Traveler

Very good points - I would also add that there has been no effort to demonstrate that human society can benefit in the long run by endorsing and encouraging "gay" marriages. The scientists that have used chaos theory to predict devastating effects on the environment if a minor parameter is altered, is accepted without question. Yet the altering of the accepted social sexual habits within the society of a dominant species is not a matter of concern?Society benefits from marriage, in that society is granted another generation. This continual cycle is necessary for society to survive. It requires that society support marriage based on children. It is the engine of natural selection and survival of the human species. Even non-religious evolutionist must realize that protection of reproductive behaviors is essential to continued human society. The Traveler

Cal: I have read many studies. I realize that this is a highly political subject; studies done with agendas are hardly scientific. I prefer the non-biased studies done for other agendas such as studies of sexual behavior of endangered species (higher primates) in order to preserve the species. However, since you asked I would tell you that brain development after birth is environmental. A child is not born with a fully developed brain. In fact the brain is not fully "wired" until the about age of 20. You are wrong when you imply or indicate that human children are "brain" capable of reproduction or sex at birth. Come on my friend you are asking me to be logical and scientific and insist of such palpably absurd statements. If a child’s brain develops after birth in a manner different than both parents it is not genetic. Come on – I know you are brighter that this! I am sure you realize that those that are classified as "slow minded" often do not progress beyond the 5 or 6 normal years of “brain” development and these people are not capable of determining their sexual orientation. We still consider these brain-children to suffer rape if involved in the act of reproduction with an adult. What I asked before I ask again - why do you insist that behavior controlled exclusively by the cognitive part of the central nervous system is not learned. The Traveler

I was raised in a very disciplined patricidal home. My father was a very wealthy man but hated rich kids all his life so we lived in a lower middle-income home with one beater for a family car. I did not know we were rich until I was in college (paying my own way). I never received an allowance and at the age of 8 I was expected to work to pay for my own clothing, vacations (with family) and contribute to my board and room. My father owned a lot of real estate where we were put to work cleaning, landscaping or fixing. We had to have our chores done at home before we could go to work.We were expected to get “A’s” in school – father also taught school for a while. We could stay out as late as we wanted but had to be up at 4 for work even during school. We were expected to set examples in our standards and dress. We were never allowed to talk back – especially to elders. My father was rather physical when we were disobedient but I never thought of physical punishment as abusive. If you ever said you would do something or be somewhere – you better be true to your word. I never remember my parents coming to any activity or school play that I was a part of but I did not think they should be there either. I was raised with the attitude that I could do most anything I wanted to pay for or take responsibility. I would report my plan and my father’s response was almost always – Sounds good. I can never remember my father saying anything other than I should have done better when a job was done. I do remember not being paid for work that was not up to standard. One time my team was paid but I was not because I was in charge and it was not good enough. My father never suggested that we should be less than he would give as an example. I knew if I did not paint an apartment good enough he would re do it himself. I love my father and believe everyone should come from such a home – and you are right – I think G-d is a lot like that. But my father changed a lot when my brother was killed by accident – my father was the only one that could have saved him but was unable. The Traveler

It appears to me that Ex Mormon Jason worships a very different G-d than do I. To clarify the extent of this difference I have created this thread as to not take away from the thread (Gayness) where this difference arose. For clarification I have made a list to compare my understanding of G-d verses my understanding of Satan as the G-d of Hell with comments of comparison for Mr. Ex 1. The G-d I worship does not think of man as slaves – He thinks of man as his children that he loves. Satan views man as his slaves rather than his children and only cares that he “sift us a wheat” according to his pleasure. It appears to me that Jason’s G-d owns us as slaves and is the Satan I fear. 2. The G-d I worship does not intend to punish man – He would suffer great anguish and pain even death if it were possible rather than punish man. But since he cannot suffer such anguish and cannot die he allowed his “Beloved Son”. That is the “Son of G-d” to suffer great anguish and pain even death in an effort to not punish man. Satan intends to punish man at every opportunity. He delight in causing suffering through his punishments. Again it appears to me that Jason’s G-d is the Satan I fear. 3. The G-d I worship does not make rules for man except that such rules are guides to benefit man. Every thing my G-d does is merciful and kind and therefore his rules are only a “light burden” that cannot benefit him in any way or in anyway add to his greatness. His rules are for my sake only. Satan makes rules that he may control us. We receive no benefit from the rules only punishment for not following them Again it appears to me that Jason’s G-d is the Satan I fear. 4. The G-d I worship does not gain anything from my worship of him – he does not need my worship for it does nothing to his greatness. The only benefit to be gained by my worship is mine. He realizes this importance so commands that I worship him that I can receive great joy. Satan benefits greatly from our worship of him and therefore this is the only reason he wants us to worship him. He does not care for those that worship him but intends to punish those that do not worship him. Again it appears to me that Jason’s G-d is the Satan I fear. 5. The G-d I worship wants me to be free. The reason he offers himself as my master is because he intends that through my acceptance of him as my master I can learn and become just like him – free – for indeed at this time he alone is truly free and has no master. He created man in his image and likeness and has every intention that man become free like he is. Satan does not want me to be free. He does not want anyone to be free. He wants to become the permeate master of all and maintain us forever as his slaves. It appears to me that Jason’s G-d is the very Satan I fear. I think I worship a different G-d than Jason – But I could be wrong, I hope so. If I have misrepresented this difference please correct me Jason and on at least the points I have made that we do after worship the same G-d and fear the same Satan. The Traveler

