Noah's Flood

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

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

 

Beats me.  

[Overwatch]

 I wasn't aware Dallin Oaks talks about Homosexual marriages a lot.

[BJ64]

53 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah they co-existed.

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

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

 I wasn't aware Dallin Oaks talks about Homosexual marriages a lot.

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

[BJ64]

22 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Beats me.  

It was you who said he just pretty much shot down gay marriage. I assumed you meant recently. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by BJ64

[Overwatch]

5 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

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

Interesting. If that's true it wouldn't surprise me. I mean it is becoming embraced by the majority of the world, according to what we see on the news. Not sure how credible it is. As long as they don't evolve into Sodom and gahmorra Homosexuals I think I'll continue being friendly.

(Referring to when they came in a mob and  tried to bust down Lot's door to rape the messengers)

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

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

I'm not sure about the explanation given for Neanderthals. It's almost entirely conjecture.

[BJ64]

3 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

Interesting. If that's true it wouldn't surprise me. I mean it is becoming embraced by the majority of the world, according to what we see on the news. Not sure how credible it is. As long as they don't evolve into Sodom and gahmorra Homosexuals I think I'll continue being friendly.

(Referring to when they came in a mob and  tried to bust down Lot's door to rape the messengers)

In my mind apostles are predictable in what they are going to talk about. For example Elder Uchtdorf aviation, President Monson stories of visiting the sick etc., Elder Scott immortality, Elder Haight boyhood sports, President Benson the Book of Mormon, President Hinckley optimism and do a little better and so forth. With Elder Oaks it seems his law background  influences him in addressing legal issues such as gay marriage. 

[Sunday21]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

President Oaks just pretty much shot that down.

Can you please give a reference for this?

[Grunt]

6 hours ago, BJ64 said:

It was you who said he just pretty much shot down gay marriage. I assumed you meant recently. 

 

5 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Can you please give a reference for this?

Listen to his talk at the celebration last night.  He spoke of the lifting of priesthood restrictions.  He spoke of discrimination in and out of the church.  He cautioned us to not concern ourselves about what has not been revealed about the reasons behind it.  Then he said:

Quote

Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice, we should remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules in furtherance of the Lord’s requirement of worthiness to enter a temple. The Lord has declared that obedience to covenants and commandments is an essential requirement to enjoy sacred blessings. Any attempt to erase divine requirements for eternal life and eternal families would be like trying to establish Satan’s plan that “all would be saved.” We mortals already rejected Satan’s plan in our premortal lives. We chose the plan of our Heavenly Father, which provides the freedom to choose and keep the eternal covenants and commandments that apply equally to all. The equality of God is not equal outcomes for all, but equal opportunity for all.

1

I could be wrong, but given the location of that insertion and its context, it seems to be clearly saying "don't confuse this issue with the same-sex marriage issue."

[Lost Boy]

21 hours ago, Scott said:

30 pages and I'm still willing to bet (in a non-monetary manner of course!) that no one has changed their mind on the topic.   

I suspect no one has changed their mind, but I also suspect it has given a couple something to think about.

When I started this discussion, I figured there would be controversy....  But 30+ pages....  wow.

I really wanted to see what people thought on this topic...   There are definitely a lot of "thought" on the topic. 

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 12:02 AM, BJ64 said:

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

 

Not only have Neandertals existed with the equivalent of the modern genetic humans there are humans today that have Neandertal DNA to which the only explanation is that there was a Neandertal somewhere in their direct ancestry line.   

I believe that it is possible that there are questions that cannot be answered but I do not believe that there should ever be answers that cannot be questioned.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 10:01 AM, Lost Boy said:

I suspect no one has changed their mind, but I also suspect it has given a couple something to think about.

When I started this discussion, I figured there would be controversy....  But 30+ pages....  wow.

I really wanted to see what people thought on this topic...   There are definitely a lot of "thought" on the topic. 

 

Learning is the evidence of intelligence – and if someone does not change their mind – they are not learning.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:01 AM, Lost Boy said:

I really wanted to see what people thought on this topic...   There are definitely a lot of "thought" on the topic. 

Heh.  Yep.  At the end of the day, you might go to the temple and have a Young Earth Creationist on one side of you, and a carbon-dating aficionado fossil hunter on the other side.  

