The creation


richard7900
 Share

Recommended Posts

And even though Venus is a real planet, that doesn't mean when Jesus said "I am the Morning star" he meant that he was Venus the literal planet or that when the morning stars sang for joy, that it meant that Venus literally broke out in song.  But he was using it symbolically.  And I still cannot find any rectification of the notion that a star can govern other stars. Perhaps it's a reference to planets circling a star, but even still, it's simply using symbolism to describe Jesus Christ and the organization of the Premortal councils. 

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bytebear said:

And even though Venus is a real planet, that doesn't mean when Jesus said "I am the Morning star" he meant that he was Venus the literal planet or that when the morning stars sang for joy, that it meant that Venus literally broke out in song.

But no one has claimed anything of the sort. We all fully realize that Venus, as both the "morning star" and the "evening star", is being used symbolically as a represenation of Christ. But the point is Venus is still real.

Remember, you claimed that Kolob as a star is not real. You made the claim that it is purely symbolic, with no actual reality behind the symbol (beyond Christ, the person being symbolized). We are simply wondering why you claim that and on what you base that judgment.

26 minutes ago, bytebear said:

And I still cannot find any rectification of the notion that a star can govern other stars. Perhaps it's a reference to planets circling a star, but even still, it's simply using symbolism to describe Jesus Christ and the organization of the Premortal councils. 

Well, of course. That's what we have all been saying.

But of course stars govern other stars. That's what our galaxy is: A collection of stars that govern each other. I do not suppose that Kolob's stellar "governance" of our planet is a matter of gravitation -- but maybe it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have said over and over, my basis and reasoning. 

Let me try again, and I am stealing from James Ferrell via Wikipedia.

Quote

 

According to Mormon author James Ferrell, the metaphorical interpretation is supported by the parallel construction of the passages[44] in the Book of Abraham's third chapter:

2 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; 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 ....

After intervening passages that discuss how some souls are greater than others, just as some stars are greater than others, the theme is repeated in reference to Jesus:

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good... 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God ....

 

So, to add to this, if you look at the first paragraph, I believe it is a literal event description. This is what God told Abraham.  The second verse is Abraham speaking, and I believe repeating what God told him above but giving more of his own interpretation.  In other words, God used the term Kolob in his teaching, but Abraham "translates" the meaning.  So, both paragraphs are saying the exact same thing, just using different terms and symbols.  So, I see no reason to believe that Kolob is in any way to mean a literal planet in the proximity of God.

Now, having said that for the umpteenth time, are you still "simply wondering why you claim that and on what you base that judgment" or do I have to keep repeating myself.

 

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I could go a step further and note that Genesis gives to creation accounts, chapter 1 and chapter 2.  Some have interpreted this to be a spiritual creation account and a physical creation account.  So, perhaps the first paragraph above is an account of the organization of spirits, the forming from "stars" into spirit bodies.  Maybe stars are symbolic of the spirit matter before it is formed.  And the second account is the organization of the spirit persons into the councils.  This is of course speculation.  But in this case, then the unorganized matter that made Jesus Christ was called Kolob.  So, perhaps there was a literal star, but it became Christ.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bytebear said:

And I have said over and over, my basis and reasoning. 

Now, having said that for the umpteenth time, are you still "simply wondering why you claim that and on what you base that judgment" or do I have to keep repeating myself.

I personally get what you are saying and how you got there, so no, I don't need to hear it again and again. I'm still wondering, do we have any straight up quotes from the church, or are we only at a level of "reasoning".

For example:

Here is a link from lds.org where Pres.xxxxxxxx says: "There is no literal star called Kolob".

You are correct, some members never think about the symbolism of Kolob & Christ. I never have before. So, thanks for sharing your thoughts on it. I'm simply trying to move it in my mind from "oh hey, I learned a cool possibility on the forum" over to "oh hey, I learned some actual undisputed doctrine on the forum because here are the links".

Hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a very nice treatise that pretty much sums up a lot of what we've said on this thread.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Astronomy,_Scriptural_References_to

Quote
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. There is no literal star called Kolob just as there is no literal Morning Star. 
  4. I know of no reason why God would choose to single out a star because of it's proximity to Him. 
  5. The "nearness" of the star to God is not physical proximity, but of spiritual similarity.
  1. Yes, and apparently so.  No problem there.
  2. I'm with you so far.
  3. I was going to say it, but Lehi & Vort beat me to it.
  4. Because it was the first creation.  That's what Kolob means.  And because Jesus Himself was "the first creation" that is why He chose that star as a symbol for Him. (more on that below).
  5. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you on this one.  But I don't see why you're so dead set on denying the literal nature of the designation of Kolob.
Quote

I don't consider my view particularly earth shattering, but it seems to be upsetting quite a few people.

