not draw their same conclusions must be irrational. Some religious thinkers say that lack of tolerance is irrational but how can anyone tolerate what is not rational to them or vice versa? Having had teenagers I have been amazed at what was sometimes argued as rational. Usually I find those seeking rationality to be very self centered. But being self-centered is contrary to what most religions claims is necessary to become enlightened. I think the arguments of what is rational or irrational are problematic especially for those that claim they are governed exclusively by rational thinking. Should they ever discover a irrational act they could no longer deal “rationally” with themselves. But thank for sharing your testimony – it help me, in part, to understand your rational. The Traveler Rationality has to be evalutated on a point by point basis. Somethings I find quite reasonable, other things not. If I can find more reasons why something isn't true than that it is, I'm incline to go with the weight of the evidence. I'm not sure why you think that reserving judgment until there is evidence to support a proposition is "self centered". It is our JOB to be self centered when we are called upon do decide whether something is true or not. To reliquish your judgement and decision making to another is folly---one's testimony is by definition "self centered"--it is what YOU, as a person, think the truth is. Who else can decide that for you. In fact, it is nonsensical to think it could be otherwise. Even if you say, "well, I'll just follow the prophet", "or if JS said it is true, that's good enough for me". Those statements are simply a personal decision ( shall we say, self-centered) to surrender one's mind to the domination by another--it is tantamount to putting one's faith in the hand of flesh. God gave us each a rational mind to make rational decisions---to violate that principal would be an affront to God, IMHO. Perhaps I can put it another way: when it REALLY matters, trust your own independent judgement; when it doesn't go ahead and let someone else lead you, that's easier and takes a lot less work. I don't mean to imply that you are not a rational person. I believe you are. But I also hear a lot of stuff that I know people wouldn't believe if they were relying on their own careful reasoning. But maybe some people can't figure it out for themselves and need someone to follow. Thank you for your comments--they were well taken.

Cal is refering to one change that has been made recently, and I will not try to defend or explain why it was done. I merely pointed out to Cal that it does not change the meaning of the text in any way. All the changes that were made to the BoM before that, where made after the original printing - many mistakes (such as puncuation, as well as words that were used when they shouldn't have (like G-d being used instead of Son of G-d). But, I appriciate your honesty in not wanting to discuss this topic due to not knowing all the peculiarities. Not change the meaning? Then why did the church change it? Of course it changes the meaning. Are you trying to say that "white" doesn't mean white. The book of mormon makes a big point to saying that God brought a "curse" of dark skin on the lamanites, and that if they would repent they would get light again. By changing the word white, to pure, the church avoids the embarrasment of explaining why there is anything wrong with NOT being white.

How did it 'constantly' needed to be altered? The original printings where full of printing errors and mistakes, which needed to be changed. After that, there were no 'alterations' to the BoM. Wrong! There is a plethora of websites that will gladly point out the changes. You can examin them for youself.

I don't believe it! Literally, I don't. Somebody's putting us on.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving. Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from? I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps. First, you use the term "proof". That is strawman. Scientists NEVER use the word proof. The better term would be "best explanation" or best theory. The "best" explanation for the changes that can be seen in the human fossil record is that we, humans, are decended from ancestors that were also common to Chimps, and less directly to other primates (since we share the biggest % of our genes with Chimps). You are simply wrong that there is no evidence of "micro evolution", there is plenty evidence that life forms and branches of living things have changes drastically over time. ONe thing there is NO evidence for is the idea that living things were zapped into existance in a single "miraculous" beginning. The rational person doesn't seek for absolute proof, he seeks for the best explanation for the existing evidence. Find me a credible scientist (biological) that thinks the fossil record and other evidence points "best" at some sort of instantaneous creation, and I will show you 99 others that say evolution is the best explanation. Frankly, I don't think you can name even ONE PhD Biologist that thinks evolution didn't happen.

Thank goodness! And, yes, the pendulum swings---I wonder if anybody seriously thinks God cares who wins football games? However, mine gives a slight preference to Arizona State--He loves them Sun Devils!

I wish you and your family the best through a very difficult time.