puf_the_majic_dragon

Okay, I'll bite, just for fun. I had the day off yesterday painting the house and reading things here. So I thought about your gristle question while painting. Do I have an answer? Nope. Just some thoughts.
1. What does "give birth" mean? A woman laid down in the bed, squeezing her husbands hand until it is purple in the earthly type of "give birth"? I would doubt it.
2. I would say yes, "give birth" perhaps in some other way/form.
3. My understanding is the spirit is in fact physical matter, simply a super refined physical matter. 
Thoughts?

I will begin by saying I enjoy reading and learning from Vort.  That is not to say that I always agree with his analysis but he has a keen sense and point of view.  Generally I find his point of view one dimensional.   I say one dimensional mostly as a metaphorical explanation rather than an empirical reference. 
 
I believe that the problem most good LDS members have with the Book of Abraham is because they try to understand a very ancient document from a very modern point of view.   For example I have found the third chapter in the Book of Abraham to be in the ancient style and understanding of the Pythagoreans.  Most of the knowledge of the Pythagoreans was lost in history and what we do know in our era was the result of a Greek slave that was educated by this ancient Egyptian science/mathematical cult that leaked some secrets and became famous by taking the name of the cult as his name (Pythagoras).  The most famous secret is what we call the Pythagorean Theorem that deals with the ratio of the 3 sides of right triangles.
 
In contrast we have, from a time closer to our modern era, the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants covers in essence that same doctrine of the Book of Abraham chapter 3 but from a foundation of Newtonian math and physics.   A foundation that most of us are familiar with from our K through 12 educational systems but very few are familiar with the mathematical philosophies of Pythagorean ratios.  So I will give a very short cliff notes response:
 
  The ancient Pythagoreans were of the belief that all things could be controlled and manipulated (organized or created) if one understood the ratios between things.  That G-d is a master mathematician and expert at understanding the ratios between all things.  What I believe is missing in history is the origin of the Pythagoreans – but as best as we have been able to trace their influence in ancient Egypt we are lead to around the time Abraham was in Egypt teaching mathematics and science in the courts of Pharaoh.
 
But even since the revelation of the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants we have progressed where our Newtonian math and physics is insufficient in explaining current astrophysics.   Currently it is estimated that 95% of what we know about our universe cannot be explained by our past or present empirical models.  So we call it Dark Matter and Dark energy. 
 
Thus the problem I see in trying to understand G-d and Kolob with current empirical models is that we are out of space and time in our mapping of ideas.   In essence it is like trying to map and chart the earth on 2 dimensional sheets of paper.  – Because we can make very accurate predictions in very small areas we think to surmise that the earth is flat and then start to assume all kinds of ideas that are untrue – but we think to prove the ideas to be true from ancient revelation given in scripture which in reality have nothing to do with our particular empirical model.

I remember years ago having a little aha moment from a lecture/lesson. Back in the day, cultures spent their evenings and nights looking up at the sky, thinking about/studying them. Now days, at night, we tend to turn on our TVs/computers and barely give the night sky a second glance unless we are camping or an eclipse forces us to look up. Like PFMD said, "everyone" was familiar with the stars, in contrast we tend to be familiar with our screens.

