The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe


Hemidakota
 Share

Recommended Posts

This kind of nonsense is one of the reasons people look at Mormonism with a skeptical eye.

Many of these completely uncientific "doctrines" are taught, by those not called to do so, and soon these teachers attract adherents, whose bizarre beliefs, based in absurd speculation, become the center of attention by potential converts, people not strong in the gospel, and especially the media. Face it, if there are adhrents to this nonsense, it IS a news story.

I also assure you, if a true scientist were to read this book, it would not only not be taken seriously--it would also leave the impression that Latter-day Saints are a fringe, cult-like religion with bizarre beliefs about the universe that have no basis in fact.

Another thread's title was "Why do people think badly of the Church"? (I do not know if this is verbatim, but I think it is.)

This nonsense is one of the reasons people think badly of the Church.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I also assure you, if a true scientist were to read this book, it would not only not be taken seriously--it would also leave the impression that Latter-day Saints are a fringe, cult-like religion with bizarre beliefs about the universe that have no basis in fact.

Oh, you don't have to be a scientist to come to that impression. Take a look at Amazon.com's one star reviews of the book.

I'd be ok if the book was called "One Mormon's View" instead of "A Mormon's View", but whatever.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I would love to read this book! I'm fasinated by Kolob! I love learning more about it.

If you promise to send it back, I'd be happy to mail it to you.

I read it a few months ago. Very interesting ideas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to read this book! I'm fasinated by Kolob! I love learning more about it.

Then in all seriousness, I would advise you not to read this book. You won't learn anything (useful) about Kolob. If you really, truly want to learn about Kolob, read the Pearl of Great Price. Everything we know about Kolob is contained therein.

I repeat: EVERYTHING we know about Kolob is contained therein.

If you just can't live without reading the book, it's available online. Look earlier in this thread for the URL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I just finished reading this book. I'm almost inclined to take personally all the bashing done here of this book and its author, because I personally love this book and believe most of it to be true or at least very highly probable.

Furthermore, some of the heated language I see being used to condemn it (decidedly NOT too strong a word to describe what I'm perceiving) reminds me quite strongly of the kind of un-Christlike language I see used by the inhabitants of the proverbial "great and spacious building" or "Babylon", which we see around us today -- the worldly people who lack the virtues taught by Christ, and revel in their abilities to insult, offend, and defile. Long story short, we, as members of the Church, ought to be capable of expressing our dislike of something like this book without resorting to acting like we're auditioning for a spot in the Sanhedrin.

Ask yourselves, what if your grandfather or father had written this book? Would you still heap such strident criticism upon it and the author? The author of this book IS someone's father, someone's grandfather. Bare that in mind when you choose your words.

And now back to the book itself.

For some time now, I have known that the world where my Heavenly Father resides is located at the center of this galaxy. I say KNOWN. This was revealed to me. I didn't really ask for this knowledge, but it was given to me as I pondered such things, and for such revelations I am always grateful. This book's author confirms what I had already known, which gains him a measure of immediate credibility with me. From that point on, I have considered everything else he admittedly theorizes in this book, and while some of it I don't see being certain truth, I find none of it to be the sort of heresy that requires me to saddle up and ride for Damascus, if you get my meaning. There were a few parts in this book where I did not see the logic behind a theory. Such parts of the book may possibly be true or untrue. Need we remind ourselves that the book is clearly labeled as a theorem (theory)? Maybe those parts I don't believe (yet?) ARE true. Maybe later on down the road I'll learn something that will make the pieces fit together and it will make sense. I have yet to hear of a General Authority stating that this book is untrue or doctrinally unsound. If the day ever comes that one does, we would all be obligated to heed his counsel. But unless that happens, this book is not heresy. Most of it resonated strongly with me, explaining things I already knew, or fitting with such knowledge naturally and comfortably, like interlocking puzzle pieces. This is how the Holy Spirit has manifested the truth of the Gospel to me, through reasoning and logic, in addition to a certain kind of "quickening" often referred to as a "burning within" by others. If it passes Moroni's muster, it's good enough for me.

