Nicodemus

I wanted to share that on Thursday, the Holy Spirit gave me the sign I sought regarding the Book of Mormon. I want to share the details on a website where I'm posting my testimony.

You should read "As Nature Made Him." A boy who had a problematic circumsicion which by definition was actually a castration. Needless to say, he was raised as a girl. Nobody could tell that this person was a man actually. By choice, he acted as a girl, was attracted to men, etc. Then they told him he was a man. Two things: first, he was REALLY mad. Second, he decided to, by the power of choice, live as a man. He is now married to a woman, and lives a normal life as a mechanic in a suburban setting. It's a happy ending. It also demonstrates the power of choice to overcome nature (as he chose to like men when he was a girl) and the power to overcome nurture (chose to like women as a grown man). Both were overcame by the power of choice. Either nature vs. nuture, both he had a choice.

Very good point.

My point, Traveler, is that we simply don't know the answers yet (nature or nurture). There is not enough proof to make a conclusive statement, which I think Nic was trying to do. And there are studies going on trying to get this proof one way or another. Are you saying you don't believe anyone is studying this? Surely not. This is probably one of the hottest topics out there. And I dare say that there are scientists who are studying with both mindsets. IMO, we shouldn't just pick a side just because we WANT it to be true and believe it. The LDS church (and some other churches) teaches it is wrong, so of course members want to believe that it is a choice. But we don't know what the answer is. I don't pretend to know, but I lean toward it NOT being a choice, at least for some people. I know a few homosexuals, and I have asked the question to two of them, "If you could take a pill and be straight, would you?" They both said yes, and explained that their lives are very difficult because of their sexual tendencies. Why would they choose to be alienated from their families, in some cases? Not to mention their friends, jobs (unless you work at Kodak), etc. OTOH, I wouldn't be totally shocked if they found out the other side is true. I don't pretend to be a scientist! I was not trying to make a conclusive statement, I was saying that it seems that NO behavior will be determined ABSOLUTELY when it comes to genetics, but that there will be behavioral weaknesses employed by genetic problems. Not an absoluteness or determination of behavior. A weakness. Not determination. A majority of scientists are agnostic (they feel by necessity by applying the scientific method to metaphysics) and perform similar studies on how spirituality and God is really just partial temporal lobe epilepsy- a mental disorder. Shouldn't argue with them either. This is why it is important to study science for yourself, you cannot trust scientists on everything they say- even when there are a lot of them. They are people just like you, and probably MORE opinionated then yourself. I know quite a few and they are very outspoken on many issues.

Well gosh, I guess I should be quiet then and never post my opinions as long as opposition exists.

If someone does not remove that popup ad I am going to stop coming here.

Well, I do have SOME background in geobiology. I studied evolutionary developmental biology on my own for a short time after I graduated. I'll see if I can recap on this issue (I posted this on a different set of forums just I kid you not about an hour ago. Since we're talking about it here, I'll just copy and paste): You guys need to realize that homosexuality is a choice, just like preferring Chinese food and liking Seinfeld. They aren't forced to do such. There are no genes that reinforce such behavior. And here's a secret now that we're onto genetics- few loci, none that I know of but I am assumiing that there are some just to give others the benefit of a doubt, are isolated. There is no homosexual gene. Just like there is no gene that encodes for this or that. There is no one gene that encodes for baldness, or one gene that encodes for whatever else. Everything is intertwined to some extent. Baldness, for example, is an autosomal trait (NOT inherited on your mother's side I don't care who you've been talking to). However, it is caused by dihydrotestosterone, which also gives men their beards. Hence, if one were to remove the gene for baldness, they'd also be affecting the production of facial hair. And I'm betting this would have an effect on the region which produces it you know what I mean. Though it seems like a small issue, one gene affects many others. Cystic fibrosis is another example. Someone check me on this but if I'm not mistaken it comes from a genetic recessive disorder on the 8th chromosome. It's a devastating disease, however it doesn't just give you bloody productive coughs and degenerative of pulmonary tissue, it can incur bronchiectasis (stretching of bronchial tubes) pulmonary edema, and, oddly enough, pancreaitis. In such, people with cystic fibrosis, even though it has nothing to do with pulmonary conditions, have trouble digesting high protein and fatty foods, and have salty skin (a problem with the production of pancreatic amylase). You see how this one gene for cystic fibrosis affects not just the cough, but digestion and the salinity of skin. I could go on and on. There will be no homosexuality gene. If such is founded to be rooted sociobiologically, which might be the case, I'm betting my money that homosexual tendencies are more frequent, by some series of physiologic contigencies, another mutation or disorder. Much like salty skin is an odd side effect of cystic fibrosis. Well doesn't that mean since it's genetically related that- well whatever? No, people are still held accountable. God has programmed each of us to have weaknesses. There is a gene that has been discovered, nicknamed the "warrior gene" that is more prominent in some men that generally coincides with aggressive behavior. God simply has given this person a trial to overcome a weakness with anger. NOW HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE: If a gene was entirely dedicated to homosexuality, then homosexuality would be uncontrollable. It would be a genetic predisposition, just like blue eyes or black hair. If it promotes a tendency that is a trial to overcome. The difference is whether something encodes for it absolutely, or whether a tendency of it is more common with certain genes. In my experience, which isn't too grand but is present, there are no loci that affect any one thing. My point: there is no homosexual gene. There might be a gene that promotes tendencies, but for the former homosexuality is not a choice, for the latter it is a choice and a decision, just more difficult for some than for others. I'm not going to deny that some have homosexual tendencies. BUT EVERYONE HAS A CHOICE.