Well Mr Snow: You will be glad to know that BYU had the higest national ranking for new recruits in the MWC on this the first Letter of Intent day. The Traveler

God owns us. If we violate His rules, we will be punished. Not so fast my friend - How could we possibly be responsible for violating his rules if he is the one that controls everything and is really responsible for what happened?This particular attribute of you G-d looks a lot like what I believe to be the primary reason I do not want to be in Hell with Satan as G-d. I am sorry but what your are posting is rather scary. The Traveler

I agree with you curvette but I look at it a little different. If I had lost my wife and had waited until the dust had cleared for a time to move on; the last thing I would want to start out dating someone that had just lost their beloved 3 months ago. And as I write this - if I was the one that had only wated 3 months would I really want to date someone interested in me since I would be the type to only wait 3 months? I think the problem with death is not so much respecting the dead as it is good sense with those that remained in life. The Traveler

I have learned that what appears as rational to me may not really be the case. Often when I am working with someone they will exclaim “I do not understand why it does not work.” My answer is always “You cannot be sure if something works (is rational) until you have tested it. Then you only know what you have tested will work (or is rational).One of the most important test in the automation industry is what is called anomaly testing. This is when an algorithm is subjected to a hostile environment outside of defined operational parameters. Or in other words what happen when the system is not functioning correctly what happens to the controls. Or in your case - what happens when rational breaks down and does not function at a critical or important point. Does the system fail, does it make things worse, is it possible to recover? For me a “rational” system is not necessarily bullet proof. It may fail but I want to know what happens when it fails. Is there a way to recover? Does attempting to keep everything else operational only make things worse? Or do you have to shut everything down and restart everything from scratch or just the problem area. For me just making something work is not rational enough. Sometimes rational to means a lot more that it does to others. For spiritual things I like to do sanity checks or anomaly testing on my spiritual rational. I like to subject what I believe to be true to someone that disagrees with me. This does two things - It gives me insight to the character of my advisory and it demonstrates the strength of my spiritual rational. The problem is the anguish that I often cause for my test case. Sometime that pain is returned many fold. The Traveler

Mark44: I am often concerned when people think that happiness and success are something that comes from the outside in. I feel more that success comes from making the most of what is on the inside. But there is a problem. If one centers their hopes on self they will find that life will become confining, limited and in slaving. But by focusing on others they find their skills rewarding and fulfilling. One of the reasons a Buddhist learns to mediate is to become aware. Some think of meditation as being self-aware but that is not true. The purpose of meditation is awakening awareness of self, time and place. I believe such awareness includes G-d and others as reflected in your understanding of success. I have incorporated an understanding from a Buddhist friend (lay monk) of mediation into bicycling. I commute by bicycle to and from work (when there is no ice). I use this time to mediate and search my thoughts and methods of facing what I am and where I am. I am devout LDS and I am not recommending Buddhism. I am recommending that good and true things should be embraced wherever they are found. You may consider trying a mediation technique. Take about a half hour to start. Put yourself in a place where you can be alone with your thoughts for that half hour. Explore the thoughts that come to you. Let them come however they may and ponder everything you can about them. Where the come from, how long they stay, how they make you feel, if you really want them or not. Do this more than once and then begin to explore who you are and what you want to do with your thought that find place in you. I have found many thought that I have decided I do not want to be a part of me. So I have chosen to forget them and explore other thoughts that I find of greater value. Ponder your thoughts with what you learn from scripture study. Ponder your prayers like your thoughts. When you think you have some insight to yourself begin to ponder others and how you relate to them. Ponder what you can do to assist others is their success quest. Ponder how when you are happy what effect it has on others. Ponder when you are despondent how that affects others especially those that are close to you. Ponder what you can add that would have eternal value. Enjoy your thought and who you are or change them. The Traveler

