bytebear

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/03/22/three-american-missionaries-injured-in-brussels-bombing-n2137818 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650629/3-LDS-missionaries-injured-in-Brussels-airport-explosion.html The injured missionaries are Elder Richard Norby, 66, of Lehi, Utah; Elder Joseph Dresden Empey, 20, of Santa Clara, Utah; and Elder Mason Wells, 19, of Sandy, Utah. The three men were taking Sister Fanny Rachel Clain, 20, of Montélimar, France, to the airport on her way to a mission assignment in Ohio, church spokesman Eric Hawkins said. Sister Clain had been serving in that mission while awaiting a permanent visa for the United States. Sister Clain already had passed through airport security when the explosions happened, killing at least 31 people and injuring more than 100. She was unhurt. Prayers to their families, and everyone affected by this horrible act.

I would disagree with your assessment of the right. It's Statism vs Federalism (i.e. Big government vs local government). The right is fine with government, as are libertarians who are not anarchists. But they want real representation and a say in how their tax dollars are spent, ideally at a local level. I..e no education spending or taxation outside the local school district, and no federal mandates or financial enticements or bailouts. The Constitution was a minimalist form of government. I also heard recently an interesting notion about Liberalism vs Conservatism when it comes to the Constitution. Conservatives want to conserve the purpose and intent of the Constitution. Liberals want to interpret and view the document liberally, allowing changes and modifications in the way the laws are enacted, interpreted and enforced. I have a very liberal friend who recently began his career as an attorney, and his whole ideology is how he can get around the law and win at all costs, regardless of whether his view was constitutionally sound. He is in his own little world, and literally thinks everyone must be just like him. He recently stated something like "Well, everyone thinks X is wrong." and I left him gobsmacked when I stated, "No, half the country thinks X is right." Left him literally speechless. But there is an old saying. Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats think Republicans are evil.

I recommend reading this to understand how authority was restored. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng The restoration of priesthood keys begins in verse 68. Also Chapter 2 here: https://www.lds.org/manual/our-heritage-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

And big states like California do need to be split up. And I would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed allowing for the appointment of the Senate and not the election of it. That would help so much with political corruption, and wasted time on elections.

Getting rid of the Electoral College would be a disaster. Imagine a close election like we had in Florida. But now, the margin of error is at a national level, and the recounts must be done nationally. Nope, the Electoral College stops the debates everywhere, and lets the delegates be localized to avoid such a mess.

I can't reconcile the notion that we had full knowledge or even any knowledge of our own final judgement. This goes against the fact that we have free will, both now and in our pre-existence. After all, if you knew you were going to get Celestial glory, why would you not want to follow Christ and not Satan? And if you knew you were going to go into Outer Darkness, why would you not just hang with Satan? Heck, even if you knew you were going to get Terrestrial glory, why would you not want to go for the plan that saves everyone?

I think you are onto a good start. Get to know their interests, and engage them in them. But keep up because kids shift quickly onto new and interesting things. If you show a real interest in their activities the rest will follow naturally.

Quesadillas are super easy, Just heat up a frying pan, put a tortilla down, and some shredded cheese, let it melt a bit, fold it over, flip it and get the crust nice and crispy, but not over burnt.

I think the bottom line is the physical benefits of alcohol consumption, even in moderation do not equal the spiritual benefits of abstinence.

I use an app called "Mr. Number". It can block numbers, forward straight to voice mail, or let you answer. If it knows it's spam, it will block it, but notify you. Then it has a popup which tells you what other people have written about the caller, and you can submit your own report which adds to their system. It works well. You only get so many blocks a month (and then they charge you to check a number), but that's more than enough and I have never paid to use the service.

Yes, but Kolob is represented in facsimile #2.

I tend to think the 1000 years is not a literal time period of 1000 years, but a time period of great length, and it simply means that the time reckoning of God is far greater than that of man. That God sees vast amounts of time as man sees a day. And that the organization of the Great Councils was done over a long period of time.

I think all of God's blessings are predicated on faith, obedience and purpose. We don't handle snakes just because, and we don't tempt God by doing so. One must have a purpose served by having the affliction healed. Sometimes not being healed is the will of God and serves a purpose we don't understand. Job certainly could have benefited from some healing.

I posted some stuff from Wikipedia. A couple LDS authors have gone the fully figurative route including Hugh Nibley. Not sure that anything has ever been said in any official way, one way of the other. As I said a lot of early church leaders were trying to find Kolob in the sky, and Bruce R McKonkie has some pretty interesting theories about how Earth was moved from Kolob to our sun at the fall. But I don't consider any of that doctrinal.