As a convert, I can attest to the value of an open mind. If you're worried that a book like this will make us seem "unhip" to the Protestants, Catholics, and other sects of Christianity, or the rest of the world, for that matter, I can assure you that this book is unnecessary for that purpose. Some of our most basic beliefs seem like heresy, when misunderstood, to good people of other religions. And some of them only appear that way because of the smokescreen that Satan has spent the millenniums building. On the other hand, some seem born to hate and distrust. Some seem born cynics and skeptics. They will scorn you for your faith regardless, and their approval should not be inordinately, if at all valuable to you. People like that counseled me not to join the Church, but I didn't listen to them. The "wisdom" of the world is nothing compared to the Gospel. Should I have listened to them? No. I kept an open mind. I accepted that maybe I did not actually know everything. I accepted that maybe some things I had been led to believe by worldly philosophies, superstitions, and sectarian fallacies were wrong. I let the Holy Spirit decide what was true and followed His counsel, not the world around me.

Maybe some of you believe you feel the Holy Spirit telling you this book is heresy. I cannot argue with what you perceive, especially on a spiritual level. Your relationship with Heavenly Father is your private business. But you would do well to show that same consideration to others, especially in the Church. It is folly to condemn what you don't understand, and call it untrue on that basis alone. Ask yourself, if you were not born into this Church, would you have an open enough mind to at least consider the doctrines we teach? Are you humble enough? Are you willing enough to take some things on faith, to accept that they may not make sense at first, or to realize that in a thousand years you will know things that today might make your head spin? Can you really condemn those things today? If you are not ready to believe, just leave it at that.

Some of us find the deeper doctrines, such as what is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, to be truly amazing and faith building. I for one am greatly attracted to such things, as long as they are true. This book has not been proven untrue, to the best of my knowledge, and my conscience leaves me free to accept it. The fact that it hasn't come from a General Authority does not rule out its veracity. We are all capable of receiving revelation. A General Authority is uniquely anointed to declare doctrine to be true or untrue, to function as judges in God's Kingdom, and to tell us what is needful to know, declaring revelation meant for the entire Church. This book is not necessarily needful information or revelation necessary for the whole Church at present. If it doesn't strengthen your faith and inspire your mind and soul, put off this portion of your eternal progression until the day you are able to handle it. There is nothing wrong with not running faster than you are able. But some of us are rejuvenated and feel closer to our Father in Heaven when we read things like this. I would not have completed the discussions if it weren't for the amazing flood of information and the resulting surge in faith I got from it. The Church has made my Heavenly Father a real person who knows and loves me, whereas before, the sectarian beliefs I had been taught were absolute truth presented Him as a creator but not Father, who viewed me as an experiment and not a son, and who existed in some alternate universe or plane or dimension.

No offense to anyone who believes in such things, but I personally think that is a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction. The way I see it, there is only one universe. And if Father has His own Father, they share this universe. The universe is organized into galaxies, so it makes perfect sense that each Heavenly Father would have His own galaxy, wherein He would have plenty of room and material to bring to pass the salvation of His children. So if I could live long enough, or travel fast enough, and if I could abide the glory of a celestial kingdom, I could actually come face to face with Heavenly Father in mortality and of my own accord. But He has organized things in such a way that this is impossible. He has hidden the center of this galaxy, and placed veils between us, so that I can be forced to rely on my faith to find Him, as I should be. This does not mean He isn't there, just beyond those veils. Have we not learned to believe in things we can't see? Figuratively and literally? The Gospel of Jesus Christ has taught me to do so. I believe that is its purpose, in addition to teaching us how to be Christlike.

Some very good and noble people believe that if a doctrine doesn't have what they recognize as practical value to help them become more Christlike, than it is of absolutely no use to them. If this works for them, it is their prerogative as a child of God. Eventually we will all have to learn how to build a planet, star, galaxy, etc., if we make it to the celestial kingdom. Some of us are driven to learn what we can now. That too, is our prerogative as children of God. As long as we make sure we are doing all that we can to learn how to consistently live and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be among the wise virgins with extra oil for their lamps, we have seen to the most important of our duties. But this is not the end, and our eternal progression is not limited by anyone but ourselves.