Best high school lesson I ever had was during a unit on anthropology.  She taught us all the different things different people think about the age of the earth, and why they think it.  She didn't really get behind one or the other.  The lesson week spanned October 23, given by Bishop Ussher in the 1600's as the first day of creation.  So she brought a cake, had the class nominate an Adam and an Eve, and we all sang happy birthday to the earth, with the evolution of man chart on one side, and the hominid skull progression on the other side. 

Dang.  If the rest of my high school experience had been that cool, I'd probably be a better person today. 

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Learning is the evidence of intelligence – and if someone does not change their mind – they are not learning.

 

The Traveler

Would it be more appropriate to say learning truth is the evidence of intelligence?  I know plenty that learn wrong things....  lots of wrong things and it is difficult to call them intelligent.

[Traveler]

37 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Would it be more appropriate to say learning truth is the evidence of intelligence?  I know plenty that learn wrong things....  lots of wrong things and it is difficult to call them intelligent.

 

Thank you for asking for clarification.  I am an engineer and scientist that works in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   Scientifically speaking – intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and modify behavior.  It is difficult to argue that an intelligent being will learn and continue harmful and unbeneficial behaviors – with the caveat of immediate gratification verses long term benefit.  In general, we assume that “higher” intelligence is necessary to see long term and global resolution when such seems to be in opposition to short term gravitation.  I have also insinuated that if one only discusses matters with those with whom they agree – they will never learn anything.  I am hard pressed to conclude higher or enlightened intelligence that limits the spectrum of possibilities without proving them false.  I believe it is Satan and not G-d that inspires the refuses to weigh and consider options.  In short that bad (evil) conclusions seldom come from poor logic as much as a refusal to consider some or specific pertinent data.

I have learned is that there is not much sense in arguing with someone that refuses to consider options more than when you cannot understand their assumptions are logic or they yours.  I could add that it is most difficult to deal with the opinion of those with which we cannot come to agreement as to the definition of simple explicit terms needed for meaningful discussion or those that refuse to deal with empirical evidence – in particular empirical evidence that does not support their narrative or basic assumptions.  I believe even G-d will employ empirical evidence when providing witness and that he provides many witnesses as testified in scripture.  There may be times we are expected to act in faith but I do not believe that G-d expects us to accept anything on faith that contradicts knowledge gained by empirical evidence.

 

The Traveler

[Lost Boy]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Thank you for asking for clarification.  I am an engineer and scientist that works in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   Scientifically speaking – intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and modify behavior.  It is difficult to argue that an intelligent being will learn and continue harmful and unbeneficial behaviors – with the caveat of immediate gratification verses long term benefit.  In general, we assume that “higher” intelligence is necessary to see long term and global resolution when such seems to be in opposition to short term gravitation.  I have also insinuated that if one only discusses matters with those with whom they agree – they will never learn anything.  I am hard pressed to conclude higher or enlightened intelligence that limits the spectrum of possibilities without proving them false.  I believe it is Satan and not G-d that inspires the refuses to weigh and consider options.  In short that bad (evil) conclusions seldom come from poor logic as much as a refusal to consider some or specific pertinent data.

I have learned is that there is not much sense in arguing with someone that refuses to consider options more than when you cannot understand their assumptions are logic or they yours.  I could add that it is most difficult to deal with the opinion of those with which we cannot come to agreement as to the definition of simple explicit terms needed for meaningful discussion or those that refuse to deal with empirical evidence – in particular empirical evidence that does not support their narrative or basic assumptions.  I believe even G-d will employ empirical evidence when providing witness and that he provides many witnesses as testified in scripture.  There may be times we are expected to act in faith but I do not believe that G-d expects us to accept anything on faith that contradicts knowledge gained by empirical evidence.

 

The Traveler

I did an internship at an industrial automation company called Daifuku.  That was over 25 years ago.   I am still in engineering, but mostly do automotive product design.

I agree with your take on intelligence.  The more I know, the more I know I know that I really don't know that much.  We find it so easy to just pass judgement by viewing something from one angle.  This is why I no longer associate with a political party.  I hate having others have a single point of view...  a point of view that is often incomplete.

