Traveler

I am sorry that I have not made my point clear. If a father and a mother are not upholding their responsibilities for their children and society and its laws implies in anyway that this failure to the children can be conpensated for - We have all failed the children - it is not just the failure of parents - it is the failure of everybody. If the best we can offer is gay parents - we have failed. But thank heavens for at least providing gay parents so we do not have force children into something worse. I am sad that we have failed children to the point that we must admit this is the best that our society can do for many of our children. I am also sad that this admission as failure to our children is not very popular in our society. The Traveler

Point 1. G-d is not just to force all mankind to suffer because of Adam and Eve without any choice in the matter. To punish us for Adam and Eve is not justice - I do not believe that G-d is unjust. I have no idea what you believe because you have not said what you believe regarding this matter. Point 2. The Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of our current state. We experience both good and evil in this life. Even if someone was to live choosing only good - as Jesus did they will still suffer because of evil. It is not just the evil that suffer - those that do evil cause all to suffer. That is part of the charactor of evil. Again you do not offer anything to the discussion of what it means to know good and evil. Point3. It is the nature of that which is physical to focus on the wants and needs of self. It is the attraction of self gradification that draws people to sin. That which is physical is more likely to reinforce self gradification that that which is spiritual. That G-d allows us to be tempted is not to say that he tempted us. I do think that G-d encourages us to exist in a suituation where we can be tempted - evening knowing in advance that we all will sin. Yes I believe G-d knew Adam and Eve would sucum to Satan's temptation - but I believe he still allowed it - even realized that it would benefit Adam and Eve - and all of us. Again you have said nothing as to why you think G-d forced Adam and Eve to be in the Garden knowing that Satan would tempt them and that they would fall - not much of a choice for Adam and Eve in my mind? That would be like making your children play on the freeway knowing they would be run over and then blaiming them when it happened saying something like did I not tell you to be careful playing on the freeway. G-d did not warn Adam and Eve about Satan - whose fault then is that? The Traveler

I agree that children being brought up gay couples as better than feeding them to crocodiles. The fact that something worse can be found is not the point - please forgive me for the extreme example. To be honest I am not concerned about the rights of parents (biological or otherwise) as I am about the rights and needs of children. I glad you agree that "the ideal" is that children be brought up by their natural parents in a kind, loving and caring environment. I will go even farther to say that children have the right to be brought up properly by their biological parents and when they are not society and their parents have failed them. I realize that one parent cannot force another parent to execute their responsibilities - that is not the point either. My point is - what ought to be and what society has as its first obligation to children and the next generation. That is to make clear - without exception what is really the best and ideal. Our society is failing badly - 60 percent of the children being borne today in our society will not be raised in the home of their biological parents and that is not to say that those that are; that society is encouraging the parents to consider the children's needs before their own passions and desires. I do not believe that homosexuality is the main problem and I am sorry that we are stuck on that. I believe that if society was doing its part that everyone would believe that the best for children is to be brought up properly by their biological parents; understanding and knowing the love and care of a mother and what mothers add to society and the love and care of a father and what fathers offer to society. If for any reason, that is not possible, then I believe that our next best is to offer to children the next best situation that reflects the environment of their biological parents of a loving father and a loving mother. I do not think that we ever ought to compromise the importances of fathers and mothers performing their responsibilities. I do not think we should ever give the impression that a father or a mother is really not that important for children or society and can easily be replaced with hardly any effect to care about on children or society. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children and making sacrifices to help society. My problem is what many come to assume that such should be given the same priority as a father and mother - the reason is that I cannot accept the message is send about the needs for fathers and mothers. It is about children and without fathers and mothers there will be no children. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on our core beliefs. I do want to make certain that it is understood that my core belief is in the role of fathers and the role of mothers being recognized as the single most important right for children. Anything that distracts from that understanding - I cannot and will not support. The Traveler

It is my impression that G-d would rather that we show our love and respect for him by joyfully obeying his commandments than to fall before him for every moment of all the rest of eternity. The Traveler