Don't be like the sectarians of the 19th century who condemned the Gospel just because it didn't gel with their superstitions and prejudices. Keep an open mind and stay true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We ought to be able to do both at the same time. In Joseph Smith's day, those who couldn't manage that left the Church. They left over "new" things such as the law of eternal marriage (which also deals with plural marriage), and the law of consecration. Some members left when they heard that Joseph Smith was retranslating the Bible. B.H. Roberts has said that there is much of our own Church History which, if we are not sufficiently mature to understand it, can challenge our faith enough to cause us to leave the Church. If we are not mature enough to understand the law of consecration, for example, than we should wait until we are before we let our doubts on the matter drive us from the Church. But that doesn't mean the law of consecration doesn't come from God. It only means we are not ready to receive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some of the heated language I see being used to condemn it reminds me quite strongly of the kind of un-Christlike language I see used by the inhabitants of the proverbial "great and spacious building" or "Babylon", which we see around us today -- the worldly people who lack the virtues taught by Christ, and revel in their abilities to insult, offend, and defile. Long story short, we, as members of the Church, ought to be capable of expressing our dislike of something like this book without resorting to acting like we're auditioning for a spot in the Sanhedrin.

That's quite a stand to take, coming from someone who proceeds to call the beliefs he was raised with "a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction", and accuses 19th century sectarians of condemning the Gospel "just because it didn't gel with their superstitions and prejudices."

Let me guess - it's not the unrighteous judgementalism you take issue with - it's the 'heated words' that come along with it.

If it doesn't strengthen your faith and inspire your mind and soul, put off this portion of your eternal progression until the day you are able to handle it. There is nothing wrong with not running faster than you are able.

Right - anyone who doesn't buy what this book is selling, is merely spiritually stunted in some way. Got it.

Wasn't impressed with the book, not impressed with the arguements of the first zealous defender I've met.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps each God gets His OWN Universe.

My DH and I have speculated on this, with the idea that a universe occupies its own dimension of reality and each dimension might well have a different God in charge (it seems plausible that Heavenly Father had siblings, after all). Yes, we're geeks. ;)

Neither of us would represent that theory as in any way doctrinal, please note. Both of us realize this is simply us kicking around theory. Doesn't matter to our salvation whether we're right or not, it's just interesting intellectual exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See? That's what I'm talking about. Get personal. Get mean. Raise contention. This is not becoming of a Latter Day Saint.

I would also argue that this was done without provocation, but apparently what I said was taken in the worst possible way, much worse than I could have ever intended, and the worst possible interpretation of what I said is being used as justification for taunting and bickering. I've grown accustomed to seeing that at politico. People tend to forget that there's a human being on the other side of that message board, and they say things they wouldn't normally say face to face. Or maybe they would and they just don't care if they're uncivil.

The point is, this will be the undoing of our society, and one would hope that the Church of Jesus Christ is above that. Apparently some of us are not.

Ms. or Mr. "Loudmouth Mormon" (your words, not mine),

If you have a problem with something I've said, why not address me personally and privately? I took issue with some of the mean spirited language being used to deride the author of this book, but I did not single anyone out. I did not quote anyone and then criticize them as an individual. You did. That's the difference between your behavior and mine, so hopefully the word "hypocrite" isn't bouncing around in your head right now, though you already called me one in not so many words.

Regarding the beliefs with which I was raised, and I ask this with all due respect, what business of yours is it? I don't recall having much to say on the matter. You're mixing two different things together. I never said that the beliefs with which I was raised were "a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction", and even if I did, how on earth could that be construed as an attack against you? Do you even know how I was raised? What does it have to do with you? I did state something to the effect that the non-LDS beliefs with which I was raised were not accurate, and I did state that I personally think that the idea that there are multiple dimensions, planes, or parallel universes is a bunch of hoo hah and science fiction. That's an honest opinion, and I fail to see how it would get you so riled up. Maybe that's shortsightedness on my part. If so, I apologize for my insensitivity. Never mind that I wasn't speaking directly to or about you, or to you at all, in fact. I don't need to understand how you were offended to apologize, thankfully.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unrighteous judgmentalism". You're welcome to explain that bit to me if you want.

Your next quote (of me) strongly leads me to believe that you're simply spoiling for a rumble wherever one might be found, even on a website that is supposed to be for polite discussion about religious issues by people who either share the same beliefs or are at least tolerant of those beliefs. Maybe I should read over the terms of service for this website again, but I thought there were rules about being rude around here. And apparently, I must have misread that bit about contention being of the devil, as there seems to be a lot of it here. I have no idea why you would be so defensive, as well as offensive, over the second quote. Maybe I just came off as some kind of jerk and you're just retaliating, so I'll see if I can clarify.

