puf_the_majic_dragon

"Olea is also an occasionally used Norwegian and Danish girl's name and is said to be an Old Hebrew word for night or moon." Source: http://nameberry.com/babyname/Olea (Note that Strong's concordance has "moon" being listed as H3394 yareach yaw-ray'-akh. The pronunciation isn't terribly different, they could be cognates.) Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olea BINGO.

So I'm going to part with Vort here and go with the entirely metaphorical interpretation of Abraham 3. Metaphors are a way of conveying a new or unfamiliar idea by comparing it to something familiar. Back in the day, everyone was familiar with the stars, especially in the middle east. Abraham would have been no exception. The idea that stars differed in brightness and their relative motion would have been very familiar to Abraham. Using Abraham's existing knowledge of the night sky as a metaphor for explaining the order of spirits and their progression in eternity makes a ton of sense the same way that President Uchtdorf's airplane stories make sense to us. While we can debate for the rest of our lives about the relevance of Abraham 3 to actual astronomy, I think such a pursuit is ultimately useless. (Can you even place an omnipotent being that exists outside of time into any physical place in this universe?) I think we can benefit the most from it when used in (what I believe is) its original intended meaning: a metaphor for Christ and the order of spirits. Worth noting, the Hebrew word for star is "Ko-Chav" (ch being a hard H like a cough and often rendered as a K), and the associated plural would be "Ko-Chav-im". Kokob and kokaubeam are (may be) simply different romanizations of real Hebrew words. Time can account for variations in pronunciation that may lead to difference in spelling. (If you're reading Macbeth, you might keep in mind that 400 years ago "heath" rhymed with Beth.) (I'll also note that the usage of the word "time" in this chapter doesn't necessarily refer to the ticking of a clock or the duration of a day, but can also refer to the motion of the planets through the heavens - astrology, more or less. A reference to the time of the month or year when certain stars and constellations and planets appear in certain places in the sky. This interpretation would mean that Kolob would arrive at the same position in our sky once every 1000 years. The motion of such a star would be almost entirely imperceptible to humans on Earth, appearing to hold a fixed point in the sky.) (As for Joseph Smith being an uneducated upstate farmboy, by the time He translated the book of Abraham, he was vastly more educated than at the time he translated the Book of Mormon. By the end of his life he was reading the Bible in German and other languages and was well-versed in Hebrew and Greek. We tend to talk about this ignorant rural farmboy a lot, but it is important - I dare say even essential that we understand that he did not stay uneducated.) (Edit: I should add that I think Vort's analysis is quite thorough and I agree with quite a lot of it.) As for the remaining question about the order of operations - did God give birth to a complete and finite set of spirit children before laying out the plan of salvation? The answer to that is, I think, rather plainly given in the temple endowment. To summarize: there have been other worlds with other populations and other Edens and other creations. We can read the scripture in Moses 1:38 "and there is no end to my works, neither to my words" to refer not only to space but also to time - meaning that there will yet be other worlds and other populations and other creations. Considering that we are talking about a being for which time simply does not exist, to try and put all of this pre-creation hypothesis into some kind of chronological order is a bit of a non sequitur. But I might venture to describe it thus: Heavenly Father gathered a group of His spirit children, had a council, laid out the Plan of Salvation which, when agreed to and the war over, was then put into motion with the first spiritual then physical creation of the world. So a hypothetical, non-doctrinal, totally unrelated to any kind of importance to our temporal or spiritual salvation chronology might look like this: HF has spirit offspring HF gathers a subset of said offspring to counsel on the creation of this world for them to dwell (note: it is possible to have an infinite subset of an infinity. Whether the selection of spirit children assigned to this creation is finite or infinite is a matter of pure speculation). Council in Heaven War in Heaven Spiritual creation Physical creation This conversation The question I want answered is "Does a resurrected being with a physical body give birth to non-physical spirit offspring?" Chew on that one for a while, if you're looking for some gristle in the Gospel