I do not agree with Cal about a lot of things but this statement of yours is quite incredible. I have not followed all you two have said to each other but from this post I think I agree more with Cal.If you really believe this then how can you believe that any man ought to judged by the very being that is really responsible for everything that happens? The Traveler

I have often wondered why some fail and others find success. I think there may be a third factor beyond genetics and environment and that is our eternal self. The D&C tells us that in this life we are given choice so that "That which was from the beginning is plainly made manifest". I do not know why some lie and other tell truth, why some are kind and others mean – and so on; however I believe that discipline is not the easy road or ever the default condition. I also believe that seeking self and ignoring discipline is destructive and evil – likewise serving others and disciplining one’s passions is uplifting, enlightened and good. Thank you for your kind consideration of my opinion 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? My background is Math and Physics - I currently work as a Principal Engineer in the robotics and automation industry I have also worked as an engineer in the aerospace industry (total over 30 years practical experience). My scientific automation design philosophies were highlighted as the cover article (not written by me) in the publication “Automated Material Handling”. (Would you like the month and year of the article)? What is your scientific background? One basic tenet of scientific thinking is to question the methods and means others use to draw their conclusions. I find your reluctance to provide detail in your logic most unscientific. I would of thought that you would have been excited and elated at the prospect of elaborating on your logic processes. But lets ask some questions: 1. Who paid for the study? 2. What 50% showed genetic correlation and what 50% showed no genetic correlation? 3. How were the twins in the study group identified? 4. What considerations were studied in the placement of 50% possible genetic correlation in homosexuality group? For example were those with homosexual tendencies placed in the homes of University educators that live in an environment where 70% of the population openly supports homosexuality or were they placed among agrarian society with less than 20% openly support homosexuality? 5. Do the authors of the article agree with you that genetic correlation to homosexuality is the only possible conclusion to the study? 6. Did the authors of the article espouse genetic correlation to homosexuality prior to the study? As a scientist this would be only the beginning of questions I would ask. Also you are disturbed with my equating homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. The reason I do so is because the biological function in operation is reproductive. The only part of that biological function that can be considered orientation is the cognitive responses and behaviors. All non-cognitive reproductive biological functions are identical in both heterosexual and homosexuals. If I have errored in this assessment please advise me of the non-cognitive biological functions that are different. Since scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner have demonstrated that [ANY] cognitive biological function can be altered by aggressive learning process involving positive and negative stimulation, I have labeled the cognitive parts of the biological reproductive process as behavior. Would you please explain to me why you would label any cognitive response as strictly genetic orentation? The Traveler

Are you dying Ray? (This is a sincere question--I'm not joking.) Of course he is – we all are but some of us are more stubborn and will take a little longer but we are all dying. The Traveler

My friend I know this is a subject that you and I have strong disagreement. One reason I personally make reference to various learned reproductive behaviors is because I personally believe that in an intelligent social species like humans that variations in cognitive portions of reproductive behaviors is best explained as an acquired or learned behavior. I do not believe that anyone is a born child molester or someone that will find excitement in rape. I believe all such behavior must be cultivated and developed.In the same manner I do not believe anyone is born to be a devoted husband or wife. I believe that such behaviors must be cultivated, developed and learned. I would think most have been tempted to vary their reproductive behavior at various times and places. To teach that just because someone is tempted to “try” something then they must have that orientation or that is just the way they are is in my mine a grave error. I believe we need to understand that we develop into what we spend our lives becoming. We can become kind or mean, we can become happy or sad we can become someone that gives into various lusts or we can become disciplined. We can take responsibility for what we do or we can attempt to ascribe blame and claim no responsibility. I believe things like kindness, happiness and responsibility require learning and discipline. Meanness, sadness and the morality of a range bull are much more easy and display learning without discipline. I am dumfounded when people like Mark Hacking murder despite social and family efforts to teach discipline of such emotions, especially when the teaching appears to be effective. Though dumfounded I understand that some people feign discipline but I will not blame G-d for such things. I realize that many disagree with my voice but I maintain that humans are intelligent and should and will be held accountable for all or what ever they endeavor to learn and become. Without such accountability no one would be free. The Traveler