I was saying that I know there are some people who are averse to such deep doctrines, that they feel that any doctrine that they do not see a practical, "real world" use for, is a waste of their time at best. I made no judgment to the wisdom of that mindset, and I don't think it's fair to accuse me of having done so. All I said was that it's probably for the best if people don't spend any time on deeper doctrines if they are uncomfortable doing so, and I don't blame them for that. I would hope such understanding could be reciprocated. But one would rationally be led to believe that you're not strictly a pragmatist based on the fact that you came to a thread discussing a book about deep doctrine.

You're acting like I called you out. You're acting like you have voluntarily assumed the non existent role of my personal target of contempt. That is your invention, not mine.

I'm sorry if something I said earlier has somehow translated into a direct, personal attack on you. I still don't understand how that could have happened, but I apologize nonetheless. I don't know why you're here, but I'm here as a member of the Church, to interact with other members of the Church, and where I'm from, we talk to each other and about each other with respect. Maybe it's just every ward I've ever been in, but we have this saying about Zion: "If you are not one, you are not mine." All I'm saying is that we need more mutual respect in this particular thread. I never meant to offend, and I thought I had chosen my words carefully enough that I wouldn't. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you're normally a nice person. I don't know you and can't say. Please forgive me for whatever it is you thought I said bad about you personally. God bless, my sibling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone realised that the theory is fatally flawed from the outset? That Abraham facsimile (the hypocephalus) is geocentric. The author is trying to read it like a modern star chart. We don't know how Abraham studied the stars, how to interpret his chart, to what scale it is and even if it is an accurate copy or not.

I admit that I don't know astronomy or astrophysics. The author doesn't.

There are other problems, I mean logical fallacies, such as stating that man can't count all of God's creations yet in the same breath stating that there are about 150 billion!

Frankly, the BoA is useless when it comes to locating God's throne and kolob. It is as much use as saying in a galaxy far, far away. The key, I feel, is as much in Joseph Smith's idiosyncratic Hebrew as it is in the name of the star. Joseph Smith was a very keen Hebrew student, but not a great Hebraist. Nauvoo is a case in point. It really ought to be Naava, the feminine singular adjective, not the plural, but I digress.

Joseph Smith learnt his Hebrew from professor Joshua Seixas, an Ashkenazi Jew. The language of the Ashkenazi Jews was Yiddish, a dialect of medieval Saxon German. One of the peculiarities of Ashekanazi Jews is their inability to roll their 'r's. I myself suffer from that, stupid genes.

Their pronunciation affected their reading of Hebrew.

Anyway, there are two basic ways in which they pronounce that sound. One sounds like a French or Berlin 'r', the other, like an 'l', which brings me to my point (dramatic drum roll)- the meaning of Kolob. In Hebrew, the adjective for near is karov (K-R-B). Using an Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation, the result is KOLOB. In Abraham 3:3 we read. "The name of the great one is Kolob, because it is NEAR unto me." Emphasis mine.

It really is interesting to read Joseph Smith's transliterated Hebrew, a mix of Ashkenazic and Eastern Seaboard accents practically leap off of the page at you. Kokaubeem, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had always assumed that when Joseph Smith made the facsimile of Abraham's illustrations, that he did so by using a thin, semi-transparent piece of paper, tracing over the original image below. I will have to look into that, as your claim warrants deeper investigation. I have no reason to believe that anything contained in the scriptures is inaccurate though.

The author is a PhD, but he earned it in education. Kind of vague, so I don't know if I could say he's qualified to make his assertions in astronomy with the status of an expert in the field, yet the fact that he has a PhD does warrant that one take his academic opinion on pretty much anything at least a little seriously. PhD's don't come easy. Personally, I was impressed by the depth of his descriptions and explanations of astronomic phenomena, and therefore concluded that he must have done his homework on the astronomy at least. That's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

I agree with the assessment that we cannot count the number of God's creations, at least starting from scratch and doing so without any kind of technological assistance. And yet, astronomers have come up with estimates on the numbers of stars in our galaxy, which I seem to recall having heard years ago. While there appears to be a discrepancy in logic here, I wouldn't necessarily fault the author for it, nor would I even assume that things are what they might on the surface seem. Maybe they're able to do tricky things with radio telescopes or infrared imaging to be able to come up with that estimate (and obviously, it is an estimate, maybe even a guess-timate). However that number was decided upon, it was someone other than the author who did it. He is just quoting what is considered conventional thinking in the field of astronomy, perhaps in agreement with it, but still, I see no insurmountable logic gap there.