Oh look at that, double posting forums again

It looks like my response got lost with the recent forum changes. But since I consider this a very important topic I'll try to summarize it here. First, this talk and this New Era article should be required reading: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/the-lords-people-receive-revelation?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/how-to-get-personal-revelation?lang=eng A quote from one of them: "Because he operates on principles of eternal, universal, and never-deviating law, any individual who abides the law that entitles him to get revelation can know exactly and precisely what President Kimball knows, can entertain angels just as well as Joseph Smith entertained them, and can be in tune in full measure with all of the things of the Spirit." And another quote: "Now I say that we are entitled to revelation. I say that every member of the Church, independent and irrespective of any position that he may hold, is entitled to get revelation from the Holy Ghost; he is entitled to entertain angels; he is entitled to view the visions of eternity; and if we would like to go the full measure, he is entitled to see God the same way that any prophet in literal and actual reality has seen the face of Deity." And my two bits: If you are not entertaining angels and visions of eternity, it is more likely you and not God that is preventing you from having that experience. By this I mean something akin to "It's not that I believe that God can't show me these visions, but I believe He won't because I'm not good enough." And we tend to have a list of excuses: I'm not worthy because of XYZ sin or discretion I'm not spiritual enough There's no purpose or reason for me to have this experience (i.e. it's not expedient ) It's not the Lord's time for me to have this experience Just because the Lord promises it doesn't mean it will happen in this life As long as those reasons come from us and not from the Spirit, we are holding ourselves back and limiting the influence of God in our lives. All that is really required of us to have the grand visions and visitations and to see the face of God is repentance. The formula is clearly laid out in those links I shared. As TFP pointed out - this lack of faith in ourselves circles back to a lack of faith in God: God has clearly and repeatedly promised us these blessings. If we don't believe that we can receive them, then we are disbelieving the God's promises and the Atonement which enables us to receive them. There, I hope that answers the OP's question though I think the way I'd put it the first time was probably better worded....

EXACTLY. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918 That's... not at all related to my point. Or any point. It's almost like you're suggesting that war is a good thing. And that's the problem. That there is a segment in American society that thinks that 10,000 women and children riding in train cars into Texas is a defense issue. What are you afraid of? That a couple thousand 12 year old Guatemalans are going to invade Dallas and cede from the Union? Why does the nation need defending from a bunch of hungry children? Answer: because there's no profit in feeding them. And Americans would rather let them starve than (God forbid!) give them food. And God's law is....? Oh, right, thou shalt treat the stranger as one born among you. Breathe easy, because God didn't command us to take care of the poor. Nope. God never did that. So relax! Oh, and 12 out of the top 20 richest people in the world, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are democrats. And 36% of people with an annual income over $200,000 are democrats. That's a lot of people volunteering to be taxed. The OP asked what the doctrine on immigration was. The doctrine is clear - "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself..." Note the imperative verb in that sentence. That is language God uses when He means business. We could debate all day about the appropriate ways to manage and regulate immigration. There might even be some good that could come of that debate. We could argue for hours about legal immigration vs illegal immigration. But this I promise you - every single person talking about deportation is guilty of the same sin Ezekiel preached so adamantly against. The doctrine is clear.

Just a few of the well known examples. Bruce R McConkie Neal A Maxwell James E Talmage Doctrine and Covenants 93:36The glory of God is intelligence...

What Do Kisses Mean?

So I had dinner with the missionaries a couple months ago and they asked me the same question, more or less. Why do we need to be sealed? After thinking about it, and then saying a little prayer, the answer I got was "because we are all one". Now, this might get a little mystical and buddhist for some people, but getting sealed (and most Priesthood ordinances, for that matter) involves a lot more than making a note on a piece of paper that X happened. There is energy and spirit in motion. Real physical (spiritual) bonds are formed (Joseph Smith called it welding). The impression I got was that we are all like the Avatar in The Last Airbender - unique individuals, but tied to our ancestors and our descendants in a way that makes us literally "one". I probably didn't explain that very well, not sure that it's something that can really be explained. Probably why I got it via metaphor.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars/ SO EXCITED!!!!!

#BraveNewWorld

Citizenship: The idea that a person's right to seek job security, health care, housing, or political participation are dependent solely on the place of that person's birth, rather than on the place where they currently reside or their activity in the local community. Illegal immigration: The idea that birds need a visa and a passport to fly south for the winter. The idea that an entire class of people are criminals based on how they cross an imaginary line. Notes on ancient Israel: They were invaders violently evicting the current residents. They were far more than illegal immigrants, they were warmongers. Borders were completely open except for armies. Trade and immigration were almost entirely unregulated. Notes on ancient Lehites: They were immigrants from Jerusalem to the Americas. They were undocumented. Other indigenous peoples already lived here. We do not know if they were unwelcome. Their borders were essentially open except for armies. The Lord's actual words regarding immigrants: Exodus 12:49 Exodus 22:21-22 Leviticus 24:22 Leviticus 25:35-38 Jeremiah 22:3 Ezekiel 22:29 Matthew 25:35 Luke 10:36-37 Galatians 3:28 Galatians 5:14 Hebrews 13:2 3 John 1:5 (Summary: God sees no difference between you and an immigrant. Period. God is no respecter of persons, NOR of a person's origin. Period.) It's important to point out that we teach all investigators to "obey, honor, and sustain the law" and to "follow the law of the land". And the church allows illegal immigrants to get baptized. And finally, on the note of legality vs illegality - those are man's laws, not God's. The Saints are not required to silently subject themselves to unjust laws. Most people who talk about illegal immigration don't actually have a clue what America's immigration laws actually say, much less whether they are just or not. I'm also going to point out that most of the people complaining about illegal immigration are the same people who are complaining about government over-regulation. The hypocrisy, and all the ways that it is rationalized, is suffocating.