I don't see "upsetting" as the right word.  But I get what you're saying.  I'm saying the following in a friendly tone.  I think you need to take a look at how much of a hard line you've taken against it being literal.  You say it's debatable.  But then proceed to criticize those who believe it may be so.

Allegories are always based on something literal or else it wouldn't make sense.  There would be no message to get across if there weren't the literal archetype to guide us in the understanding thereof.

  • When speaking of astronomy a "governing" body is that which has others orbiting around it.  It is the center.  Christ should be the center of our spiritual universe.
  • All things are numbered unto God for they are His.  And He knows them.  I don't see much of a difference between numbering and naming of anything. In fact, stars and galaxies are often given numbers AS their names.
  • It makes no sense for God to give a name of something that doesn't exist.  In all of the parables, a generic "a man was..." not "Stephen was..." is used.  When a name is being used "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." then there is an actual person being referred to.  Pursuant to that pattern, if it were not literal as well, God would have said some generic term like "The greatest star..." (*)
  • It stands to reason that there was a first star ever created.  It seems obvious to me that the plan to use it as a metaphor for Christ would have been present since the beginning.  So, He could have easily made it so.  And the literal nature of star formations (according to astrophysics) would back that up.
  • I also need to emphasize that we have very limited understanding of astrophysics just as Traveler pointed out.  Likewise, we have very limited understanding regarding exactly what/where/if Kolob actually is.

(*) It may very well be that "Kolob" is not a name any more than "Kokob" is a name.  It may be that "Kolob" simply means something akin to "The greatest star".  It would not be a proper noun then, but a common noun.  If so, then it is probably NOT a reference to a particular literal star.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why anyone would be determined that Kolob must not physically exist. It's not like its existence takes away from the symbolism, nor would it's literal, physical proximity to God. Pointing out the symbolism is good and helps people. Denying the potential literal realities pushes the idea into extremism and potentially hurts the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue I have with the notion that Kolob is physical is how Kolob is referred to constantly. NeedleinA said that he/she had never heard of the notion of Kolob being a representation of Christ.  And I think this is common inside and outside the church.

Here's what I see happen:

"You think God lives on a planet Kolob"

"No, God lives near a star called Kolob"

"Ok, so God lives on a planet that revolves around Kolob"

"I guess so"

But this is speculative, and doesn't actually explain what Kolob is.  And then you get more speculative beliefs like, Kolob is the star at the center of our galaxy, or that the Earth was created near God around Kolob and transported to our solar system.  Or you could even try using astronomical methods to find the star.  All of these things, by the way, were done and believed by past church leaders.   It leads to the notion of creating the Tower of Babel to reach God. 

It entirely misses the point.

And it is so universally believed that very few even know of the correlation to Christ, let alone attempt to explain it to others.

So my scenario is this:


"You think God lives on a planet Kolob"

"No, the star Kolob is the first creation, nearest to God"

"What does that mean?"

"It's a representation of Christ, the Firstborn of God and the one who stands at the right hand of God"

"Oh, so Kolob is a symbol more than a literal thing?"

"That's how I see it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted some stuff from Wikipedia.  A couple LDS authors have gone the fully figurative route including Hugh Nibley. Not sure that anything has ever been said in any official way, one way of the other.  As I said a lot of early church leaders were trying to find Kolob in the sky, and Bruce R McKonkie has some pretty interesting theories about how Earth was moved from Kolob to our sun at the fall.  But I don't consider any of that doctrinal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bytebear said:

The issue I have with the notion that Kolob is physical is how Kolob is referred to constantly. NeedleinA said that he/she had never heard of the notion of Kolob being a representation of Christ.  And I think this is common inside and outside the church.

So your belief is just an extreme reaction to the failure of some people to understand the figurative comparison that was made with Kolob. That is understandable but unnecessary. If I have to choose between understanding the Christ symbolism of Kolob and missing the fact that it's an actual star vs. understanding that Kolob is an actual star and missing the Christ symbolism, I will take the former: Kolob's status as an actual star has, as far as I can tell, exactly zero bearing on my testimony or understanding of God's will (or even of how the physical universe operates). But it is not an either/or situation.