[Traveler]

13 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I did an internship at an industrial automation company called Daifuku.  That was over 25 years ago.   I am still in engineering, but mostly do automotive product design.

I agree with your take on intelligence.  The more I know, the more I know I know that I really don't know that much.  We find it so easy to just pass judgement by viewing something from one angle.  This is why I no longer associate with a political party.  I hate having others have a single point of view...  a point of view that is often incomplete.

 

I agree so you will likely not learn much from me – it does seem to me that those that have come to conclusions in matters are what Jesus talked about as those that seeing, see not and hearing hear not.  I have learned that it is the process and not the conclusion that is important.  Unfortunately, many consider any attempt to discover their process as an attack on their character.   If I have a definition of a fool – it would be someone that refuses to explorer anything associated to their method or process used in coming to a conclusion.

 

The Traveler

 

PS. Daifuku is a major supplier of automated equipment – Mostly supply chain for automated material handling.   I have crossed paths with them on many occasions but most of those I worked with have retired or moved onto other companies.   They used to have an office for US work, in the international center near the Salt Lake airport that later moved to (I think) 7th East and about 45 South in SLC.  I am going to guess you worked as an intern out of one of those offices.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Learning is the evidence of intelligence – and if someone does not change their mind – they are not learning.

 

The Traveler

If a person is right then changing their mind would be stupid.

[Rob Osborn]

I have always been rather amused at how science goes about establishing answers to the unknown. The whole "caveman" deal is like the crown of scientific stupidity. Kind of embarrassed by it.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If a person is right then changing their mind would be stupid.

 

So, it would seem – except that pride is the great inverter of righteousness; so that the immoveable right (unyielding mind) become the greatest of all wrongs.  

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

So, it would seem – except that pride is the great inverter of righteousness; so that the immoveable right (unyielding mind) become the greatest of all wrongs.  

 

The Traveler

Is not accepting gay marriage the greatest of all wrongs?

Is accepting the Book of Mormon as a historical record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas the greatest of all wrongs?

Is accepting the flood as a truly global catastrophe the greatest of all wrongs?

This has nothing to do with pride but choosing the right path, sometimes in faith, and remaining unshaken in ones testimony.

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

.....This has nothing to do with pride   ....

You may be correct but I would not bet even something unimportant on this one - let alone anything that is important.

 

The Traveler

[Lost Boy]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I agree so you will likely not learn much from me – it does seem to me that those that have come to conclusions in matters are what Jesus talked about as those that seeing, see not and hearing hear not.  I have learned that it is the process and not the conclusion that is important.  Unfortunately, many consider any attempt to discover their process as an attack on their character.   If I have a definition of a fool – it would be someone that refuses to explorer anything associated to their method or process used in coming to a conclusion.

 

The Traveler

 

PS. Daifuku is a major supplier of automated equipment – Mostly supply chain for automated material handling.   I have crossed paths with them on many occasions but most of those I worked with have retired or moved onto other companies.   They used to have an office for US work, in the international center near the Salt Lake airport that later moved to (I think) 7th East and about 45 South in SLC.  I am going to guess you worked as an intern out of one of those offices.

I did my internship with them in Japan at their head office.  I was helping them with some automation software for their sales team to predict how much equipment a customer would need for warehouse automation.  Pretty interesting experience.

[Lost Boy]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have always been rather amused at how science goes about establishing answers to the unknown. The whole "caveman" deal is like the crown of scientific stupidity. Kind of embarrassed by it.

Establishing answers to the unknown is amusing?   OK.   I don't find it funny.  I do find it intellectually stimulating.   I find scientific research and study of the divine go hand in hand.  The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.   Scientific research is looking for light and truth as well.  I fully believe God expects us to search and discover how the Universe works.  To me it is divine. 

So what happens when science and the scriptures don't agree?  You pray for additional understanding.  And sometimes it comes right away and sometimes it takes a long time.  I have not got the understanding about the flood.  Science and the scriptures don't meet.  What is the truth about the flood?  I don't know, but I certainly haven't had confirmation that the bible account is true, but I haven't had confirmation that some kind of flood didn't occur either.  And maybe it isn't important to my salvation to know the answer.