There are two things I would like to respond to in your post. First I agree that we do not condemn those that disagree with us. However there is a second point. That point is that we recognize that their choice is not needed for society to exist and that society does not have an obligation to force by law the notion that their behavior must be given incentive equal to the encouragement we need to maintain for biological parents to love and care for their own children. I cannot accept that such thinking that loving biologocal parents should be or can be replaced without possible effect of children. We must first take into account what is best for children or that something other than loving biological parents willing to love and sacfirice will be equal or improve for children what a loving and a proper relationship between the biological parents will do for children. I know that some can desire for children that which is better than what many children have but it is not the best that can be done for children nor is it equal to the best. I do not believe we should ever forget what is best for the children. The Traveler

There is a reason that scriptures and such things from G-d are given symbolically. When Jesus was asked why he taught symbolically in parables he answered so that only the covenant followers would understand and that the world as a whole would not get it.In the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS our doctrine understands that the fall of Adam was not just a choice of Adam and Eve. We believe that the Father had a great counsel in Heaven where he discussed his plan with each and every one of us to come to experience and understand things that at the time only he understood and had experienced. This plan included several things. One thing was that we obtain a physical body (in the image and likeness of his) and have physical experiences (as he had). But he also pointed out that there could be risks in having a physical body. The greatest risk is that we could be altered forever from our spiritual state by the almost un-resistible propensity to sin. The only way to permanently overcome sin would come through experience of the pain (including death) of sin and an atonement by a savior G-d willing to sacrifice their life for the rest of us. Thus we would have knowledge of evil. We would also be able to sacrifice ourselves in a similar manner for others. This would come through loyalty to the commandments of G-d and following the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Thus we would have knowledge of good. The problem is that once we come to a knowledge of good and evil we would have to make a choice between them. This is called agency. We would become an agent of good or an agent of evil. There was another problem - once tarnished by evil we would become corrupted and unworthy to live with our Father in heaven as members of his kingdom. Now we see how the atonement of Jesus Christ enabled the Father plan (which pleased the Father concerning Jesus). The ancient Hebrew name and word Adam is a term that means man. The ancient Hebrew name and word Eve is a term that means “Mother of those that will live”. For me the symbolism of the tree of Knowledge of Good and evil is accepting the coming to earth, obtaining a body, experiencing the joy of good and the pain of evil and the acceptance of Jesus Christ to redeem us from evil. For G-d to cast us out of his kingdom of heaven without us having a choice would make G-d unjust. If we had no choice but to become fallen and live on earth because of Adam’s transgression would make G-d unjust. For G-d to allow us to become fallen without any hope, would make G-d unloving. Thus partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is symbolic of each of us buying into G-d the Father, G-d the Son (Jesus Christ) and the G-d the Holy Ghost and having faith that they would lead us into a higher state (salvation - resurrection) that we could never obtain on our own. Thus G-d the Father, G-d the Son (Jesus Christ) and G-d the Holy Ghost together accomplish that which none of them had power to do as individual G-ds on their own. They achieved the highest achievement that there is. They make the impossible possible in an incredible act of love and service that frees man in the same manner that they (G-ds) are free (as spoken of in John 10). That we can be exalted to a status of citizenship in the Kingdom of G-d and in his heaven that they enjoy and know what they know. But G-d realized that some, having experienced evil would turn away and desire something else and in his great love he has provided a place where they will be happy. And thus we all have become partakers of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Traveler

You and I see something different in scripture. I see the garden epoch as symbolic - including the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The tree of life was always there but it was not needed until after the fall. I see the atonement of Jesus Christ in the symbolism of the tree of life. Unlike you I do not see G-d keeping Adam and Eve from the tree of life - I see G-d making sure that no one came to it unless they came on the right way. I see Jesus Christ in other symbolism of the garden epoch as well. For example: At the end of chapter 2 of Genesis, G-d places cherubim and a flaming sword to "keep the WAY" to the tree of life. Jesus said he is the "WAY" and if you search all the scriptures you will find only one place where anyone with a sword and fire has anything to do with salvation and that is in Revelation chapter 19. So either the scriptures are nuts and full of nonsense stuff or there is meaning and things to learn that are important. If you can come up with something different I will listen but I am quite sure that Jesus and his role was known and symbolically hidden right from the start. BTW - If I were you I would be careful believing what Satan says - he is a liar and more likely not tell something that is true than something that is a lie. If you can find anyone else that is know for telling the truth saying the same thing then I would be more likely to believe it is true - but unlike you I do not believe knowledge of good and evil (by itself) will make anyone like the g-ds. The Traveler

