Traveler

I suppose we have indirect evidence for a candidate for Joseph's fine matter, dark matter.
Speculation is fun sometimes

Scientist (especially mathematicians) has realized that there are serious problems with the Big Bang theory.  The religious community, in general, has been overjoyed with the problems but in not understanding the complexities of the problems had made complete fools of themselves trying to take ridiculous advantage of the perceived problems.  The problems in essence surround what we call initial parameters or preconceived conditions.
 
At the offset of the Big Bang theory it was thought that our universe is contained in a region that is described as one dimensional space time – which is also described as a singularity. This idea of singularity or one dimensional space time was given more credence with the discovery of Black Holes.  Black Holes in essence being various pockets of single dimension or singularity.  A noted and popular astrophysicist, Carl Sagan, concocted an idea for a novel that all points of singularity are the same time space, one dimensional singularity, in order to theatrically justify what has become known as worm holes.  There are other ways to justify worm holes but for some reason this idea got legs and has become the popular notion.
 
Carl Sagan’s theory of worm holes also presented a partial solution to the parameters conundrum of the Big Bang theory.  That is that the singularity that was the initial condition of the Big Bang theory could act as a conduit for our current universe to have come, not from the singularity but from the collapse of some other universe through the singularity to us.  We have since discovered that mathematically it works out really nifty for an eleven dimensional universe to collapse through a singularity to our universe.  But there are still missing pieces to the puzzle.
 
Two other classifications of Big Bang theories have also gotten traction.  One class is called the “Brane” theories.  This is the idea of multiple Big Bangs taking places as various (infinite) universes encounter each other – trading substances.  And the other is best described as the quantum anomaly Big Bang.  This is in essence an extension of quantum weirdness running off the deep end from the micro scale of particle physics to the macro scale of universe astrophysics.
 
It is this quantum anomaly theory that assumes the Big Bang came from nothing.  There are two problems for ex nihilo religious argument jumping on this band wagon.  First, the nothing of ex nihilo and the nothingness of “empty” dimensional space time are not even close to the same thing.  The other problem is very difficult to explain in layman terms but in essence deals with anti particles, anti energy and other “things” (like the Higgs Field) that have various effects on what we think of as stable space time and elements of matter.  None of which lends itself to well to the traditional religious concept of a “creator” of something wonderful and stable without some sort of pre-existing stuff.

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said.  "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.”
 
Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading.  I believe the proper question would be just.  If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice.  Prejudice is not justice.  We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. 
 
One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are.  In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great.  I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor.  But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong.  If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have.  Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish.
 
What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give.  I believe this is a sad fact of life.  Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more.  We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

We are told that we enter this live with a veil of forgetfulness over our minds.  Many religions do not believe we have any memories but for LDS, the concept is we came to this life having forgotten all.  It is necessary that we forget for this experience to be complete.  Why? – that is part of what is forgotten.  However we are told we exercised agency to come to earth and we will exercise agency to determine our next life.  One reason I have speculated that we have forgotten all is for the same reason for the child game of pin the tail on the donkey.  So we have an excuse for pinning the tail where it does not belong.  Likewise we have excuse for our sins to make repentance possible.  We cannot repent of something we do deliberately with no regret.
 
The assumption that we do not know things here in our mortal life because we never knew them; is an assumption based in the false teaching of the Great Apostasy that this life is the beginning of your choices.  Thus it is we chose to make mistakes while blindfolded – however, it also appears to me that by our agency we chose previously the mistakes we would make – all is according to our own plan.  If it is not according to our plan how can we claim agency?  If we only act out G-d’s plan then the agency is his not ours.
 
There is one final way to consider this – this is through the lens of covenant.   We came to earth because me made a covenant with G-d.  What is that covenant we made with G-d?  Perhaps before we answer that question we should ask the question – What is a covenant?  And how does agency apply to covenant?

The point is not that there are not horrible things in the foster care system. The point is whether it's better or worse than putting them in a homosexual home. I'm not saying I would support the "wins every time" idea. But I would say that "wins almost every time" is potentially valid. Of course, that's a hard thing to say because each situation is different.
 
But as a general rule, the real damage to how children are raised is the potential damage to their souls. With foster kids that is an unknown. Sure. There's the likelihood that they will be raised in ways that will be damaging to their souls therein. But with homosexual homes, the potential that there will be damage to their souls is significantly higher, to my thinking.
 
So, yes, perhaps said too strongly, but overall, I tend to agree.
 
As a related thought: Is it better for a child to be raised in a third world, but Christian and moral society, or a first world, but corrupt and immoral society?

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said.  "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.”
 
Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading.  I believe the proper question would be just.  If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice.  Prejudice is not justice.  We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. 
 
One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are.  In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great.  I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor.  But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong.  If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have.  Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish.
 
What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give.  I believe this is a sad fact of life.  Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more.  We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

It is the nature of who and what we are.  Men an women are different and the marriage (covenant sacrifice of self and the coming together for the greater good) of that specific difference brings about a whole that is far greater than the sum of the parts.  --- This includes the accomplishment of good as well as the resistance of evil.  Thus involvement in a dedication to the covenant of marriage (not just one's individual marriage - but marriage as a divine institution for all seeking truth and right) is not an arbitrary requirement but a necessity in bringing about a divine destiny. 

What greater righteousness is there than creating living beings, children, capable of eternal righteousness in the image of G-d inside of the covenant of marriage which is ordained by G-d himself?  Even with G-d this creation of human life is considered his greatest triumph in righteousness.

in such cases we call it the lessor of 2 evils.  The operative word is evil.  But we should never accept the argument that sexually abusing children is equal to all other possibilities that saves children from being eaten by crocodiles. We should be able to make preferences based on benefits and values. 
 
For these reason I do not mind so much that some may want a same sex marriage - my objection is the argument that such a marriage should be considered equal to a marriage between a man and a women.  Not so much because they ought to have equal rights - just that we have so devalued marriage and children so much that modern society can no longer see the benefit of lasting biological families.

in such cases we call it the lessor of 2 evils.  The operative word is evil.  But we should never accept the argument that sexually abusing children is equal to all other possibilities that saves children from being eaten by crocodiles. We should be able to make preferences based on benefits and values. 
 
For these reason I do not mind so much that some may want a same sex marriage - my objection is the argument that such a marriage should be considered equal to a marriage between a man and a women.  Not so much because they ought to have equal rights - just that we have so devalued marriage and children so much that modern society can no longer see the benefit of lasting biological families.

If we use the argument that something is okay because it is better than something else we can justify almost anything.  For example since sexually abusing children is better than feeding children to crocodiles there is nothing wrong with sexually abusing children?  Just because gay parents may teach and raise their children better than some biological parents does not mean children suddenly lose their rights to be associated with their biological parents.
 
If all things are equal - I see no reason for children to be removed from a heterosexual family.  Since children come from a heterosexual conditions - I believe those favoring changing that condition should and must be able to give reason - that  non heterosexual conditions are better both for the children and society. - not better than something we know is worse.  The preference must be and always should be for the benefit of the children and not so homosexual couples can feel or claim equality which in creating conditions for children to be - is a ridiculous fabrication and absolute nonsense.

If we use the argument that something is okay because it is better than something else we can justify almost anything.  For example since sexually abusing children is better than feeding children to crocodiles there is nothing wrong with sexually abusing children?  Just because gay parents may teach and raise their children better than some biological parents does not mean children suddenly lose their rights to be associated with their biological parents.
 
If all things are equal - I see no reason for children to be removed from a heterosexual family.  Since children come from a heterosexual conditions - I believe those favoring changing that condition should and must be able to give reason - that  non heterosexual conditions are better both for the children and society. - not better than something we know is worse.  The preference must be and always should be for the benefit of the children and not so homosexual couples can feel or claim equality which in creating conditions for children to be - is a ridiculous fabrication and absolute nonsense.

I can only answer for myself.  It is personal and my individual effort while on the internet (not on all my writing) to keep sacred my references to G-d.  Also from time to time I will receive input from individual (usually not from an English speaking country) trying to get religious information from "Christians".  They thank me because they are not able to copy any text that spells out G-d.
 
Thanks for asking and not assuming.

If I were not LDS I would almost certainly be atheist, or possibly agnostic. The LDS church is what has helped me find faith in God in the first place.

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said.  "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.”
 
Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading.  I believe the proper question would be just.  If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice.  Prejudice is not justice.  We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. 
 
One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are.  In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great.  I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor.  But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong.  If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have.  Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish.
 
What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give.  I believe this is a sad fact of life.  Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more.  We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said.  "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.”
 
Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading.  I believe the proper question would be just.  If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice.  Prejudice is not justice.  We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. 
 
One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are.  In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great.  I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor.  But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong.  If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have.  Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish.
 
What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give.  I believe this is a sad fact of life.  Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more.  We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

Go a head and say a prayer and include something like "And please bless our neighbors with a stronger spriit so they will not fell it necessary to have a prayer so many times."

Actually there has been unambiguous and irrefutable scientific evidence that in humans any cognitive behaviors can be learned (changed, programmed or acquired) - by the likes of Pavlov, Skinner and the notorious Nazi, Joseph Goebbles.  We see portions of such techniques of this on a contracted scale almost daily with what is called "peer pressure".
 
