The creation

[bytebear]

Actually, I brought up the four horsemen of the apocalypse.  And Jesus says, "I am the morning star" but I don't take that literally.  We also drink the blood of Christ, but I don't take that literally.  But whenever we talk of Kolob, we almost always speak of it as a literal star (or planet).   I just think that is foolish and I think it gives way to mockery, missing the whole point.  You said, "the greatness of stars and planets is hierarchical, as also is the greatness of God's children."  I agree.  But I see the stars and planets as symbolic,  You see them as literal.  Ok, great.  We disagree.  But why the necessity for force the issue?   Honestly, I feel like I am discussing the Godhead with a bunch of hardcore Trinitarians.  So burn the heretic at the stake.  Sheesh.

Edited February 17, 2016 by bytebear

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I see the stars and planets as symbolic,  You see them as literal.  Ok, great.  We disagree.  But why the necessity for force the issue?   Honestly, I feel like I am discussing the Godhead with a bunch of hardcore Trinitarians.  So burn the heretic at the stake.  Sheesh.

Not at all, bytebear. Your initial comment was:

On 2/12/2016 at 1:04 PM, bytebear said:

I think it's pretty obvious that Kolob is Jesus Christ and not a literal star.

I responded

On 2/12/2016 at 1:18 PM, Vort said:

How do you reconcile this "obvious" figurative language with the seemingly very literal description of the sun as Shinehah, the moon as Olea, a star as kokob, and stars in general as kokaubeam? In the context of speaking of Christ as "Kolob", what is the figurative interpretation of giving these other names to literal objects which appear wholly unrelated to that context?

We're still waiting for a response. No stake-burning involved, just wanting an answer.

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, bytebear said:

We also drink the blood of Christ, but I don't take that literally.

No,we do not. We drink water. Catholics drink the blood of Christ.

We "do it in remembrance of the blood of [His] Son". There's a huge difference.

Lehi

[Guest]

If we can take a breather for just a moment.  Can you clarify for me one thing?  Regardless of the metaphorical nature of the passages in question, do you believe there to be an actual star which God was referring to which He called Kolob?

I want to emphasize that I understand and accept the metaphorical aspect of the passages.  I have no problem with that.  I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.  The problem is that you seem to be saying that to believe there is a literal star that God was referring to AS WELL is ridiculous.  Is that what you're saying?

If you can answer that I think I can address your concerns in an entirely different manner.

As for the other aspects you bring up:

We "drink the blood of Christ" is a metaphor.  And that is the doctrine that we focus on and the belief we discuss.  But that doesn't change the fact that Christ did indeed have real blood when living here in mortality.

Christ is the sign of greater light in the future.  That is the doctrine we focus on.  But there is an actual, literal morning star.

I believe there will be something very literal that we will see in the events preceding the second coming that if we were to take a step back and look at it would seem like, "OH!  That's what John was talking about!  It's so obvious!  The horses!  Of course."  And yes, that is figurative.  But you know what?  There are actual horses.  And I'll go a step further.  I wouldn't be surprised if I saw literal horses engaging in some supernatural activity that would easily fit the descriptions of each of the four horsemen described in scripture.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Guest

[bytebear]

"sun as Shinehah, the moon as Olea, a star as kokob, and stars in general as kokaubeam?"
 

Well, there is no sun called "Celestial Kingdom" no moon called "Terrestrial Kingdom" and no star called "Telestial Kingdom" either.  Naming something doesn't make it literally a star, moon or star.

As I said, Kolob is Jesus Christ, Kokaubeam are the chosen leaders, as describe in the D&C.

[bytebear]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

No,we do not. We drink water. Catholics drink the blood of Christ.

We "do it in remembrance of the blood of [His] Son". There's a huge difference.

Lehi

Bingo!

[LeSellers]

12 hours ago, bytebear said:

 Someone mentioned the brass serpent as a literal symbol of Christ, but I would be hard pressed to find people 1) harping on it and 2) claiming the worship and or necessity of brass snakes in our belief system.   It all just misses the mark.

The Jews did, in fact, worship the Brass Serpent. One of the righteous Jewish kings (Josiah or Hezekiah, as I recall) took it out of the Temple and destroyed it to avoid idol worship.

It seems Israel has often turned to worship of symbols as opposed to worshiping God and Christ. One would hope that we, modern Israel, don't fall for that.

Lehi

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, bytebear said:

"sun as Shinehah, the moon as Olea, a star as kokob, and stars in general as kokaubeam?"
 