Hello friend: My best friend from the time I was 5 until after my mission and serving in the military was a boy. We did everything together, we stood by each other and we loved each other - we never engaged in sexual activity most likely because we were taught not to. I have been attracted to many men but because I was taught not to seek sexual pleasure with men that never happened - not even an experiment. But it was not without counter example or effort to teach me otherwise - my best friend's brother grew up homosexual and died of aids. He was not so different from my friend in his youth - except he experimented with things we didn't.To be honest I have had difficulties marrying a woman. I have written a book titled 101 things a man can say to his buddies but never to his wife. It was never published and was written with humor and frustration over the differences of men and women. Much in my marriage I have not done because I wanted to but because I believed it was right. My marriage is the greatest accomplishment and joy of my life - it did not just happen - I had to learn to make it happen. More often than not that meant sacrificing what I wanted (yes even in sex) for the greater benefit of my wife. Now I may not be an expert in these things but everyone that I know that enjoys their marriage says the same thing - It will not happen just letting what will happen, happen. Such joy comes from great effort and sacrifice and learning and changing things in their life. If a person is unwilling to change themself for the benefit of others they will never perform true service. I am not looking for excuses for not doing something - I am looking for real non-selfish things to believe in something - And I do not see it with homosexuality. The Traveler

That is one that I agree is good. Since you suggested one may I suggest some more? How about: Loving your neighbor. Doing good to those that despise you Forgiving others. Going the 2nd mile (few know what this really means) Honoring your father and mother Having Charity Keeping the Sabbath (by covenant) Showing kindness when no one expects kindness. Living by G-d's commandments with joy. Being the servant of all Being a peace maker Being meek and humble Paying Tithing (as a covenant) Morning with those the morn. Assist the needy Concern and sacrifice for children Treat the L-rd's name with respect Pray often Pray for those that despitefully use you Seek the Wisdom of G-d Avoid evil and marry according the G-d's blessing I can think of lots more - Did your question indicate that you may have confusion discerning good things? The Traveler

Ok. I was quoting a general statement for discussion sake. My quote was the LDS believe that God saw them all as abominations. Would you disagree with that statement? I disagree with that statement. The declaration is that the creeds were an abomination. Therefore any organization that relies on the creeds are wrong and the professors that back the creeds were corrupt. The center topic is the creeds - The word abomination implies a non-divine origin claiming something to be 100% without any other possibility a divine origin and nothing else. If there is one jot or tittle that is not of divine origin in it then in light of the claim - it is by definition an abomination. I would say the same of any scientist or organization that insisted that our earth is the center of the universe. It is not scientific. The view of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is that G-d did not command it - plain and simple. The Traveler

I thought to add one other thing to my previous post. In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality was not an illness (I assume this means that they thought it not to be an acquired addictive behavior). Yet in their declaration there is not a single scientific study cited to back the declaration or give any validation to it. There has been no effort to my knowledge to scientifically pursue this possibility in any specific published study I have ever heard of. My question to any reader that cares to add opinion or reason - Why would a scientific association make a statement without any scientific basis or backing? If the reason was that there was no evidence that homosexuality was an addiction (illness) - Why not make a statement that because of lack of evidence and research that homosexuality should not be considered an illness or not an illness without real evidence by which to make a scientific conclusion? In essence their method was to close the door to research or consider any evidence - ever and without scientific method to reach their conclusion. I do not see this as a scientific method or even a informed conclusion. It looks to be to be propaganda in its most glaring and obvious form. I do not know why any reasonable and informed person would or should accept it. As for myself - I see no other course than to rely on what-ever evidence we are allowed - and it appears to me from that evidence that homosexuality is an acquired addictive behavior. Is there any evidence to the contrary? The Traveler