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

There needs to be a searious chapter on caring for your older parents that are sometimes more like children than the great parents you once knew. This chapter of life is one I was most untrained for and feel there is as much need to care givers as for those in need of care. The Traveler

The University of Utah was the university founded by Brigham Young. But I am not sure that as a university the goals of the University of Utah have remained 100 % true to its founder. You are welcome to base you faith on what you believe is eternal, but to me you view seems temporary and will likely change in a few years. The Traveler

Anyone can say they have faith. To me having faith is being faithful. To me repentance is a change of heart and mind. When one makes the claim that they have changed their heart and mind to coincide with G-d I believe that there are obvious behaviors that will validate their faith and repentance. Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them. I am most impressed in those that offer themselves as an example of the great transformation that faith and repentance can have on a fallen soul. I believe that those that seek and find true faith in G-d and alter their lives by divine repentance become like G-d. I believe that with true faith in G-d and divine repentance it is impossible to become like any other thing except G-d. The Traveler

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

In general it is my belief and understanding the the doctrine of the Blacks and the Priesthood is a doctrine that is not well understood. Perhaps the greatest missunderstanding comes from a time when Blacks could not be ordained to the Priesthood to now when they are ordained. For the most part there is speculation as to why this has happened. I am not going to imply that my speculations are more inspired that any of the speculations that have been given. However, though I do not know the reason why the change was not from the beginning of the restoration or sooner than it did happen I am greatful that it has taken place and feel that it is at least in part answer to my prayers. I do not feel it necessary to attempt to find someone or something to blaim. I find great wisdom in Pres. Hinkley's words of recommendation to turn from the past and catch a vision of the future. The Traveler

I was taught this as a child but I believe it is more tradition than necessary doctrine. I would advise you have a private discussion with your bishop to determine if this is personal preference or direction by authority. If it is personal preference I would advise you send an letter of gentle inquire to your stake president. If it still remains personal preference and not direction by authority then I suggest you send an other letter of geltle inquire to the brothern (apostles). I suggest you understand the direction you are given. If your biship or stake president indicate that the first presidency has clearified the issue they you can understand it to be doctrine. You may ask for the date of the letter from the brothern so when you teach the doctrine you have reference. I believe that should you find direction by authority of the brothern a little different from your bishop that you not be concerned - unless your bishop will not accept direction from authority on the matter. It is impossible to understand why your bishop made the request. The Traveler

One time on a long flight I sat next to a genetic scientist. Very interesting. I did ask a question: - In light of predators eliminating week individuals in a species to strengthen the population, what possible effects could social efforts to help handicap (mental and physical) have on the human population in the long term? He informed me that there had been a number of studies on this subject and that he had personally been involved in a government grant on this very subject. He also informed me that none of the findings would ever be published because of politics involved. Most of us religious types do not believe the human race will continue for another 100,000 years (end of the world). It might be interesting to consider how man’s social thinking would evolve over the next 100,000 if the second coming did not occur to straighten out the mess we are making even with our most humane efforts. The Traveler

Freud had a theory of why men became the hunter-gatherer and women became domestic. In his published theory he claimed that if the man were left to tend the fire he would pee on it. Based on my experience as a scout master – I think he was on to something. The Traveler

No one has tried punctuating the sentence? Is it: Woman, without her, man is nothing. Or is it: Woman, without her man, is nothing. Any it is interesting how personal bias can influence what someone thinks something should be. Here is another example of problems in translating ancient Hebrew: Because there were no printing presses anciently the scriptures had to be copied by hand. Sometimes this was done in a mass production manner (like the Dead Sea Scrolls). Here a priest would read the scriptures and scribes would listen and write. But sometimes there are two way to write what was read giving is slightly different meaning. Below is such an example from two possible listeners: “I can see for miles”. “I can see four miles”. The Traveler

Have not seen much of my wife this week – not much chance of a tiff. Just thought I would share some Bible insights with the forum. As a side note - ancient Hebrew did not have any punctuation that can cause misunderstanding. As an example punctuate the following to give the best understanding: “Woman without her man is nothing.” Here is another one. Ancient Hebrew often had no spaces between words so how should we understand the following? G-disnowhere. The Traveler