Lastly, your perspective on Hebrew linguistics is interesting. Thank you for adding that to the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to keep this in mind, Hemi.

I love stuff like this!

Strange thing here Tom, I asked Lord again over several issues that puzzled me with our universal [seeking same information as Enoch sought], and feeling the Holy Ghost I was led to this article. Enlightenment comes from strange places and timing. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the assessment that we cannot count the number of God's creations, at least starting from scratch and doing so without any kind of technological assistance. And yet, astronomers have come up with estimates on the numbers of stars in our galaxy, which I seem to recall having heard years ago. While there appears to be a discrepancy in logic here, I wouldn't necessarily fault the author for it, nor would I even assume that things are what they might on the surface seem. Maybe they're able to do tricky things with radio telescopes or infrared imaging to be able to come up with that estimate (and obviously, it is an estimate, maybe even a guess-timate). However that number was decided upon, it was someone other than the author who did it. He is just quoting what is considered conventional thinking in the field of astronomy, perhaps in agreement with it, but still, I see no insurmountable logic gap there.

Lastly, your perspective on Hebrew linguistics is interesting. Thank you for adding that to the thread.

I suspect for those who will reside with the FATHER will be given the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you assume correctly, but I was not talking about Joseph Smith. I was talking about whoever copied it from what Abraham originally wrote and illustrated.

We don't know how to use the hypochephalus, if indeed it can be used in the way that the author wants to.

A PHD by itself means little. There are plenty of very poor academics around. What counts is methodology. A simple evaluation that can be done is looking at the sources used. I may be wrong, but none of the scientific ones seem in depth, that is, more than just your college-level astronomy textbook.

I would take with a grain or two of salt any conclusions someone with a PHD in child psychology reached on Syriac palaeography of the 3rd century AD.

I don't dispute the rough estimate of 150 billion, indeed the figure is irelevant. If you are able to get that close to the figure, then it probably isn't the extent of God's dominion. Do you see what I mean?

I had always assumed that when Joseph Smith made the facsimile of Abraham's illustrations, that he did so by using a thin, semi-transparent piece of paper, tracing over the original image below. I will have to look into that, as your claim warrants deeper investigation. I have no reason to believe that anything contained in the scriptures is inaccurate though.

The author is a PhD, but he earned it in education. Kind of vague, so I don't know if I could say he's qualified to make his assertions in astronomy with the status of an expert in the field, yet the fact that he has a PhD does warrant that one take his academic opinion on pretty much anything at least a little seriously. PhD's don't come easy. Personally, I was impressed by the depth of his descriptions and explanations of astronomic phenomena, and therefore concluded that he must have done his homework on the astronomy at least. That's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

I agree with the assessment that we cannot count the number of God's creations, at least starting from scratch and doing so without any kind of technological assistance. And yet, astronomers have come up with estimates on the numbers of stars in our galaxy, which I seem to recall having heard years ago. While there appears to be a discrepancy in logic here, I wouldn't necessarily fault the author for it, nor would I even assume that things are what they might on the surface seem. Maybe they're able to do tricky things with radio telescopes or infrared imaging to be able to come up with that estimate (and obviously, it is an estimate, maybe even a guess-timate). However that number was decided upon, it was someone other than the author who did it. He is just quoting what is considered conventional thinking in the field of astronomy, perhaps in agreement with it, but still, I see no insurmountable logic gap there.

Lastly, your perspective on Hebrew linguistics is interesting. Thank you for adding that to the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to voluntarily accept the possibility that I'm just the equivalent of a monkey impressed by something shiney. The author's language and depth of knowledge regarding astronomy impresses me, even on an academic level alone. I know you're not calling me dumb, but if this makes me dumb than I can accept that, though I can't see that beign the case. Bare in mind that the depth of your post impresses me as well. I'm not trying to sound facetious and I sincerely mean that as a compliment.