Argh! This is so stupid! It keeps on popping up. There are like a ton of choices. Mozilla 1.7 you mean? I don't want multiple pages in the same window.

This popup ad that tries to install itself on my computer appears every time I take some sort of action on these forums. It is getting very lame. Clicking on "No." and clicking on the little "x" every time I do anything.

Let's just say it is a high school in Texas- the conservative Bible belt. In the Dallas/Ft Worth area which is the most conservative region of Texas due to Dallas Theological Seminary and various other places. I'm going to private school or homeschool my kids. When I say homeschool I mean get a group of like 15 parents who are homeschooling and teach them together.

Because he is a good father. He is just like any other father who tells his son not to fornicate but gives him a condom, just in case. Bad analogy, but fitting none the less. Heavenly Father sends the Holy Spirit so that it then becomes their decision to accept and listen or not to. Heavenly Father does everything in his power but leaves his children with their agency. God paved the road; it's up to us to use it or not. He's just being a good father. Yes, but you see there is no just in case. He knows. There is no "just in case." If He knows they will reject Him, why bother with them? This is part of the basis for many Calvinistic doctrines. If God knows that these people will reject the Holy Spirit, He SEES it happening, why would He set out to accomplish something He sees failing? Does that not seem to make Him seem incompetent and somewhat vain? The condom analogy doesn't work because there is no just in case. And are we allowed to say that here? Jk, I understand where you're coming from.

Yes, that would be your opinion. broadway That is what I said. Are there any more broken records in this room? Hey man, don't be cramping our style up in hizzie. I don't mean to marsh your mallow, but: That is only your opinion! Oh wait, nevermind...

Not only is the percent homosexual probably deceivingly low, the percent BIsexual has got to be through the roof in comparison. I just graduated from high school, and teachers compliment bisexuality and students revere it for being openminded and mature about having found themselves. Yes, I said techers compliment it. And so for social acceptance and being able to brag about it, many people adopt bisexual tendencies. And I don't even want to know what the percentage for that is.

You can be a little more kind and tactful with your words. Forgive me for saying what I must, but many of your posts are contentious when, I mean, they REALLY don't need to be.

Ray this gets us into an interesting question: If God can foresee our actions, why does He then go through with actions that He foresees will end in failure? If He foreknows that some will reject the gospel, why does he send the Holy Spirit to try and convert them?

As a male I'm not sure how much I would like a vasectomy. I'm sure they would figure it out before they got too far into the surgery. B) Are you certain of this? What about facial hair? Am I going to need a makeover?

One: If I join the LDS church, or become a missionary, do I HAVE to cut my hair? It's really clean and well-groomed, it's just really long. Someone brought that up to my attention recently. Two: If I'm married and I already have seven children, can't I get a surgery to prevent having more? This isn't my scenario, but I'm just saying that it is something I give consideration and planning to. I don't want to be like 35, have a bunch of children, and then never again get close to my wife for the rest of my life. I'd like to be able to enjoy aspects of my marriage as often as we'd like. But doesn't the church's stance side against surgical options? Getting to know my wife only a few times throughout a marriage that lasts through multiple decades is very depriving. I tried wording it in the best manner I could, but if it MUST be moved, might an administrator move it to a section more appropriate? These forums are the place I feel comfortable receiving direction and answers on.

I have another question. In this world, Elohim received His exaltation and created us and one-third of us fell away by free agency. Is it not possible that in another system with another deity that perhaps one-half might fall away under that system? Is it not possible that ALL will abuse their free agency and rebel? Or that none will? Couldn't it be possible that in some system the pre-existant spirits will all be happy and content with allowing the firstborn to be the Messiah and everyone keep their free will- so that no one rebels? I was slightly curious about this. The paradox lies in that if NO one rebels- there is no Messiah! It is an interesting thought that they were planning the salvation from the work of the evil one before an evil one existed. Even more interesting that this planning was the direct CAUSE of the fall that would necessitate a Messiah.

OOHH... the """chill""" pill. LOL!I've heard of a bunch of other pills, but I haven't tried THAT one. Maybe I've been talking to the wrong people. :) Jk.

Paradoxical, isn't it? Yes, but consider the aardvark. In spelling, it's name contains two "a"s.

Ok, now I see two avatars on this thread alone from Interview with a Vampire, a rated R movie. I just saw another avatar from Fight Club, a rated R movie. Why are such avatars endorsed here? although, the TV edited versions were pretty good. I didn't like Brad Pitt too much in the former movie but Tom Cruise is becoming a better actor with each movie he does, I think. His last one, the Last Samurai, ROCKED!!

Is that a scene from Fight Club in your avatar? I regret having seen that movie. Not only were there inappropriate parts (brief, but inappropriate nonetheless) it was so violent.

Ok, thank you very much! Those were my two questions. I was too afraid to ask about how that would fit into the "marital" scheme and it had been bothering me. Thanks for mind-reading there. And I now know that you can buy multiple pairs. Good- my mind is at rest now. Thank you for your help. Sorry if that was too personal.

Well that ignored the question and it had nothing positive to offer, but mostly, it ignored the question.

I'm glad that you can wash them. That takes a load off. Not trying to sound dumb or anything, but if you can't ever take them off, it sounds like a person must shower with them on.