Well, there is no sun called "Celestial Kingdom" no moon called "Terrestrial Kingdom" and no star called "Telestial Kingdom" either.  Naming something doesn't make it literally a star, moon or star.

As I said, Kolob is Jesus Christ, Kokaubeam are the chosen leaders, as describe in the D&C.

So then, the point of naming the sun and the moon with interesting and seemingly literal names in the very same breath as naming the entirely figurative and fanciful Kolob was...?

[bytebear]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If we can take a breather for just a moment.  Can you clarify for me one thing?  Regardless of the metaphorical nature of the passages in question, do you believe there to be an actual star which God was referring to which He called Kolob?

I want to emphasize that I understand and accept the metaphorical aspect of the passages.  I have no problem with that.  I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.  The problem is that you seem to be saying that to believe there is a literal star that God was referring to AS WELL is ridiculous.  Is that what you're saying?

I don't think it's ridiculous.  I just think it's wrong.  And I think it's wrong to emphasize it when the topic comes up.  The original poster said "God lives I think on a globe, just like we do. Somewhere out there. Near a star called Kolob."  I think this is the wrong interpretation, or at best a very distant secondary interpretation.

[bytebear]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The Jews did, in fact, worship the Brass Serpent. One of the righteous Jewish kings (Josiah or Hezekiah, as I recall) took it out of the Temple and destroyed it to avoid idol worship.

It seems Israel has often turned to worship of symbols as opposed to worshiping God and Christ. One would hope that we, modern Israel, don't fall for that.

Lehi

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

[bytebear]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The Jews did, in fact, worship the Brass Serpent. One of the righteous Jewish kings (Josiah or Hezekiah, as I recall) took it out of the Temple and destroyed it to avoid idol worship.

It seems Israel has often turned to worship of symbols as opposed to worshiping God and Christ. One would hope that we, modern Israel, don't fall for that.

Lehi

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

[bytebear]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The Jews did, in fact, worship the Brass Serpent. One of the righteous Jewish kings (Josiah or Hezekiah, as I recall) took it out of the Temple and destroyed it to avoid idol worship.

It seems Israel has often turned to worship of symbols as opposed to worshiping God and Christ. One would hope that we, modern Israel, don't fall for that.

Lehi

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

[bytebear]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

So then, the point of naming the sun and the moon with interesting and seemingly literal names in the very same breath as naming the entirely figurative and fanciful Kolob was...?

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

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, bytebear said:

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

Interesting. Can you quote the offending responses I have given you?

[bytebear]

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

Edited February 17, 2016 by bytebear

[Guest]

You've got to see Meet Me in Kolob.  Critics everywhere are singing the praises of this special, heart-warming musical.  Meet Me in Kolob is the sweet story of an eternity that went on forever.  Romp through the pre-existence with Elder Hussler and Elder Bean.  Weep with them when their eternal mates are killed in the War in Heaven.  Joy with them in mortality when they realized that they were only maimed beyond recognition.  And thrill with them with their daring, over-the-wall escape from spirit prison.

Meet Me in Kolob is a special production that will have the whole family laughing from their hearts and crying from their pocketbooks.

Lehi Moskowitz of the Gazetter says: Meet Me in Kolob is the greatest thing since road shows!

Moroni Blanding of the Times says: I think it's the best special musical since... Star Wars!

Melvin Hubbard of the Dispatch says: I've seen it sixteen times, and I just can't believe it.

Meet Me in Kolob has sold out in venues such as Webster, Deer Park, Tooele, Globe, and Brazos Junction.  Don't miss it!!!

[Vort]

4 hours ago, bytebear said:

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

If I ask "How is this obvious?", how can you answer that? "Well, you see, it's obvious because..." There is no good answer. That is what I was saying: Asking "How is this obvious?" is a faulty question, because it really can't be answered. So instead, I asked what I did.

Instead of taking offense at something that was neither meant offensively nor intrinsically offensive, you might do better to ask if your perception is correct. In this case, you would have found out it was not.

EDIT: Oh, I see. You thought I was personally insulting you by suggesting that you, personally, were mentally incapable of formulating an answer to the question. Well, that doesn't fit at all with what I went on to say, but I can see how my wording was confusing, so I apologize for not finding a less confusing way to say it.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Vort

[bytebear]

"Instead of taking offense at something that was neither meant offensively nor intrinsically offensive, you might do better to ask if your perception is correct. In this case, you would have found out it was not."