You make a valid point regarding the hypochephalus. It says right there in the description of it that some of it is not proper for us to know about right now. Frankly, the parts that are explained don't make much sense to me. I think all the author's trying to do by referring to it is to suggest that Abraham knew the things he is suggesting in his book (if they are indeed true, I don't doubt Abraham would have known them), and specifically, I think he's using it to reinforce his belief that there is a cluster of stars/celestialized planets near the center of the galaxy that pool their gravitational force to govern the rest of the galaxy. This causes the description of the hypochephalus to be more clear to me, as it regards the 15 planets/stars. It doesn't seem to me that the author is trying to claim that he understands the hypochephalus any better than we do, just that he is suggesting that his theory fits with it, as any true astronomy regarding our galaxy should. I see parallels. Whether it's me being naive or not I cannot say, but it makes sense to me, and the fact that I can say the same about the Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been a major part of my testimony.

I must be missing something about the copying of the facsimile. I know that the Book of Abraham was written in Abraham's own hand (red ink, if I'm not mistaken), and that includes the images contained therein. I was under the impression that the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith, including the copying of the hypochephalus and the other images. If someone else copied the images, that's the part I'm mistaken, I think.

I see your point regarding counting the stars in our galaxy. I probably sound like devil's advocate when I say this, but we really don't know how many stars there are in this galaxy, nor could we really determine that, I think. The estimate of 150 billion is obviously somewhat arbitrary. To round off a number that large tells me that there is no precision. The way I interpret the scriptures regarding the number of objects in the galaxy (I say objects because I don't feel that it is meant to be limited to just starts) is that it is beyond human ability to count them. The author makes the point that if one were to attempt to do so, they would die of old age long before they could finish. I think maybe a slightly apt comparison might be counting the hairs on someone's head. How could you keep track of which ones you'd counted and which ones you hadn't? In theory it may sound possible, but in practice I bet it would get confusing. Plus, we might have to take into consideration the creation of new stars, worlds, etc., as well as the destruction of others. In the 27,000 light years between us and the galaxy core, even on a straight patch, I'm confident that accurately counting every object would be impossible.

Perhaps some might say that we can count the number of objects in this galaxy, and that therefore proves that the Kolob Theorem is wrong. I would ask as a response, if we can count the number of objects in this galaxy, can we count the number of objects in other galaxies? Why or why not? I think distance would probably be a factor. But I think there's enough distance in our galaxy alone to make it impossible for us to count all the objects in it. Not to mention that for whatever reason (and I agree with the Kolob Theorem on this one), we cannot see the galaxy core, even though it is believed to have large and powerful stars there, which should appear to us much like the cores of other galaxies do. Whatever the reason why, we cannot see all the stars in this galaxy, and we therefore, in my humble opinion, cannot count them, at least not with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on this, and I apologize if I sound like I am. I personally believe in keeping an open mind about everything not explicitly covered by the Gospel and the Prophets, and should they ever have anything to say regarding this book, that will be the final word as far as I'm concerned. In the meantime, the book makes sense to me, and since the Gospel does the same thing, I'm inclined to believe it. At any rate, some of the basic ideas in this book were already beliefs of mine before I'd ever heard of this book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean I'm bound to accept things when there are major flaws in those arguments.

If it is an ancient record, then we ought to consider things from the historical POV first, wouldn't you agree?

One can go awfully wrong otherwise.

Did Abraham set the type himself, or prepare the printer's manuscript? Of course not. Just because the phrase by Abraham's own hand appears it doesn't mean that the papyri Joseph translated were the originals. There is no possibility of that, seeing as they are Ptolemaic, centuries upon centuries after Abraham. They are copies.

Again, the problem is using the hypocephalus as a modern star chart. I don't believe it can be used scientificaly at all as it is symbolic and highly stylised. We need the key, to understand what the symbols represented and how it fits into the theology, because that dictates the positioning of the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean I'm bound to accept things when there are major flaws in those arguments.

If it is an ancient record, then we ought to consider things from the historical POV first, wouldn't you agree?

One can go awfully wrong otherwise.

Did Abraham set the type himself, or prepare the printer's manuscript? Of course not. Just because the phrase by Abraham's own hand appears it doesn't mean that the papyri Joseph translated were the originals. There is no possibility of that, seeing as they are Ptolemaic, centuries upon centuries after Abraham. They are copies.

Again, the problem is using the hypocephalus as a modern star chart. I don't believe it can be used scientificaly at all as it is symbolic and highly stylised. We need the key, to understand what the symbols represented and how it fits into the theology, because that dictates the positioning of the characters.

