rameumptom

Consider using a private detective to track the guy down for you. You can then get a restraining order against him.

I suggest you focus on the sections of the OT that are of value to you, such as the writings of the Major/Minor prophets. I don't think certain parts of Leviticus or Numbers were (for the most part) designed to bring the Spirit into our lives. They do give important information, however much of it secondary to spiritual things. That said, the greater gospel teachings are not found in the lists of people working as musicians in the Tabernacle, but in the issues that ancient prophets dealt with that apply to us today.

This is why Tough Grits is one of my favorite posters.....

But "they can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true." -stupid chick on the State Farm commercial

AirWolf, I was in the Air Force at the time, and from some of the closed briefings I was involved in, I can assure you that the radical Arabs brought down the towers and not some US government cabal. That said, the neo-cons definitely took quick advantage of the crisis (like the Democrats have taken hold of our current financial crisis) to vastly increase the military and go places we should not be in.

Welcome to the site. We're always glad to have a cousin join us.

Try a prayer, where you only give thanks for things - don't ask for anything. Try a prayer, where you pick some tragedy in the news or in someone's life (besides you and your immediate family), and pray for that one thing for at least 10 minuts. Pick a scripture verse(s), and spend time pondering it from various angles. What does each word mean, in its various definitions? Why was a certain word used, and not another? Then pray that the Lord will help you find new meaning in it.

An old article by Donald Cannon in BYU Studies does not connote doctrine. As I said, it was big stuff in Brigham Young's day. Even Elder McConkie wrote a lot about it. Some form of it may even be true. But it is NOT doctrine. It has never been approved by the quorums of the GAs, nor sustained by the general membership of the Church. Brigham Young or other prophets could have prepared such teachings at any time to be included in the D&C, but never did. And even if the KFD were to be accepted as doctrine: which version of it? which interpretation of it? Why should we accept your reading of it, rather than Brigham Young's? You see the problem? Donald Cannon does not deal with that in his article.

PC is much too humble to publicize the many times he has washed the feet of prisoners. He is clearly more humble than the Pope is.

Peeps are best stale. And sitting for decades under a pile of trash in the dump. Then cemented over to build a parking lot above it.

God did not create us ex nihilo. Matter is eternal, co-eternal with God. Therefore there is a part of each of us that is independent of God's creation (albeit still within his power of forming and organizing). Most Christian philosophers consider "omnipotence" to mean that God is able to do all things that are not contradictory of his power and characteristics. For example, God cannot be absolutely blissful, otherwise he would not care whether we suffered or not. Instead, there is a balance between his attributes: God's charity is greater than his ability for bliss. So, God is considered to have the "maximum" amount of an attribute that is possible for him to have. This then, defines what omnipotence, omniscience, and all the other omni-attritubes he has.

Finally, Elder Holland recently spoke on Christ's atonement, and he taught that the portion of the atonement in Jesus' mortality concluded on the cross, with the Father leaving Christ alone to finish the work. Yes, the atonement continues on, and I would recommend Blake Ostler's discussions on it, to help understand how it still is active. There are some disconnects happening here with reaching so far back in the past, on one-off statements by Joseph Smith.

BTW, the KFD was NOT a General Conference address, but a talk given at King Follett's funeral. The KFD is NOT doctrine, nor has it been clarified by recent GAs. In fact, when asked about God being man, Pres Hinckley responded that while something in the past has been taught on it, we just do not know enough to really speak definitively on the subject. In one talk, we have Joseph presumably quoting the verse and giving his own take on it. We do not know how accurately he was quoted, nor did he later expound on what he stated. Brigham Young tried taking it to the next level, and claimed that Adam is our God. Do we really want to go there today, when even someone like Brigham Young (who may have been present for the KFD) was wrong?

I think you are giving one (yours) interpretation on a verse of scripture. It is very possible you are taking it out of context, and so you may want to read the entire chapter and see if the discussion would lead the average person to believe it says what you are implying.

I blog here: joelsmonastery.blogspot.com and here: millennialstar.org

Update on my life? Just received a promotion at work. Will also start teaching an evening college class (Business Math) in a couple weeks at the prison that I work for. My mother passed away in January, so I'm now an orphan. It was the first time I'd seen some family in decades. I did have some good experiences visiting with some siblings, as well. 7 grandkids (Palerider pales in comparison), one of which is going to the state science fair in a couple weeks. I went to purchase a few (like 6) Cornish game hens to raise, and my wife decided we need more, so over a period of a week, she bought 22 more chicks (including 6 layers). Not quite what I had in mind, so I'll be spending time sharpening my axe. Several times.

JAG, yes, you gave the literal translation.