See, this is the condescension I am talking about.  You assume that your responses will just convince me that what I perceive is wrong.  Nope.  Sorry.  I still believe what I believe.  And, in fact, in reviewing the topic through this thread, I am more convinced than ever that my perception is, in fact, correct.  Perhaps, if you had considered other interpretations, you might have gained some insight, but you are too wrapped up in proving me wrong.

Edited February 17, 2016 by bytebear

[NeedleinA]

On 2/12/2016 at 3:04 PM, bytebear said:

I think it's pretty obvious that Kolob is Jesus Christ and not a literal star.

I can see how one could draw the conclusion that Kolob is also symbolic of Jesus Christ.  

Out of curiosity, do you have any authoritative source(s) that straight up says:

1. Jesus is in fact Kolob

2. There is no literal star called Kolob

or are we at a personal interpretation level right now?

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, bytebear said:

But why the necessity for force the issue? 

You're the only one who's applying force to the issue. Kolob could be only symbolic. There's no compelling reason to presume that's the case, but it could be. You're the only one who seems to be taking a hard line that it must be only symbolic.

9 hours ago, bytebear said:

So burn the heretic at the stake.

Since when is disagreeing with someone burning them at the stake?  ....oh...wait...you were only being symbolic.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, bytebear said:

I don't think it's ridiculous.  I just think it's wrong.  And I think it's wrong to emphasize it when the topic comes up.  The original poster said "God lives I think on a globe, just like we do. Somewhere out there. Near a star called Kolob."  I think this is the wrong interpretation, or at best a very distant secondary interpretation.

To be fair, the idea of God living on a globe just like we do may be easily inferred from the teaching that we, upon our exaltation, will live on this earth changed to it's Celestial glory. It's simply applying the same idea to God's exaltation and has little to do with the Kolob thing, figurative or literal.

[bytebear]

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I can see how one could draw the conclusion that Kolob is also symbolic of Jesus Christ.  

Out of curiosity, do you have any authoritative source(s) that straight up says:

1. Jesus is in fact Kolob

2. There is no literal star called Kolob

or are we at a personal interpretation level right now?

So, perhaps if I rephrase my original statement it will make it more palatable to everyone,.

I think it's pretty obvious that Kolob is a representation of Jesus Christ and the notion that it is a literal star is debatable.

Now to answer your questions.

1. Yes, as much as the Morning Star is used to describe Jesus Christ.  This is taught in student manuals, so is authoritative as in someone else in the church thought this up before me.

2. There is no literal star called Kolob just as there is no literal Morning Star.  I know of no star that can govern lesser stars, and I know of no reason why God would choose to single out a star because of it's proximity to Him.  The "nearness" of the star to God is not physical proximity, but of spiritual similarity.  This is interpretation, but as I said, the early church leaders certainly went with the physical interpretation, but they also shifted between star and planet, and of course, we know they also had speculation about the inhabitants of the moon and the sun.  Joseph Smith did say "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." which again points to me to a representation of Christ, the first born, and nearest spiritual nature of God.  Apparently Hugh Nibley and a few others have also gone with this theory as well.  I don't consider my view particularly earth shattering, but it seems to be upsetting quite a few people.

Edited February 18, 2016 by bytebear

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, bytebear said:

There is no literal star called Kolob just as there is no literal Morning Star.

But there is a literal Morning Star. Today, we call it Venus.

12 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I know of no star that can govern lesser stars, and I know of no reason why God would choose to single out a star because of it's proximity to Him.  The "nearness" of the star to God is not physical proximity, but of spiritual similarity.

Just because you don't know God's reasons does not mean that God therefore lacks those reasons. God himself said that he called the star "Kolob" because it was near to him. That has to count for something.

12 minutes ago, bytebear said:

This is interpretation, but as I said, the early church leaders certainly went with the physical interpretation, but they also shifted between star and planet, and of course, we know they also had speculation about the inhabitants of the moon and the sun, and so I don't consider my view particularly earth shattering, but it seems to be upsetting quite a few people.

The only person in this conversation who has gotten upset is you. No one else was upset, but several people asked you for clarification and to substantiate your claims, and you took offense at their questions.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Vort

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, bytebear said:

1. Yes, as much as the Morning Star is used to describe Jesus Christ.  This is taught in student manuals, so is authoritative.

2. There is no literal star called Kolob just as there is no literal Morning Star.

Christ is called the Evening and the Morning Star. Venus is the Evening and the Morning Star, literally.

We don't call any star "Kolob", but that does not mean that there is no literal Kolob.

Lehi

[bytebear]

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