BJ64

It seems like “same sex attraction” has been addressed by him on many occasions. That topic evolved into gay marriage as that subject became an issue in modern society.

Did humans also co-exist with neandertals et.al?

I was asking Grunt when was the recent statement Elder Oaks said about gay marriage. I know he talks about it a lot.

Are you the one who said many pages back that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

It seems like he address homosexuality in most of the talks he gives. When was his most recent statement against gay marriage? I’m sure the view on gay marriage won’t change but those pushing for it think it’s only a matter of time and I think that the reversal on blacks and the priesthood is one of the big factors behind their hopes for a reversal on gay marriage.

I think it’s fair to say that if you read the teachings of Brigham Young you can come to the conclusion that he contradicted himself a lot. However what we have of his teachings is as you said what others heard him say, not his actual writings. If Brigham Young had written everything he said there would be much less confusion.

They’d probably say to quit wasting time on forums and start ministering.

It is often said that on any particular issue the presidency and the twelve are in unanimous agreement. However I feel that the way this comes about is that after discussion and perhaps disagreement everyone falls in line with what the prophet decides is best to do.

The evidence of what isn’t compelling?

However it was the prophet who championed the Adam God doctrine. On this forum everyone seems to promote the idea that what the prophet teaches is true doctrine. However in the Church we do not believe in the infallibility of prophets.

Including dinosaur fossils which predate the flood by millions of years.

Modern floods may be local but whether there is twenty feet of water for a few days or weeks or a greater depth for a year the destruction would be similar. As I said the flood apparently did not kill the olive tree that the dove found. At any rate I would not expect to notice anything evidence of a great flood unless the water was on the earth for hundreds of years. We have a very large local reservoir that has been in existence for about sixty years. Even the day when the water gets really low the grass grows, tree stumps are evident and an old asphalt road becomes drivable. The main evidence to the water is the erosion on the shoreline. I would suppose that if the dam was removed that in a few hundred years the vegetation would take over and the shoreline erosion would disappear.

The floods I’ve seen didn’t leave evidence for more than a year or so. I don’t know why Noah’s flood would be expected to leave evidence for more than a few years. The waters were only on the earth for a number of months. The flood waters didn’t even kill the olive tree that the dove found after the water had receded.

Is Donald W Perry authorized to speak on behalf of the church?

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. So tell me, when was the earth dry?

However section 76 is recorded in our standard works. Baptism of the earth is not recorded in our standard works.

I agree. I prophet may say the earth was baptized but these verses don’t.

A person can be completely submerged in water without it being a baptism.

It may save the earth was completely covered with water but it says nothing about baptism of the earth.

I find it interesting that people will take one verse and interpreted to mean something and then claim that to be doctrine. When I read that verse I do not read that the earth was baptized. “...wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...” I don’t get in those versus anything about the earth being baptized. What I get is that Noah and his family were saved from the sins of the world by the waters of the flood and in a like manner we are saved or we get our salvation through baptism. I see nothing about baptism of the earth in this.

You are correct. I used the wrong word. Where I’m at I see a lot of garments in the locker room. Many men are not discreet. I put on my bottoms then quickly put on my pants. I take off both layers of shirts at once then I put them back on at the same time not separating them. Other guys dress fully in their garments before putting anything over them. I’ve even seen guys standing at a sink shaving wearing only their garments. I would stand at the sink naked rather than in my garments only.

I agree. While it is speculation and never church doctrine it has been taught by early church leaders. From fairmormon.org Several early LDS leaders believed Jesus was married, and said so from the pulpit on occasion. Here is one example from Apostle Orson Hyde: I think it’s a reasonable belief but not something to preach in church.

I’m not sure if my problem is an anomaly or not. Not many men in general society go without sex long enough to notice if they had my same problem. If you did a research study on it you wouldn’t find willing participants.

If you google to ask if it is harmful to not madturbate then it’s probably going to say no. However if you google asking the health benefits of masturbation you will find a lot of benefits. Therefore not masturbating will deny these benefits.

I would say those suits show much more that the briefs I wear. Its sort of funny that at BYU-I swim briefs are not allowed but jammers are. For those who are not aware jammers are skin tight knee length swimsuits. I wore jammers today and I can absolutely attest to the fact that they reveal as much or more male shape outline than swim briefs. I guess the administration at BYU-I didn’t get the memo that jammers are revealing. Revealingly in the same sort of way that wrestling singlets are revealing. However I don’t hear protests over wrestlers wearing them. I would explain this by comparing a swim brief to a woman’s sports bra and jammers to a woman in a skin tight shirt with no bra. Which is more modest?