Same crowd that loved Jesus when he was miraculously feeding them loaves and fish, but then rejected him when he told them to seek the Bread of Life. The crowd was looking for a Messiah that would save them from Rome. Barabbas also claimed to be a Messiah for the Zealots (his name meaning "Son of God"), and so they probably figured that one Messiah was as good as another. This is especially true when Jesus appeared before them beaten and silent, while Barabbas likely stood proudly and boasted on himself.

Could not do it without written permission from the parents. That is a form of search that is unconstitutional without prior permission from the adult parent involved. So, I'm guessing it is just a rumor.

Vort, As a historian, I look at the data and try to interpret it. My view is as valid as any other. There was lots of issues between Emma and Brigham Youn, some of which I mentioned above that were tied to the OP. Others included who would end up with the huge debt that Joseph had incurred (Brigham left Emma with the debt that Joseph took under personal loans, and tried to take the lands that Joseph was only trustee to). Here are some insights from the Book of Abraham Project on the Nauvoo Relief Society, and how the Utah version never arose to the same level of prominence (even though Eliza R Snow tried to make it so). The Nauvoo Female Relief Society Meeting of April 28, 1842 | Boap.org's Blog You can now read the Nauvoo RS minutes Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book which show just how much power was given to the sisters. In John Turner's new book on Brigham Young and his attitude towards the RS: "When I want sisters...to get up the Relief Society, I will summon them to my aide" and then disbanded them. He believed men were the "head and the God of woman", very different view than that of Joseph Smith. Young suspended the general RS for over 20 years, uncomfortable with women having such power (probably based partially on his dislike of Emma) Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet - John G. Turner - Google Books (Please read the entire section available online). The Council of 50 was used by BY to move the saints across the Plains, but then pretty much put it out of its misery. It had little power, ir any, in Utah, especially after Utah was made a territory. Council of Fifty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are other things that are not available online, but this should suffice to give some "authority" to my reading of the history. BTW, I have a firm testimony that Brigham Young was a prophet of God. That said, I think he was a very rough, backwoods character, and that it showed in how he ran the Church and territory of Utah.

That is Pam kicking? I thought it was a bad twitch....

Women share the Patriarchal Priesthood with their husbands. They do not have the authorization to perform ordinances (except in the temple), but do have the power to perform many other functions as an auxiliary to the priesthood. In Nauvoo, women actually had more "priesthood authority" than they do today. Women were allowed to give blessings, and run the Relief Society as a priesthood sanctioned organization. Emma Smith, as president of the RS and as a member of the Quorum of Anointed, wielded more power than we can imagine today. In fact, Brigham Young invited Emma to move west with the Saints. She said she would do so on one condition: he recognize her preeminent position as RS president and QoA member. Brigham Young refused. Why? Because BY was actively involved in consolidating the power of the Quorum of 12 Apostles. Joseph Smith left many powerful organizations, each with claims to authority: First Presidency (Sidney Rigdon), Council of 50, Stake High Councils, Quorum of Anointed, etc. BY was working quickly and feverishly to end the disparate groups, so that Mormonism would survive as a single group of people. Some groups were disbanded (QoA, Relief Society), while BY used other methods to reign in some powerful people, such as having members of the Council of 50 sealed to him and his dynasty. Brigham also tried to control other things, such as not allowing Lucy Mack Smith's biography of JS into the Utah territory, as it was suggestive of JSIII being the next in line. As I noted, BY shut down the Relief Society for almost 20 years (IIRC). When it was reinstituted under Eliza R Snow, it was minus many of the rights, powers and authorities Joseph Smith initially gave to them.

Many scholars believe that Judas was a Zealot, one who believed the Messiah would physically overthrow the Roman regime and return rightful rule back to Israel. However, Jesus was not following the Zealot path. Scholars think that Judas was hoping that getting Jesus arrested may force him into the role of Messianic King and Deliverer over Rome. When Judas saw that Jesus refused and would therefore be executed instead, he took his own life. It is likely that Barabbas (Son of Father) was a Zealot fighter that sought to be the physical Messiah, which Judas hoped for. So, we get an interesting parallel between the two prisoners. The Jewish leaders were very interested in stopping the Zealots, because it upset the balance of power they had with the Romans. It would end up being the actions of Zealots that would lead to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, quite ironic, given the Jews rejected Jesus and freed Barabbas.

Welcome back Strawberry.

Hyena, talk with your bishop and stake president. In my stake, we often call singles or couples to serve missions in the stake boundaries. Some are working in the bishop's storehouse, others as ward missionaries, etc. We've had some members, whose job was to drive the FTMs around to appointments. My wife and I completed a 2 year mission to our Spanish Branch less than a year ago - which was perfect in keeping us involved when I wasn't at my regular day job. We have one young man who is handicapped (not eligible for a full time regular mission), who is serving by working with an LDS sculptor to make the frontispiece for the Rome Temple. Many ways to serve. So, you can continue going to school and still fill a mission!