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  

Richard, let me respond just to this one part. By my count, the word "Kolob" is found a total of eight times in all of scripture, and those eight times are in five verses, all in the book of Abraham and all but one in the third chapter of Abraham. It's instructive to look at them. I have included verses 1-18 in chapter 3 for context. (I wish I had the indent functionality.)
And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees; and I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
So the context here is that Abraham is talking about the stars (luminous celestial bodies) that he is able to see by means of the Urim and Thummim. It is in this context that he mentions "Kolob".
Abraham 3:3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
So "the great one" (or large star) is called "Kolob". Why? Because it is "near unto" God. Perhaps "Kolob" mean "near to God", or perhaps it's just an honorary title reserved for stars near to God, like "great one" or something.
Three things to note: First, Kolob is a star, not a planet (in the way we would use those terms today); second, Kolob is "near unto" God, but not necessarily the nearest unto God; and third, Kolob is the celestial body that "governs" all those (stars and/or planets) that "belong to the same order as" the one Abraham was then standing on -- presumably the earth. So all planets and stars that belong to the same order as the earth are ultimately "governed" through this large star Kolob.
(Remember that "planet" is ultimately just a Greek word meaning "wanderer". Planets and stars are both tiny lights in the sky, but stars are fixed while planets move around. There is no other notable distinction between stars and planets, except perhaps that planets tend to be much brighter than stars. This is not normally how we think of things today, but this has been the view of the vast majority of humanity throughout history. Worth keeping in mind when we read Abraham's words.)
How does Kolob "govern" anything? We don't know. That's a mechanical question, and God generally doesn't give us mechanical answers. He seems concerned only about our spiritual state and progress; as far as I can remember, God never spends any time telling us how things in his creation work, only that they do, and perhaps some of the laws governing their operation.
Abraham 3:4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
So Kolob's time reckoning is one revolution per thousand years of our time. Why are we (through Abraham) told this? No idea. Perhaps it's figurative, but it sounds pretty literal. If nothing else, it gives a slightly different take on scriptural verses such as Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, both of which use the "thousand years is as a day in heaven" idea. In any case, Kolob's time is measured the same as "the Lord's time".
And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.
An interesting side-note here. The moon is apparently of a higher order, time-reckoning-wise, than the earth. This appears to have nothing at all to do with gravitational time dilation or anything like that. In my view, it's just an arcane, interesting, and possibly useless bit of trivia.
Now, read the following verses (Abraham 3:6-18) all together.
And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night. Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest. And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;
Abraham 3:9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God.
Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made; and he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof. And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.
And it was in the night time when the Lord spake these words unto me: I will multiply thee, and thy seed after thee, like unto these; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds. And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.
Abraham 3:16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it. Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
(One parenthetical observation: Kolob is the greatest of all the stars that Abraham was shown. But it appears that Abraham was shown only the stars that pertain somehow to this world. So it is wrong to conclude that Kolob is the nearest star to God of all stars. That is unwarranted.)
I am guessing that these verses above strike at the heart of what Abraham is teaching. Abraham ultimately teaches the Lord's words about "intelligences", which are the core basis of human souls. In teaching about them, he uses almost the exact same idea as presented here: The intelligences of man, like celestial bodies, exist in discrete intervals, grouped into levels. Some, like the earth, are in a lower level. Some, like the moon, are in a somewhat higher level. Some, like Kolob, are exalted near unto God himself, and have great insight. But all are precious and all have a known place.
To see this, note the end of verse 18, and then compare the above with verses 19-26. In verse 24, Jesus is even (implicitly) compared with Kolob as one on the "level" of God himself. Some have suggested that the term "Kolob" itself is simply a reference to Jesus Christ, and that the whole Abrahamic cosmos is to be taken as a parable of Christ rather than literally. I personally don't go quite that far, but I think it's an idea worth keeping in mind.
Abraham 5:13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.
This is the last reference to Kolob, and Abraham is simply using his understanding of Kolob to illustrate what happened in the garden of Eden. God said that Adam "would surely die" if he ate the forbidden fruit, "in the day" that he ate it. (Abraham renders that phrase "in the time" rather than "in the day".) Well, if one God-day is a thousand years, then Adam might live a whole lot more than one earth-day and still fulfill the requirement of the curse.
You may or may not want to consider the particular interpretations I have provided. But in any case, notice how vastly different this is from the typical anti-Mormon vulgarity of "the Mormon God lives on Planet Kolob." Anti-Mormons seek to make this doctrine sensational and (above all) weird, and portray it as lying at the very heart of "Mormonism". In fact, it is neither sensational nor weird, and far from being some sort of central doctrine, it is presented almost as an aside in an effort (IMO) to explain to use the worth of the human soul by comparing the hierarchy of intelligences to that of the heavenly order..

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.

If I were to engage in an argument over whether watching a bunch of grown men kick a ball around is more real then watching them toss one around is WOULD THAT NOT PROVE MY POINT ABOUT US BEING TOO DISTRACTED TO REALIZE OUR MAKER IS SPEAKING TO US IN A STILL, SMALL VOICE? 

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.

If the shoe fits . . .

This makes me think of "At the Back of the North Wind" by George MacDonald. It is (***SPOILER ALERT**) a story of a boy called Diamond who is dying. He meets a goddess-like woman who is a personification of the North Wind; sometimes she is a huge giantess and sometimes she is tiny (just as the wind varies in size) and she takes him away on a magical adventure.
 