These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus. I'm as guilty as the next man. I suppose the question really is "How much slacking does the Atonement make up for?" Which, I think for obvious reasons, is a really bad question to ask. For my part, I have learned that what I think is my best, and what actually is my best given the circumstances are not always the same. I tend to overestimate what I'm capable of, then under-perform when put to the test. Reasons why there's a difference? I don't adequately compensate for my ADHD, so I assume I'm going to be able to focus when I plan my day at work, then I'm completely unable to focus when I get there.I'm not very good at estimating how long a task will take.I tend to ignore reminders in order to complete a task I'm currently working on (then forget about the reminder task - see ADHD above)Task priorities change, causing me to switch gears mid-task and leave many tasks half-finished.So the real trick, perhaps, is learning how to accurately judge what our "Best" really is.

That's what I tried to say in my first post on this thread - but rewording apparently helps communication. I think we're on a roll! THIS is how we "solve" the "problem" of "Utah Mormons".

Fact: Mormons exist who are rude, inconsiderate, judgmental, holier-than-thou, hypocritical, etc. etc. etc. Let's call them "Superficial Mormons". Fact: ALL Mormons are rude, inconsiderate, judgmental, holier-than-thou, hypocritical, etc. etc. etc. AKA Superficial Mormons at some point. Fact: Nobody's perfect. Except Jesus, and I'm pretty sure He isn't commenting on this thread personally. He's probably got better things to do. Now maybe a lot of us who don't live in Utah feel that there are a disproportionate number of "Superficial Mormons" in Utah, hence the term "Utah Mormon". Personally, I think that's most likely a sample bias (in spite of my numerous sardonic rants about "Utah Mormons" among my friends). In short, it exists because people are imperfect. Mormons are imperfect at being Mormon, even in Utah. Mormons visiting Utah are imperfect at judging Mormons in Utah. Even the worst, most superficial hypocritical Mormon I've ever met still had their spiritual strengths. So if you're going to judge a Utah Mormon for being superficial, don't forget to also judge them for all that they get right.

You two are worse than me and TFP.

Actually, what you're referring to is called "Affirming the consequent".

It was not a non-sequitur. It was an ad-hominem. You're a Utah Mormon. Thanks so much for that long-winded demonstration of what a Utah Mormon looks like. The guilty taketh the truth to be hard. You're ranunculus. Did you not see my references to Corinthians? I'm all for judging. Judging is good. In fact, judging is absolutely necessary to our salvation and exaltation. So by all means, judge the heck out of me. Just be warned that with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

Years ago, my mother used to say to me, she'd say "In this world, Elwood, you must be..." she always called me Elwood... "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.

Mark this day on your calendars! TFP and I agreed on something! Yes, my dad was off the mark. IMO, I think most complaints about political correctness are somewhat off the mark - usually at least as extreme as the political correctness itself. Clearly you and I interpret that scripture VERY differently. But I'm glad you used the word "technically", because I LOVE getting technical! God did command Israel to not eat food sacrificed to idols. Paul is saying that whether you eat it or not has absolutely no spiritual impact at all whatsoever (or about as much spiritual efficacy as the Law of Moses). But if your Israelite neighbor sees you doing it, it could cause problems and he might lose his testimony, so you probably shouldn't eat food sacrificed to idols. In fact, you probably shouldn't do anything that might cause a crisis of faith for someone else.

Hmm. Maybe this is the problem. Perhaps we ought to stop judging wards and instead consider how we can serve and love them. No. Which characteristics to you use to qualify someone as a Utah Mormon then? I'm really thinking that for the health and wellbeing of everyone on these forums, you and I might consider refraining from responding to each other's posts.... 1. In order to consider how one might serve a ward, one must first make a judgment about that ward and its needs. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 2. Your denial does not negate the veracity of my claim. In fact, it reinforces it. 3. Too often non-Mormons here in Utah have been offended and alienated by some of our members who will not allow their children to be friends with children of other faiths. "Utah Mormon" is a derogatory term used to describe an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is snobbish, cliquish, holier-than-thou, hypocritical, or any number of other sins of holy vanity. While it's almost certain that the term developed because these traits were especially common among members of the church living in Utah, not all members of the church living in Utah exhibit these traits nor are these traits exclusive to members of the church living in Utah.