From what I have read, Joseph Smith explicitly stated that the scrolls were written in Abraham's own hand. I believe that the hypocephalus, therefore, was drawn by Abraham as well, though that's just an assumption based on having read that the text was in Abraham's handwriting. I completely agree about the historical POV though. I think a lot of people make the mistake of neglecting the historical POV and treat the scriptures like directions printed out from mapquest.

I haven't got a clue what the hypocephalus means beyond the descriptions provided, and even then I can't really wrap my head around it (though the Kolob Theorem provides for me an application for some of the descriptions that makes sense). I don't think Brother Hilton is able to read that facsimile either. If it wasn't given to Joseph Smith to interpret the whole thing, or at least share the interpretation of it, than I doubt anyone with less Priesthood authority is going to be given the interpretation, at least of the parts where no interpretation is given. I think what Brother Hilton has done is provide a theoretical application for the parts where a description is given, and it is one that I believe works. I don't recall noticing any flaws, though there were a few portions of his theorem for which I couldn't see any logic. I wouldn't go so far as to call them flaws, only that they didn't make sense to me at this point in my life, and I have no idea if they ever will.

I agree that one could go wrong with something like this, if they bought into it so heavily that they were unwilling to listen if a General Authority said that it was incorrect. With things like this, I believe Heavenly Father doesn't usually reveal much about it. I think He prefers to leave it on a shelf, and if we're interested, fine, if not, that's fine too. I can picture in my mind the earth being moved out of this solar system and moved through space to another point in the galaxy, probably at the core, but it's not as important to me as learning how to forgive faster and get angry slower. Hopefully we can all remember our priorities and not get swept away in Gospel hobbying. The Kolob Theorem makes sense to me, but if a General Authority ever says it's false or even inaccurate, I'm going with what the General Authority says.

In the meantime, if I can gain a greater understanding of the cosmos and my place in it, and if I find symbolism that reinforces the Gospel, and it all gels into one truth, I feel comfortable with accepting it. If I were not so disposed, I doubt I would have taken the discussions and joined the Church.

I apologize if I sound preachy. Just sharing within the context of a sitmulating discussion and exchange of ideas. Thank you for your ideas and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI - this book is online:

http://hickmanmuseum.homestead.com/THE_KOLOB_THEOREM.pdf

although I would not mind a copy to leave on my "hot chocolate" table. :)

it is an interesting read.

While investigating The Church, Many Moons Ago, I read The Pearl of Great Price, and was stunned, to say the least.

I decided to fast and pray about it, and asked, that if it were true, to be allowed to see Kolob from a distance, so as not to defile it; and if it were NOT true, then to give me nothing.

The result was that that night, I floated in outer space, and beheld the most beautiful sight I have ever seen. I was taken in the spirit and beheld the galaxy where Kolob is.

It strengthened my testimony indedd.

Thanks for the link. Now I´ll read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Hidden
Hidden

So, here we have Chet, who says: "For some time now, I have known that the world where my Heavenly Father resides is located at the center of this galaxy. I say KNOWN. This was revealed to me."

And now we have Helgi, who says his testimony was strengthened after "I was taken in the spirit and beheld the galaxy where Kolob is."

Ya know, you can't both be right. For all I know, you're both wrong. I dunno - is there a way to get you guys to fight it out in a cage match or something?

I guess what I'm saying in my admittedly rough and abrasive style, is that your two statements are direct proof that at least one of you can't tell the difference between Truth and Belief. I don't know how passionately Helgi wishes to defend his experience as Truth, but Chet seems pretty convinced. One of you is wrong. That's not a small thing.

LM

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment

The result was that that night, I floated in outer space, and beheld the most beautiful sight I have ever seen. I was taken in the spirit and beheld the galaxy where Kolob is.

Where was this galaxy, Helgi? Was it ours?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m sorry LOUDMOUTH, it didn´t have a sign saying Milky Way 25 parsecs.

It could very well have been OUR galaxy, as it was a spiral (SO) galaxy.

As regards fighting things out in a cage - is rather OLD HAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Volgadon, do I then understand you correctly, that your interpretation is Christ is Kolob, and the other 14 worlds, are his two councillors and twelve appostles?

I´m sorry, but that doesn´t quite fit in with The Book of Revelation and The Book of Mormon, where it mentions the 24 Elder´s which will be sitting in a circle at The Final Judgement (12 for the Jews and 12 for the Gentiles).

However I thank Hemidakota for his helpful input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share