The issue I have with the notion that Kolob is physical is how Kolob is referred to constantly. NeedleinA said that he/she had never heard of the notion of Kolob being a representation of Christ. And I think this is common inside and outside the church. Here's what I see happen: "You think God lives on a planet Kolob" "No, God lives near a star called Kolob" "Ok, so God lives on a planet that revolves around Kolob" "I guess so" But this is speculative, and doesn't actually explain what Kolob is. And then you get more speculative beliefs like, Kolob is the star at the center of our galaxy, or that the Earth was created near God around Kolob and transported to our solar system. Or you could even try using astronomical methods to find the star. All of these things, by the way, were done and believed by past church leaders. It leads to the notion of creating the Tower of Babel to reach God. It entirely misses the point. And it is so universally believed that very few even know of the correlation to Christ, let alone attempt to explain it to others. So my scenario is this: "You think God lives on a planet Kolob" "No, the star Kolob is the first creation, nearest to God" "What does that mean?" "It's a representation of Christ, the Firstborn of God and the one who stands at the right hand of God" "Oh, so Kolob is a symbol more than a literal thing?" "That's how I see it"

Now I could go a step further and note that Genesis gives to creation accounts, chapter 1 and chapter 2. Some have interpreted this to be a spiritual creation account and a physical creation account. So, perhaps the first paragraph above is an account of the organization of spirits, the forming from "stars" into spirit bodies. Maybe stars are symbolic of the spirit matter before it is formed. And the second account is the organization of the spirit persons into the councils. This is of course speculation. But in this case, then the unorganized matter that made Jesus Christ was called Kolob. So, perhaps there was a literal star, but it became Christ.

And I have said over and over, my basis and reasoning. Let me try again, and I am stealing from James Ferrell via Wikipedia. After intervening passages that discuss how some souls are greater than others, just as some stars are greater than others, the theme is repeated in reference to Jesus: 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good... 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God .... So, to add to this, if you look at the first paragraph, I believe it is a literal event description. This is what God told Abraham. The second verse is Abraham speaking, and I believe repeating what God told him above but giving more of his own interpretation. In other words, God used the term Kolob in his teaching, but Abraham "translates" the meaning. So, both paragraphs are saying the exact same thing, just using different terms and symbols. So, I see no reason to believe that Kolob is in any way to mean a literal planet in the proximity of God. Now, having said that for the umpteenth time, are you still "simply wondering why you claim that and on what you base that judgment" or do I have to keep repeating myself.

And even though Venus is a real planet, that doesn't mean when Jesus said "I am the Morning star" he meant that he was Venus the literal planet or that when the morning stars sang for joy, that it meant that Venus literally broke out in song. But he was using it symbolically. And I still cannot find any rectification of the notion that a star can govern other stars. Perhaps it's a reference to planets circling a star, but even still, it's simply using symbolism to describe Jesus Christ and the organization of the Premortal councils.

Let me put it this way, I don't believe when the scriptures talk of a nearness to God, it is referring to a physical location, but to a spiritual similarity. Kolob is nearest God in progression, not proximity.

So, perhaps if I rephrase my original statement it will make it more palatable to everyone,. I think it's pretty obvious that Kolob is a representation of Jesus Christ and the notion that it is a literal star is debatable. Now to answer your questions. 1. Yes, as much as the Morning Star is used to describe Jesus Christ. This is taught in student manuals, so is authoritative as in someone else in the church thought this up before me. 2. There is no literal star called Kolob just as there is no literal Morning Star. I know of no star that can govern lesser stars, and I know of no reason why God would choose to single out a star because of it's proximity to Him. The "nearness" of the star to God is not physical proximity, but of spiritual similarity. This is interpretation, but as I said, the early church leaders certainly went with the physical interpretation, but they also shifted between star and planet, and of course, we know they also had speculation about the inhabitants of the moon and the sun. Joseph Smith did say "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." which again points to me to a representation of Christ, the first born, and nearest spiritual nature of God. Apparently Hugh Nibley and a few others have also gone with this theory as well. I don't consider my view particularly earth shattering, but it seems to be upsetting quite a few people.

"Instead of taking offense at something that was neither meant offensively nor intrinsically offensive, you might do better to ask if your perception is correct. In this case, you would have found out it was not." See, this is the condescension I am talking about. You assume that your responses will just convince me that what I perceive is wrong. Nope. Sorry. I still believe what I believe. And, in fact, in reviewing the topic through this thread, I am more convinced than ever that my perception is, in fact, correct. Perhaps, if you had considered other interpretations, you might have gained some insight, but you are too wrapped up in proving me wrong.

"I want to ask, "How is this obvious?", but I'm not sure you can really answer such a question" Condescension at it's finest. I find your responses boorish, and you have no interest in actually understanding my position, so why bother. No answer will satisfy you.

No, I think names are important, but to go into why God gives the star nearest him an name goes into speculative belief. I can give you my ideas, but considering the reaction of just saying that Kolob is not a literal star, I'm not sure you really want to hear it.

Another Bingo! We need to focus on the interpretation and symbolism, and stop speculating on the literal.

Another Bingo! We need to focus on the interpretation and symbolism, and stop speculating on the literal.