There is one point in the story where Diamond has to walk on a high precipice; he is afraid but says he will try to be brave. The North Wind replies (I've paraphrased it slightly): "To try to be brave is to be brave - a coward who tries to be brave is braver than the brave man who never had to try".
 
Maybe to try to do our best is to do our best.

Over twenty years ago when I first learned the term "Utah Mormon" at BYU I took it to mean what you describe; not necessarily people who are from UT.  I quickly decided that since "Utah Mormons" are not exclusive to UT and not everybody from UT is a "Utah Mormon" I needed a better term.  I ended up using "Mormon".  In my mind the term "Mormon" was derogatory, as opposed to a "Saint" or "Christian" which meant members of the Church trying to live their religion.
 
A short while later I realized I didn't like using "Mormon" as a derogatory term, and none of that was beneficial anyway.  I shouldn't try to classify people as either "Mormon" or "Saint".  That doesn't help me see the best in people.  We all have weaknesses and I need to look for the good.  I have since learned this is charity, which "is kind" and "thinketh no evil".  I shouldn't think the worst.  And it helps me to not classify individuals or even groups in to anything that my mind might perceive as derogatory (e.g. "Utah Mormon", "white trash", etc. ).
 
I do acknowledge that real pain and hurt can come from some people.  They can be hard to deal with.  And it's OK to recognize bad behavior.  But, remember to not let some people's behavior unfairly affect how we feel about others.

And the church and the Lord have both taught us how. We make ourselves better. 

Another post where we agree.

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.

Being a Mormon in Utah can be to your advantage.  If you want to spend more time with your family and not so much time in church callings - you can move to an established ward in Utah and serve happy as just a teacher or in the nursery or somewhere that so many think of as lessor non presiding calling.
 
As a young father living outside of Utah there was occasion that I would go weeks without seeing my children awake.  Then moving to Utah - mine and my wife's prayers were answered - I could serve - even with only 4 or 5 (instead of 12 or 16) families to home teach.  Plus I can walk to church for years without wearing out my shoes.

So no one is ever to use labeling terms of any kind, ever? So I am a hypocrite if I tell a visiting friend to my ward, "don't worry about what so-and-so might say or do while we're at church, he's always been unkind to me." Because by using the term Utah Mormon, it is simply a way of collecting all of the terms like cold, insensitive, haughty, self-centered, harshly critical, etc. under one easy umbrella term that most people may not like, but they do recognize what it means. I have the ability to recognize when someone is this way because I am not. I grew up in congregations that were incredibly welcoming and full of both good and kind people who loved unconditionally. But I'm supposed to keep that ability to judge and self-preserve completely to myself.. or better yet, never even have the thought. They can go on being jerks, because gosh darnit, they sure are righteous jerks. 

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.

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.)

It is my opinion that scripture and revelation as given to the general body of mankind is intended to be general and vague.  I believe this is for several reasons but I will use and ancient serpent on a pole created during the prophetic area of Moses to be a type and shadow of Christ to save Israel from a plague of poisonous serpents.  As the rank and file began to apply specifics to the general symbolism they began to stray from the intent so much so that it became necessary to completely absolve the creation of the symbolism and destroy it.
 
Scripture is not authority.  This is why a living prophet is necessary - but even the general understanding of prophets and sacred revelation can get out of hand.  This is why Jesus stated that "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."
 
The Book of Enoch tells us the importance of the divine influence on calendars.  That the cycles of stars and planets indicate spiritual season concerning the plan of G-d through the epochs of man from his beginning to the end.  But then the Book of Enoch goes on to say that as mankind became corrupt thinking that the knowledge of time could save them from the calamities to overturn the wicked.  So with the flood - G-d changed slightly the revolutions of the stars so that those following the authority of ancient revelations and rejecting the direction of living prophets would be caught in their own demise.  That when the flood came those so thinking that they could out smart the living prophets would be caught in their own mistake.
 
Now I am not going to say that the Book of Enoch is the authority in understanding calendars and spiritual times and seasons.  In fact I am trying to say just the opposite.  That the specifics of revelation needs to come through the order of the priesthood as given in D&C 84.  Not because D&C 84 is the authority but because it designates the priesthood as that authority.  But the world will reference a different authority - as we see in the ordain women movement.  Not necessarily that women will not be ordained but that the order by which such things are to come to pass is being rejected.
 