I'm not aware of any specific reference to the higher priesthood in the Book of Mormon. However, we do know that Lehi performed burnt offerings and Lehi was not a Levite nor a direct descendant of Aaron. We can infer, therefore, that Lehi held the higher priesthood in order to perform burnt offerings. As to his line of authority, he either received it from another prophet in Jerusalem before leaving (i.e. Jeremiah) or directly from God in the course of his early visions. Tangent: Inca and Aztec calendars even compensated for leap year. Though I agree, I wouldn't be surprised or bothered if we were to learn that Book of Mormon chronology had a few errors. OMG SOMEBODY SAID IT!!!! Scripture is only authoritative as it comes unchanged from an authoritative source (the Priesthood) accompanied by personal revelation to the hearer/reader. I remember having a conversation once about why we (historically) send men off to war and not women. One of the responses I got was that "It only takes one rooster in a hen house". We know that the righteous Nephites did not practice polygamy, but the unrighteous dissenters (i.e. Noah et al and Lamanites et al) did. It would take a very lopsided gender ratio, and a lot of late nights, but I do think it's possible that Noah's priests' descendants could have caught up with the Nephite population in 3 generations. (Mathematically, if there were a dozen priests, and each had 6 kids, and each of them had 6 kids, and each of them had 6 kids - that last generation would be nearly 2600 people. If 3 generations of descendants are all alive at the same time, then there's over 3000 people. 12 priests with 2 wives each could easily produce more than 6 kids each...)

One of the ways I judge a ward is by how welcoming they are. Every time I visit a new ward, I keep a special watch on who and how many and when people make an effort to introduce themselves and welcome me. The reception varies from ward to ward; I've had some that were just big huggable teddy bear wards and I've been to others where I felt completely invisible. I think this plays directly into the "Utah Mormon" stereotype, and if we're all honest about it, there really is such a thing as the cliche "Utah Mormon" - but they aren't all in Utah, and not every Mormon in Utah is a "Utah Mormon". Why the moniker still says "Utah" - well, my personal experience suggests that there are more "Utah Mormons" per capita in Utah than elsewhere, but that might be just because there are more Mormons in Utah in general.

As with anything related to politics, there is more than one point of view about "political correctness". To someone who endorses politically correct language and actions, they see it as extending courtesy and avoiding unnecessary offense. To use TFP's waitress reference, calling someone a waitress who you know would be offended by it is rude - but what if you don't know? Do you call her a "waitress" and risk offending her? Or do you play it safe and call her a "server" knowing that is less likely to offend anyone? To someone opposed to political correctness, calling someone a waitress shouldn't be offensive in the first place, and trying to avoid offending people gets carried to unreasonable extremes. There's also the sense that extreme political correctness infringes on basic personal rights or liberties, or that political correctness imposed rather than voluntary. There is truth in both views. There is also a growing counter-culture that is encouraging people to "be yourself" and "don't care who you offend". This is sending the message that being offensive is OK or even desirable. "You shouldn't change yourself to please others." Which is, frankly, a pernicious and false doctrine. (We should change to please God, and we're instructed to not compromise our morals or principles to please "the world". Satan's corrupted this truth into avoidance of any kind of personal censorship.) The Savior summarized the doctrine of the matter in Matthew 18:7 "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" My exegesis of this is that offense is going to happen so we shouldn't get bent out of shape over it, but we should also go to great effort to avoid causing offense. As to Paul's reference in Corinthians - the modern day equivalent might be that if your friend is starting a vegan diet, you shouldn't eat a 20oz prime rib steak right in front of them. And if a ward member in Sunday School is allergic to certain colognes, you shouldn't pour on a whole bottle of Old Spice every Sunday morning. (That's a real example - my dad's bishop recently asked the ward to not wear cologne or perfume anymore because a member of the ward was allergic. My dad got rather bent out of shape over the "extremism of political correctness". Personally, I think Jesus would prefer we all smell bad rather than send a ward member into an allergic asthma attack.)

Those advertisements might be exactly the reason that the church consolidated garment production in-house. Even some of the fabrics and styles available today border on "costly apparel" in terms of the reasons people would buy them - and those ads are even worse. Though, based on some of the text, it seems that not all of those ads refer to post-endowment temple garments but to undergarments in general.

Once upon a time, there was no distribution center or Beehive Clothing company. Saints made their own garments or garments were made for them by friends, neighbors, or the Relief Society. I'm curious about the historical transition and the current back-end process for producing and consecrating temple garments is. I'd also like information on if or when the leadership of the church advised against the "home-made" option and whether there are any existing rules or processes for making home-made garments today. I'm not having much luck - web searches for anything with "temple garment" in them are utterly useless. I'm hoping someone here might know a few obscure references I can study. Does anyone have any resources that might help?