Friend Pushka: I am sorry I lost you: Please consider the possible reality that whenever an individual continues by repetition, behavior to achieve self wants and self gratification, that eventually the individual must ether break off (permanently - by a process of sacrifice) the behavior or that behavior will become addictive. Also please consider that with humans the most addictive behaviors are related to sexual pleasures and drugs that provide similar pleasures. I had hoped that with this understanding you would be able to identify the dangers and costs of any individual that perseus exploration into such things for the primary or only purpose of self gratification. I realize that not everyone that indulges in self sex will use that behavior as a gate way to homosexuality. I am suggesting though, that self sex can be a gateway to many sexual addictive behaviors and that self sex is itself an addictive behavior. Not everybody that finds pleasure in animal cruelty will become an addicted psychopathic killer like Jeffery Dolmer. But all such addicted psychopathic killer started out with such gateway behaviors before progressing to more elaborate behaviors to enhance the personal pleasure acquired by addiction. Again I submit the logic that addictive behaviors are based on self gratification and that sexual gratification and drugs that produce similar gratifications produce the most addictive behaviors in humans (this is not to say that all addictive behaviors are related to sexual pleasures). I also submit that for this reason there exist in humans a vast array and variation in addictive sexual behaviors - homosexuality being only one of that array. I would also submit for consideration that when an individual becomes involved in addictive behaviors that they acquire a disposition that such behaviors defines them (meaning that they have always been that way) and that they are hopeless to ever change the behavior. The plain simple truth is that everything associated with homosexual behavior indicates to me everything that I understand about addictive behaviors that homosexuality is an acquired addictive behavior right down to the expression that those involved are hopeless (for whatever logic or reason) to ever change. If someone - anyone that understands addictive behavior could demonstrate and logically produce any real difference between homosexuality and known attributes of addictive behavior I would be more than glad to consider the possibility - But in all my searching and asking I have never encountered a believer in homosexuality as not being acquired addictive behavior, to even being willing to try to demonstrate any difference. I find it odd that they refuse to consider the possibility of homosexuality as an acquired addictive behavior. This leaves me with the impression that their conclusion has come about because of methods of social propaganda (brain washing) rather than careful consideration of facts. Please understand I am not trying to downgrade anyone - I am trying very hard to understand. Thank you for your sincere efforts. I have found your input honest and straight forward The Traveler

The History of Joseph Smith by his mother Lucy Mack Smith. The Traveler

Please explain what you mean by the atonement. Although there are consequences, tt seems to me that everyone on Earth is able to seek out whatever their desires dictate. How is this different from what you are talking about? The example in scripture is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This represents the ability to seek good or evil. The problem is that this ability also brings about death. This means that seeking "everlasting life" is not possible - which means that only evil could be rewarded. Seeking for good would be worthless because man being fallen could not receieve any blessing of The Father. Remember that Jesus said that non is good except the Father - therefore being fallen man was cut off from anything good. It may seem that man could experience good but may would die and be slave to the chains of Hell which is the meaning of death. Because of the atonement of Jesus Christ (the payment for all sin) the fall of Adam has no effect and though we die we will live again to live everlastingly as we have choosen between good and evil - a true choice made out of knowledge through experience and knowing the difference between good and evil. The Traveler

I agree - I do not believe being molested by a homosexual is what makes homosexuals - nor do I believe being molested by a heterosexual is what makes a person heterosexual. I do believe that when a person seeks to satisfy self and self need that it will lead to addictions and bondages. Continual and constant renforcements of additions will result in addictions that are never broken. Seeking other's needs through self sacrifice leads to freedom and liberty. Just one side note here. I have never met a homosexual that did not first engage in self sex (almost habbitual). I have met many heterosexuals that have never engaged in self sex. That is not to say that self sex causes homosexuality but only that there is a possible cognitive learning step that if continued to addiction is a possible factor. The Traveler

