BJ64

I forwarded your comment to the author and he replied thanking you. 

The brain is a physical feature of our body which can learn behavior but we also have our spirit which existed before our physical brain. How much of our thought and behavior is controlled by our brain and how much by our spirit? Which is in control? There is a complex interaction between the brain and the spirit. A spirit cannot will the body to do something if the brain is damaged yet the brain cannot function without the spirit. 

This presents almost no problem for the outside observer.  It's quite easy to deny who someone else is (in perpetuity) - especially if you are not the one, or the person whose children, are forced to reconcile that point of view with reality.

I passed your thanks and your comment to the author in an email. 

I passed your thanks and your comment to the author in an email. 

@BJ64
This is absolutely amazing.  Saying thank-you doesn't even come close to being adequate. 
This article only talks about LGBT, but i feel it applies to biologically intersexed people also.  
Seriously though, this is required reading.  

It is said that if gays just stay celibate throughout this life then all will be well with them in the next life because they won’t have that attraction any more but we are also taught that the same spirit that possesses our body in this life will have power to posses it in the next life.  If same sex attraction is merely a physical thing then it would leave them when they die. If it is part of the spirit then it would remain a part of them after this life. If gays will lose the desire to be with someone of the same sex after this life would we not also lose our desire to be with our spouse after this life? If love and desire for a spouse is forever for heterosexual couples would it not be the same for homosexual couples?

Here is an interesting essay on this topic. 
https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

I don't know why people get so worked up about this. I don't think anyone will be forced into a marriage situation that is not agreeable to them. If by some chance plural marriage is a requirement to become a god and you are opposed to it then you just won't become a god. It would be your choice. 

The Old Testament for Sunday school and also the Book of Mormon. 

Here is an excerpt of a speech given by Dallin H. Oaks then president if BYU in 1971 explaining grooming standards at BYU. I think it basically explains the church’s stance against long hair and beards.  
Note that the rule is still the same 47 years later.
“The rule against beards and long hair for men stands on a different footing. I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil. Others argue that beards cannot be evil because they see bearded men enjoying the privileges of the temple. To me, this proposition seems so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.
There is nothing inherently wrong about long hair or beards, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with possessing an empty liquor bottle. But a person with a beard or an empty liquor bottle is susceptible of being misunderstood. Either of these articles may reduce a person’s effectiveness and promote misunderstanding because of what people may reasonably conclude when they view them in proximity to what these articles stand for in our society today.
In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of indifference toward the best in life. As Elder Sterling W. Sill has observed:
“A let-down in personal appearance has far more than physical significance, for when ugliness gets its roots into one part of our lives it may soon spread to every other part.” “

Here is an excerpt of a speech given by Dallin H. Oaks then president if BYU in 1971 explaining grooming standards at BYU. I think it basically explains the church’s stance against long hair and beards.  
Note that the rule is still the same 47 years later.
“The rule against beards and long hair for men stands on a different footing. I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil. Others argue that beards cannot be evil because they see bearded men enjoying the privileges of the temple. To me, this proposition seems so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.
There is nothing inherently wrong about long hair or beards, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with possessing an empty liquor bottle. But a person with a beard or an empty liquor bottle is susceptible of being misunderstood. Either of these articles may reduce a person’s effectiveness and promote misunderstanding because of what people may reasonably conclude when they view them in proximity to what these articles stand for in our society today.
In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of indifference toward the best in life. As Elder Sterling W. Sill has observed:
“A let-down in personal appearance has far more than physical significance, for when ugliness gets its roots into one part of our lives it may soon spread to every other part.” “

Here is an excerpt of a speech given by Dallin H. Oaks then president if BYU in 1971 explaining grooming standards at BYU. I think it basically explains the church’s stance against long hair and beards.  
Note that the rule is still the same 47 years later.
“The rule against beards and long hair for men stands on a different footing. I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil. Others argue that beards cannot be evil because they see bearded men enjoying the privileges of the temple. To me, this proposition seems so obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area. The rules are subject to change, and I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future. But the rules are with us now, and it is therefore important to understand the reasoning behind them.
There is nothing inherently wrong about long hair or beards, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with possessing an empty liquor bottle. But a person with a beard or an empty liquor bottle is susceptible of being misunderstood. Either of these articles may reduce a person’s effectiveness and promote misunderstanding because of what people may reasonably conclude when they view them in proximity to what these articles stand for in our society today.
In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of indifference toward the best in life. As Elder Sterling W. Sill has observed:
“A let-down in personal appearance has far more than physical significance, for when ugliness gets its roots into one part of our lives it may soon spread to every other part.” “

What you posted is what I was thinking about. It says swimming but I would include in that any sport that has to be done wearing a specific type of clothing that would not cover garments. 
From the statement often read during recommend interviews,
“When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.
 
Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment.”
I take from this second statement that we are to decide for ourselves with the help of The Spirit how to wear the garment rather than to ask others.
It says the garment when worn properly protects against temptation and evil  I do Taekwondo and I don’t wear my garments because the top of the uniform is open quite low and would not cover the garment. My wife is usually with me so I told her it’s her job to protect me from temptation and evil while I’m wearing my Taekwondo uniform.
 

My wife and I discussed this topic and decided that past sins that are repented of are in the past and do not need to be discussed with your spouse. 
There are sins I have repented of since marriage (not adultery or anything like it) that I would not tell my wife about. 