And so it is in understanding spiritual times and seasons - even when Jesus will come again - the hour and the day will be different throughout the world because of time zones and the international date line.  But many think to interpret thing to be that revelation of such things, will not be known.  Just that those that look to authority outside of G-d's priesthood look to false authority and can easily be deceived - even by holy scripture just as the Scribes and Pharisees that rejected Christ based on their understanding and interpretation of holy scripture.

No, I don't believe we can. I think that we simply have to accept that we do not know the exact year (or day) of Christ's birth. We can surmise that it was just a bit over two thousand years ago, but that's probably the best we can do at this time. Other historical evidences and dates are inconclusive and even contradictory; for example, Herod's historical death date seems to fix Jesus' birth at no later than 4 BC according to the Gospels, while Zedekiah's historic installation date coupled with the Book of Mormon's 600-year prophecy indicates that Jesus' birth can be no earlier than 3 or 4 AD. I see no good way to reconcile these dates, so I just assume mistakes were made in the records.
 
Our histories are obviously inexact, which to my mind is just The Way Things Are® and nothing to be concerned about. I would not even be greatly bothered to discover that the Book of Mormon chronology is a few years off, though I would be surprised, since the Nephites seemed to take great care to keep their timeline accurate. I would be much less surprised to find out that the Biblican chronologies and our profane historical timelines are off by some years.

I am not saying that isn't what it says. I am saying that isn't what it means. This is very obviously a formalistic opening, a fancy and common (at the time) way of saying "April 6, 1830".
 
This sentence was written by John Whitmer, not by Joseph Smith, and was prefactory material, never portrayed as a part of the revelation. Whitmer apparently liked this expression of the year; on another occasion, he wrote, "It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh."
 
It may interest you to know that J. Reuben Clark and Bruce R. McConkie both believed that Jesus was born about 5 or 6 BC, according to our Gregorian calendar. Hyrum M. Smith of the Council of the Twelve even wrote:
 
"The organization of the Church in the year 1830 is hardly to be regarded as giving divine authority to the commonly accepted calendar. There are reasons for believing that those who, a long time after our Savior's birth, tried to ascertain the correct time, erred in their calculations, and that the Nativity occurred four years before our era, or in the year of Rome 750. All that this Revelation means to say is that the Church was organized in the year commonly accepted as 1830, A.D."
 
The recently discovered manuscript of the Book of Commandments and Revelations shows that this revelation was actually received on April 10, not April 6. So the flowery wording at the beginning (added by John Whitmer) is not even correct. It most certainly does not constitute some sort of divine revelation on Jesus' True Birthday®.

FWIW, the High Priest of Israel was as crooked as a dog's hind leg by the time of Jesus' ministry; but that didn't prevent Caiaphas from receiving and repeating inspired prophecy by virtue of his office.

Noah was not "unworthy" at the moment he was appointed by his father. His dismissal of his father's priests and ordaining his own also did not in itself make him "unworthy"; that was his right. His wicked actions after that point made him unworthy, but that did not undo the reality of the Priesthood authority he had received and exercised.
 
You appear to be confusing Priesthood authority with Priesthood power. Noah did not have the latter, and probably never did, but he surely did have the former (at least at the beginning of his reign).
  
 
This formalistic opening, which was not part of the revelation and in fact was not even written by Joseph Smith, has nothing to do with the actual chronology of Christ's birth.

I recently moved to southern Utah with a bit of fear and trepidation.  The reason was something my dad always used to say:  "Utah Mormons are the worst kind."  He said this many times as I grew up.  I've lived in three different countries and I was welcomed in every single ward.  I was asked to introduce myself and someone always said hello. 
 
Seven weeks ago, I moved from Australia to small town in southern Utah and the ward fulfilled my dad's saying.  If I had been an investigator looking into the church, I would have walked out and never returned.  Not one single person introduced themselves to me and I was virtually ignored.  I wasn't asked to introduce myself and although my records have been received, my family has not been read into the ward.  The Elder's Quorum President has yet to introduce himself and shake my hand.  The same goes for the rest of the quorum. 
 
I got to looking at the ward directory and I noticed that there are 3 or 4 prominent families that make up a sizeable part of the ward.  They all associate with each other, but no one else.  There are a few other families that have moved in during the past couple years and they, too, are ignored.  I began to understand why my dad said that Utah Mormons were the worst kind.  I guess that unless you were born into the ward, you are an interloper. 

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.)