I would also point out that it is a tenet of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ that we can "forsake" our sins and even our inclinations to sin through faith in the L-rd Jesus Christ, Repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.  I personally know of at least one individual that was caught in the temptations of Homosexuality that did change and was able to overcome the temptations via the method I have outlined.  The argument is put forth is that he was never really Homosexual in the first place.  I am not inclined to believe that disclaimer.  I knew him and his struggles before when he could not resist the temptations and I knew him many years later when such temptations were no longer temptations.
 
Rhetorical logic says that one counter example disproves a definitive statement.  Thus it is scientific that it is not impossible for an individual to turn from homosexuality.   And when we speak of addictions or habits that would seem impossible to break - the express reason for failure many be different and varied.  But what is contrary to scientific inquire is the implication that cognitive human behaviors cannot be changed.  And if homosexuality in humans is not a cognitive behavior how is it that the individual making such claim does so with out the cognitive realization of the difference between the male and female?

My point is that when early Christianity transitioned from being punishing for their religious thinking by those in positions of power; that they followed the same spirit of apostasy and abuse of power by punishing by law religious thinking with which they did not agree. 
 
The point I am making is that the destructive forces towards divine enlightenment and revelation (also including technological advances) that were so prevalent during the "Dark Ages" were only because the institutions of Traditional Christianity were bringing such "darkness" about in their apostate state.
 
I am also making the point that as Traditional Christianity began to lose power and control in dictating law that then and only then was religious freedom allowed to become a protected right by the force of law. 
 
I asked the question to help guide those who are interested in determining truth by historical empirical evidence and then I made a preemptive statement intended to dismantle arguments based only in bias by those that - have eyes to see but will not see.

Shakespeare said something along the line "Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems only that thinking makes it so."
 
 
However from my own experience - growing up in the 50's and 60's - the times have changed:
 
Much more divorce
Children being raised by single parents - mostly women (much less physical discipline).
Poverty has moved from scattered isolated rural areas to centralized in the inner city
Dependencies (especially on Government programs)
LDS Church membership - from less than 2 million to over 15 million  -  and the membership is much more diverse
More access to information and data - and an increase in ignorance. 
More $$$$ spent on entertainment.
moral blurring of male and female roles
diminishing middle class
much more regulation.
Value of children has moved from assets to liabilities - result is significantly fewer children per house hold.
diminished social value of teachers
diminished social value of outdoor skills especially for youth and increase (dependency) in gadget skills.
Dating culture and education for youth - LDS stake dances.  (a highlight of my youth was going to stake dances while on vacation and away from home)
 
And this last observation concerns me the most - social disrespect for moral standards and social disrespect of intelligence (in particular the degrading use of the term "nerd")

The references to dual beings are symbolic.  We are unique individuals that by agency are singularly responsible for our choices.  The reference to duality is symbolic in reference to those forces (good and evil) that influence our singular being.  Please note that all evil influences come to us by an evil spirit being that is limited physically and can only communicate directly with us spiritually. 

Traveler, I'd say your list is only the start of a much, much longer list. :)

Just for pondering as we discuss - from The Family -- A Proclamation to the World:
 
"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

For me it is a matter of control.  If the power, control, reach and decisions of a program is in the hands of a centralized minority - that is socialism, liberalism and left wing.  If the control, power, decisions and reach of a program is distributed to localized communities - then it is considered democratic or (republic) conservatism.
 
Historically decentralizing power, control and decision making was liberal and keeping the power in the hands of a ruling minority was conservative. 
 
My personal belief is that when a minority has power over other to make and force decisions - is good only as long as that powerful minority is good and keeps the needs of all more important than their individual pleasure.  The problem is voiced for me in the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants verse 39.
 
 
For me it is part of why I am LDS - I believe individuals should have say, investment and responsibility for their lives and their needs.  And when an individual, family or community is overwhelmed and in need it is the freedom and responsibility of other individuals, families and communities to determine their charity towards those in need.  It is also my observation that whenever individuals come between the help offered from one to others that those in between come to believe they deserve some for themselves (often even the greater part) - regardless of the need of others and what is available to assist. 

I will add an additional thought - What ever truth I can find - wherever I can find it - it is my mission and purpose to make it my own.  If I could find a way, a church, a priesthood, covenants, a people and a society more dedicated to truth and embracing truth as an continuing (eternal) construct more than the LDS - I would embrace it in a heart beat.  I am LDS because I have searched and continue to search and have found nothing so open and dedicated to truth and bringing and allowing all to embrace the principles of truth as well (some individual excepted - as always).