The handbook says it’s okay to remove them during sports when necessary so it’s not something I’d worry too much about. 
 

I would still like someone to explain why it is that men can show their stomach when swimming and women not. 
I’m confused about the double standards in swimwear modesty.  
Men can show their stomach, women shouldn’t. Women can show their thighs men shouldn’t. Men can show their back women shouldn’t. 
Men’s and women’s bodies are essentially the same except for the breasts and genitals and of course muscularity and fat distribution but those two don’t really play a part in modesty. So long as the genitals are covered and the women’s breasts are covered I don’t see why other body parts should br treated differently between men and women. 

While I would not consider myself a new earth creationist here is how John Taylor explained the creation of the mountains and such. However, when I look at the Wasatch front I have to tell myself “that wasn’t formed in a day”. 
 
John Taylor
Let us ask what the nations of the earth have accomplished for the last six or seven thousand years. What great work have they achieved? 
. . . after the flood, in the days of Peleg, the earth was divided.—See Genesis 10:25,—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form.
And when I cast mine eyes over our own land, and see . . . rocks having been rent, and torn asunder, from centre to circumference; I exclaim, Whence all this?
“When I read the Book of Mormon, it informs me, that while Christ was crucified among the Jews, this whole American continent was shaken to its foundation, that many cities were sunk, and waters came up in their places; that the rocks were all rent in twain; that mountains were thrown up to an exceeding height; and other mountain became vallies: the level roads spoiled; and the whole face of the land changed.—I then exclaim, These things are no longer a mystery; I have now learned to account for the many wonders, which I everywhere behold, throughout our whole country; when I am passing a ledge of rocks, and see they have all been rent and torn asunder, while some huge fragments are found deeply imbedded in the earth, some rods from whence they were torn, I exclaim, with astonishment, These were the groans! the convulsive throes of agonizing nature! while the Son of God suffered upon the cross! 23
 

During the history of man – we can see technology develop and at times ebb or dwindle.  Mostly science and religion worked together to provide society with a knowledge base for accomplishment – both spiritually and physically.  Something very odd happened when Christianity mixed with Paganism and emerged as a major influence in Western society.  Some call it the middle ages, some call it the Dark Ages but LDS understand this time as “The Great Apostasy”.
A global effort to distort or destroy truths accumulated for centuries by man took hold and blossomed with the destruction of the library of Alexandra.  What followed would set back the enlightenment of mankind thousands of years.  Not just spiritually but even in the understanding of natural laws or the laws of physics.   During this time period of apostasy many of the great libraries of man were lost forever in time.  These included the libraries of Babylon, Zoroaster, China and even the records of the Nephits on the American contentment.   Both science and religion was replaced with unexplainable acts and methods of mystery and magic.  Man began to imagine that all divine and eternal “truth” was mysterious and unknowable – this also included the natural empirical laws of physics.  Efforts to explain any truth or wisdom to remove it from the realms of mystery and fantasy was pronounced by Traditional Christians as Satanic and pure evil.
G-d had not abandoned man and the age of ignorance began to melt away like the ice of winter with the coming of spring; with what has become known as the renaissance and the beginning of what would become known as an age of enlightenment and eventually the “Modern Age” of man.  But Traditional Christianity would not give up on notion of mysterious truth and would pronounce any scientific discovery as evil and a lie.
Science introduced notions of gravity, electromagnetic radiation and the small and large nuclear forces.  These ideas of empirical and precisely predictable forces gave man the power of understanding of our world and the universe and Traditional Christianity hated the new understanding and fought it every step of the way.  Perhaps the most profound blunder was the conviction of Galileo by Traditional Christians for publishing a book of how to predict ocean tides with science rather than with mysteries of religion.  
For 600 years the religious community has lost battle after battle as science has introduced so much usable knowledge that indeed man is now enjoying a golden age of knowledge even to the extent of being able to step off our tiny little planet into the vast regions of space.  And what has traditional religion produced?  To be honest – it appears to me that traditional religion produced little beyond hatred in the form of slavery, wars and disdain of our fellow man.  If it were not for LDS – I would not consider myself a Christian because as an institution; tradition Christianity has produced little or nothing of value.  I am not saying there have not been good individuals – just that as an institution there is nothing notable.  I would also explain that even the likes of the Natizies of Germany and the Communists of Stalin and Mao there were good individuals doing very impressive things.
Sadly, there still exist today individuals that claim the mysteries of traditional religious thinking over the empirical understanding of our universe through science.  They resist, as many religionists before them, any and all scientific truth.  Their claim is that the study of empirical evidence is evil and Satanic – nothing more than lies.  They will stand in the bright empirical light of noon day and declare it night.  It is hard for me to understand and had I not conversed personally with such enemies of truth – I would not believe it - that such possible in our day and age of restoration of truth.
 
The Traveler

I changed my mind regarding health care.  I was opposed to universal health care..  The good republican stance.
After what I considered to be good arguments, I opened up to a universal health care system.  That said, I wasn't totally convinced of the implementation that was being discussed, but I could certainly be open to a universal system that was implemented well.

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

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

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

It seems to me we can acknowledge that the flood-as-baptism idea has an excellent latter-day prophetic pedigree while also acknowledging that it is not an inevitable conclusion from 1 Peter 3:20-21.

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.