So sorry about your computer problems. Friend Pushka: I used the divorced couple to demonstrate that mankind are an intelligent beings and can learn and control their attractions. That is my whole point. That attractions are cognitive and can be learned and changed. The operative word is cognitive which means that it requires an awareness - this also indicates control or choice when to be attracted. Babies are not born with sexual attractions - I am sorry but I cannot see the logic in that at all or why anyone believes that. The nervous system has two parts the cognitive and the sympatric. The sympatric is that part over which there is no awareness. The cognitive is that part that cannot occur without awareness. For example: even though a attractive woman may be in the same room there will not be any attractions until the man becomes aware - not just that the woman is present but also the awareness that they ought to be attracted. Thus some one can be attracted at one time and not another time to the very same person or kind of person. What I do not understand is why you have made an exception to the cognitive behavior of sexual attraction to all other cognitive behaviors. Why is this one the only exception? What is so convincing to you - you keep saying "you believe" but you never offer the why. I guess it is just how I think but I am unable to make that transition to believe without the why behind it. Thanks for not going out of orbit on this. The Traveler

There are a couple of problems that I see in your logic. First: I would point out that man was not created mortal. (see Genesis 2:17) It was not until man partook of the forbidden fruit and fell from the grace and glory of the Father that mankind became mortal. Let us take a look at your scripture in 1Cor 11:7. The very word image indicates physical relationship. The word Glory indicates that which pleases or through which fullness is experienced. This would indicate that man is the greatest work of G-d and that in woman is the greatest achievement of man. I would also point out a couple of other things of great interest. Note the word "dominion" in the verse you quoted from Genesis. This word relates directly to G-d and his relationship to the universe - That is G-d has dominion over the universe. This would indeed indicate that coming to earth is the very training and experience to do and learn what G-d does. Now I would go back to the glory of man in the woman. It is in the relationship and covenant of marriage that G-d has granted the power to create his finest achievement - that is the creation of human life. In marriage, man and woman become creators with G-d in the glory of human life. So I see your logic wrong on two points here - first that man (Adam) was created mortal (man was not created mortal but became mortal through the fall and second that G-d is the creator and mankind is not (I understand that G-d intended that man and woman experience creation of life). Having had children in the covenant of marriage I know for a fact that there is nothing that man or woman can do while on earth that is more pleasing to G-d than to obey by covenant of marriage the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth with the creation of human life. And this is the greatest achievement of G-d and he has given this power to man so man can be like him. This is one of the major reasons that sexual relationships outside of marriage is do damaging to mankind (and no other creature) because it is part of the essence of that which is G-d. The Traveler

Just so I have this right - you do not believe man was created in the "image" and "likeness" of G-d "no matter how small" and that there is no resurrection of man from mortality to immortality? The Traveler Whether it is possible or not for God to create "a god" doesn't necessarily mean that God would or should. Should the created tell the creator what he should be doing? IMO, God is unique for the fact that he is God. M. What about G-d is it that must be unique and never become part of anything else or any one else? What is it that we do not need or want anything more. The Traveler

Just my little opinion here. Is a zygote human? Is it different than human? Exactly at what point does a developing zygote become human? Or is a child different from an adult? It is my honest opinion that if someone believes that G-d cannot make (in eternity - with no limits) a g-d out of a human (teach man of g-dliness) then they must believe that with G-d "all things" are not possible and that says much more about their belief in G-d than it does about their belief in the possible destiny of man. It is my understanding that a "damned" being is one that has limits and that the opposite of limits is infinite and I believe infinite is a definition of G-d. The Traveler

I thought to post something that many readers may find a great surprise concerning me and my social circle. I have some friends that I consider very good friend that are involved in homosexual relationships. I do not believe in excluding someone because they do not agree with my basic concepts - nor do I believe it necessary to seek occasion to modify something they are pleased with. There is no pretense here - I do not pretend to like them in spite of the preference - I honestly enjoy their company - and at the same time I do not pretend to tolerate their preferences. If a subject matter is turned that direction I voice my opinion just as I have done here on the forum. I have not had a problem with my friends on the matter that we have different opinions. In fact I do not know anyone that I could not find something to disagree. Mostly I do not choose to go to war over disagreements - though I believe some would make that choice - for me when the subject is being discussed I give my opinions - I try not to attack with the understanding that some do not know the difference between trying to defend my self and attacking. Sorry if I have offended anyone - that is not my intension. The Traveler

