The Folk Prophet Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Well if you want to get technical, it's "The Revelation" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) I wasn't being technical. I was being nit picky. Background/full disclosure. On another board I had written "Revelations". A bunch of people pounced on me for that. So I thought I'd share my pain. You just happened to be the one... Edited February 16, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 58 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: [The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John] is understood to be primarily symbolic. Abraham is not. On what do you base this assertion? Lehi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, LeSellers said: On what do you base this assertion? Lehi On the "duh" factor. Edited February 16, 2016 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeSellers Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: [I base the assertion that Abraham is not to be understood symbolically] on the "duh" assertion. That might not be considered definitive. All scripture is symbolic to some extent. Lehi Edited February 16, 2016 by LeSellers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 7 minutes ago, LeSellers said: That might not be considered definitive. All scripture is symbolic to some extent. Lehi Which is my point about Kolob. The fact that something is symbolic does not mean it is not literal as well. Revelation certainly has some literals within it. But most of it is understood to be figurative. This is partially addressed in the D&C. Nowhere is Abraham asserted to be overtly symbolic (though it is, currently, trendy in some circles to imply that it is...but that is merely a way for people to deal with cognitive dissonance and has no other real strength as an argument...certainly no backing by way of authoritative statement or the like (that I'm aware of)). The point is, simply, that it is bad logic to imply that because one scripture is symbolic that therefore another must be. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said: Well if you want to get technical, it's "The Revelation" Just stick with "Apocalypse" and avoid the whole issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said: Which is my point about Kolob. The fact that something is symbolic does not mean it is not literal as well. Revelation certainly has some literals within it. But most of it is understood to be figurative. This is partially addressed in the D&C. Nowhere is Abraham asserted to be overtly symbolic (though it is, currently, trendy in some circles to imply that it is...but that is merely a way for people to deal with cognitive dissonance and has no other real strength as an argument...certainly no backing by way of authoritative statement or the like (that I'm aware of)). The point is, simply, that it is bad logic to imply that because one scripture is symbolic that therefore another must be. Is the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual authoritative enough? Abraham learned that wherever there are two stars one will be greater than the other, and that there are other stars greater than those two, until Kolob, which is the greatest of all. He learned that it is not size that makes one star or planet greater than another, but rather its proximity to Kolob. So it is with the children of God—their greatness and glory will depend upon their proximity to the Creator, Jesus Christ, who is “nearest unto the throne of God,” “the great one,” “the first creation,” and is “set to govern all those which belong to the same order.” Thus the great star, Kolob, is a symbol of Jesus Christ. https://institute.lds.org/bc/content/institute/materials/english/student-manuals/religion-327-pearl-of-great-price-student-manualeng.pdf I simply do not believe it to be literal. Yes, a lot of early saints believe it to be literal, but they also switched between it being a planet or a star, and frankly, I think there was a lot of speculation in the early days that do not belong in our canon of belief. Edited February 17, 2016 by bytebear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 27 minutes ago, bytebear said: Is the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual authoritative enough? Abraham learned that wherever there are two stars one will be greater than the other, and that there are other stars greater than those two, until Kolob, which is the greatest of all. He learned that it is not size that makes one star or planet greater than another, but rather its proximity to Kolob. So it is with the children of God—their greatness and glory will depend upon their proximity to the Creator, Jesus Christ, who is “nearest unto the throne of God,” “the great one,” “the first creation,” and is “set to govern all those which belong to the same order.” Thus the great star, Kolob, is a symbol of Jesus Christ. https://institute.lds.org/bc/content/institute/materials/english/student-manuals/religion-327-pearl-of-great-price-student-manualeng.pdf I simply do not believe it to be literal. Yes, a lot of early saints believe it to be literal, but they also switched between it being a planet or a star, and frankly, I think there was a lot of speculation in the early days that do not belong in our canon of belief. This quote does not say what you think it says. It nowhere implies that Kolob is not an actual, honest-to-goodness star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 No, it doesn't, but whenever the topic of Kolob comes up, I never hear anyone in or out of the church talk of it being a symbol of Jesus Christ. All I hear is this literal interpretation. And when I bring up the obvious connection, I am bombarded with shock and bewilderment at the very concept. This doesn't concern you? It does me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 No, it doesn't concern me at all, because I haven't observed it. Why does God mention Kolob to Abraham at all? Obviously, he does so in order to draw a parallel between levels of stars and levels of intelligences, and how the greatest stands above the others and leads them. Frankly, the doctrine of Kolob forms such an infinitesimal part of LDS teachings that I don't recall ever having spoken of it in Sunday School or a quorum meeting. I'm sure we have at some point or another, but I don't remember it ever happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Yes, just as He parallels the stars, moon and sun to degrees of glory. So I see no reason to take it to mean anything other than symbolism. But every single internet discussion on it is all about some literal planet of God, and I think that entirely misses the point, but it sure provides fodder. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) The original poster said, "God lives near a star called Kolob" but that's not right. A star called Kolob resides near God. There is a difference in these two statements, even though they say the same thing in different ways. The phraseology changes the understanding, particularly when you understand Kolob to mean Christ. Edited February 17, 2016 by bytebear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 So because Paul and Joseph Smith talked about the heavens using the sun, the moon, and the stars as symbols, therefore the sun, moon, and stars are strictly figurative and don't exist in reality? zil, mordorbund and theSQUIDSTER 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 You can believe them to be literal. I do not. And, I repeat, focusing on the literal as is almost universally done, without any mention of Christ, is missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 You have two entirely separate arguments going on here, bytebear. Kolob is not a literal star; it is entirely metaphorical, basically a name of Christ. Kolob is used in scripture as a reference to Christ, which fact is missed by many Church members. We agree on #2 (at least on the first part; I have no opinion on the second part). However, your entry into this thread was proclaiming #1, and you have provided not the least shred of evidence to substantiate that opinion except to reiterate that that's how you feel. That's wonderful and all, and you certainly have my permission to believe as you choose. But when you make a claim on a discussion list, others will expect you to give some sort of evidence or argument or basis past "that's just what I think" -- which they already figured out, based on the fact that you said it. So we continue to ask: Based on what evidence do you claim that a real, literal star that Abraham (through divine revelation) identified as Kolob does not actually exist? NeedleinA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 My inclusion of #1 is because it's the only discussion that ever happens. God lives on Kolob. No he doesn't. He lives near Kolob. No Kolob resides near God. The literal interpretation deflates #2. I don't see a literal interpretation because it doesn't relate to the point in any logical way. The notion that God lives on a planet is completely foreign to the symbolism being conveyed. We have been so stuck in this literal concept that we have completely lost the meaning. And I presented plenty of parallels in my answer, so I don't know how you can claim my argument is based on "that's just what I think". I find no reason at all to why God would give a lesson on his home planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 34 minutes ago, bytebear said: The notion that God lives on a planet is completely foreign to the symbolism being conveyed...I find no reason at all to why God would give a lesson on his home planet. Which "home planet" might that be? The scriptures say nothing of God's "home planet". It says only that Kolob is a star nearest unto God's throne (that is, the nearest of those stars shown to Abraham). The whole "God's home planet" thing exists only in your mind, not in scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 37 minutes ago, bytebear said: My inclusion of #1 is because it's the only discussion that ever happens. I would point out that this very discussion thread is evidence that you are mistaken. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 hours ago, bytebear said: You can believe them to be literal. I do not. And, I repeat, focusing on the literal as is almost universally done, without any mention of Christ, is missing the point. bytebear, I hope you understand that you are committing the converse mistake that you accuse others of. It is one thing to say that most people are missing the metaphorical part of the passage in Abraham. It is quite another to say it has NO literal meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 8 hours ago, bytebear said: Is the Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual authoritative enough? Abraham learned that wherever there are two stars one will be greater than the other, and that there are other stars greater than those two, until Kolob, which is the greatest of all. He learned that it is not size that makes one star or planet greater than another, but rather its proximity to Kolob. So it is with the children of God—their greatness and glory will depend upon their proximity to the Creator, Jesus Christ, who is “nearest unto the throne of God,” “the great one,” “the first creation,” and is “set to govern all those which belong to the same order.” Thus the great star, Kolob, is a symbol of Jesus Christ. https://institute.lds.org/bc/content/institute/materials/english/student-manuals/religion-327-pearl-of-great-price-student-manualeng.pdf I simply do not believe it to be literal. Yes, a lot of early saints believe it to be literal, but they also switched between it being a planet or a star, and frankly, I think there was a lot of speculation in the early days that do not belong in our canon of belief. I really don't see your point here. That quote says exactly what I'm saying. That the greatness of stars and planets is hierarchical, as also is the greatness of God's children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 8 hours ago, bytebear said: No, it doesn't, but whenever the topic of Kolob comes up, I never hear anyone in or out of the church talk of it being a symbol of Jesus Christ. All I hear is this literal interpretation. And when I bring up the obvious connection, I am bombarded with shock and bewilderment at the very concept. This doesn't concern you? It does me. That's not true. The bombardment comes from the idea that Kolob doesn't exist as a real star. It has nothing to do with it being symbolic of other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, bytebear said: Yes, just as He parallels the stars, moon and sun to degrees of glory. So I see no reason to take it to mean anything other than symbolism. By the same logic then, the stars moon and sun don't really exist. Edit: and the brass serpent DID literally exist. That was the point. Edited February 17, 2016 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 8 hours ago, bytebear said: 2) claiming the worship and or necessity of brass snakes in our belief system. Wait...what? Who's claiming we need to worship Kolob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Self quote warning... 18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: Wait...what? Who's claiming we need to worship Kolob? ...actually...as Kolob is, per the argument being made, literally Christ...we should be worshiping Kolob. NeedleinA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.