Please do not feel that I am "coming down" on you are trying to play with your mind but the concept of learned behavior has a rather broad spectrum. Perhaps it would be better stated as acquired behavior. Let me give a little example. A couple (of any kind) is very much attracted and involved - they "fall" in love with each other. Sometime later they part (divorce) without any ability to show any attraction toward each other. Is this because their "true underlying attractions would come forth eventually" or because they have made adjustments based on experiences. Please note that "adjustments based on experiences" is the essence of "learning" which is the ability to modify one's concepts or behavior based on experience. Which I believe defines an intelligent species. Otherwise we must accept "non-learned" behavior as non intelligent that can not be modified (including made stronger) by experience of any kind. If this is true concerning "sexual preference" then there is no reason to attempt to modify or rehabilitate even the most deviant sexual preference. (which is kind of what PC posted - just stated acording to my understanding) Anyway that is how I see it in the most simple terms I understand. - Thanks for lisinging The Traveler

I am not sure your terms mean what you say. For example, we would receive nothing if there had been no atonement by Jesus Christ. What he did enables everything good that we do and desire. Without the Atonement we get nothing of benefit - because of the atonement we can choose and seek after whatever we want - the atonement was done unconditionally and enables all mankind (without exception) to seek out what ever they will according to their desires. The Traveler

that is exactly my question. I am not the expert on this issue. I thought that the LDS members here have heard about it, read about it, have had discussion about it, etc. and would be the appropriate people to ask about it. My initial thought though, were that apostasy was complete not partial. I look forward to learning about what is taught to LDS members. Dr. T I will answer with my opinion concerning apostasy. In general apostasy is a deviation from a prescribed or standard set of concepts. In this case we are speaking of religious truths. Anciently the concept of religion did not exist. The scriptures instead refer to a “path” or “way”. In reference to Jesus Christ the correct way I believe was comprised of several parts. Following is a list that may not be comprehensive: 1. Kingdom = A organization based on the ancient concept of kingdoms and not modern ideas of social structures. 2. Ordinances = Prescribed methods of initiating and binding standard covenants, commandments, doctrines, relationships, duties and other such things. 3. Rituals = Defined methodologies of standard religious behaviors. 4. Authority = Comes from Kingdom structures and who is authorized to act in proxy for G-d within his kingdom. Must be given and not taken or assumed. 5. Doctrine = The basis of belief. In Matt starting in chapter 5-7 a summery of several stages of apostasy are summarized by Christ. Example, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” He also defines “wolfs” in sheep clothing intending to destroy the flock. As to the great Apostasy the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS rely on what Jesus told Joseph Smith concerning churches and why he was not to join any that existed at that time. There were three main categorizes: First: Ordinances had been altered Second: Doctrines had been miss-interpreted Third: The creeds were an abomination (falsely claimed to be G-d’s will) In relationship to the First: We have experienced an “evolution” of sacred ordinances such as baptism and the breaking of bread according to the last supper In relationship to the Second: We now have historical evidence (Dead Sea Scrolls and historians like Josephis) that there was an effort beginning as early as 74 AD. To modify scriptures and doctrine concepts for both Jews and Christians. In relationship to the Third: The use of creeds were not used among the Jews or Christians until the introduction of paganism in Christianity by the influence and force of the pagan Roman Empire. What then followed has become classically known by students of history as the “Dark Ages”. This is a short summery - Hope you get the idea. The Traveler

Pushka: Thank you - Sometimes I wonder if I am ever getting my ideas across. My wife tells me that my thinking process is different and that few people understand what I am trying to say. My father use to tell me that I am today (at any moment) what I have spent all of my existance becoming. No one ever ends up something different than what they make some effort (with or without the help of G-d) at some point to become. It is kind of the concept that if you do not think you want to get where a path leads - why are you following it? The Traveler

BTW - Dr T: We have kind of gotten away from your question about indications of the apostasy. So I was wondering - What do you think would indicate Apostasy? In individuals or in entire societies? Must it include a full turn-around in everything or some subtle changes at critical points? The Traveler