37 minutes ago, bytebear said:

"You think God lives on a planet Kolob"

"No, God lives near a star called Kolob a star called Kolob is near unto God's throne."

"Ok, so God lives on a planet that revolves around Kolob"

"I guess so" "No, a star called Kolob is near unto God's throne."

The problem is not in the belief about the literal existence of a star called Kolob, but in the understanding and presentation of that fact. The modified conversation above sticks to the facts presented in Abraham. Mockers will always mock, but any honest person can figure out from the above conversation that we do not believe that God lives on Planet Kolob®.

46 minutes ago, bytebear said:

But this is speculative, and doesn't actually explain what Kolob is.  And then you get more speculative beliefs like, Kolob is the star at the center of our galaxy, or that the Earth was created near God around Kolob and transported to our solar system.  Or you could even try using astronomical methods to find the star.  All of these things, by the way, were done and believed by past church leaders.   It leads to the notion of creating the Tower of Babel to reach God. 

It entirely misses the point.

Actually, I pretty much agree wtih this. Going on an astronomical hunt for Kolob is looking far beyond the mark and enters the realm of (literal) "space doctrine".

So I am actually in sympathy with your desire to quit focusing on Kolob per se and instead understand what the teaching was given for -- to teach of the Christ. But I disagree that the most effective (or truthful) way to do that is to completely deny the literal existence of the star Kolob as described in the book of Abraham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Needle,

I normally wouldn't try to answer for someone that is right here.  But I believe he's not willing to say what you want him to say because it would change the focus.  And that really is his whole point.  It is the focus that he objects to, not so much the actual belief.  

It is his position that;

  1. He can't provide any quotes one way or the other that can be considered doctrinal.  Therefore, he has no position on the matter.
  2. To say that "it could be literal" would take the focus off of the metaphor which is infinitely more important.  So, even if he has the position "to be open to it" he's not going to say so for fear of looking beyond the mark.

I don't have a problem with it now that we've hashed it over four pages.  And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.

Well, that's our show for this week.  Now let's see who he really is...

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So today someone;) put up the "concentric circles model" in the eating blood thread. So before we reveal the Scooby Doo, who dun it, and leave this thread be...

...my understanding is we are leaving the whole "Kolob is not a literal star" in the circle of "opinion" and nothing more? Without a concrete official statement there really is no alternative. 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, personally, I don't agree.  And I could probably search for some quotes on it to support that it is real.  Even our hymnal supports the notion.  But it just isn't that important to me to argue about it.  I was just enjoying the discussion.

And we also have to acknowledge that this has very little to do with the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read through this thread with interest.  For those that insist that the Book of Abraham is literal and not to be interpreted as using symbolism - I would point out that unknown to many experts (especially when Joseph produced the Book of Abraham) but the Book of Abraham utilizes a ancient Egyptian writing style. Otherwise known as an Egyptian colophon - which by intent of the format is intended to project symbolism.  Also associated with the text are a couple of facsimiles - in fact facsimile #2 is specifically related to Abraham chapter 3.  Please note the importance in symbolism both with the text and the facsimile - also note that there are no "literal" stars represented in the facsimile.

 

 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

For those that insist that the Book of Abraham is literal and not to be interpreted as using symbolism

Exactly no one has made this claim. Not one person.

I believe that no one has even claimed that the book of Abraham is literal truth in every syllable. Rather, the claim has been that Abraham represented these things as literal. That much, at least, seems obvious. And if Abraham believed they were literal -- which, in context, it seems clear he did -- I don't see any good reason to dismiss them out-of-hand unless we have a compelling reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bytebear said:

The issue I have with the notion that Kolob is physical is how Kolob is referred to constantly. NeedleinA said that he/she had never heard of the notion of Kolob being a representation of Christ.  And I think this is common inside and outside the church.

Here's what I see happen:

"You think God lives on a planet Kolob"

"No, God lives near a star called Kolob"

"Ok, so God lives on a planet that revolves around Kolob"

"I guess so"

But this is speculative, and doesn't actually explain what Kolob is.  And then you get more speculative beliefs like, Kolob is the star at the center of our galaxy, or that the Earth was created near God around Kolob and transported to our solar system.  Or you could even try using astronomical methods to find the star.  All of these things, by the way, were done and believed by past church leaders.   It leads to the notion of creating the Tower of Babel to reach God. 

It entirely misses the point.

And it is so universally believed that very few even know of the correlation to Christ, let alone attempt to explain it to others.

So my scenario is this:


"You think God lives on a planet Kolob"

"No, the star Kolob is the first creation, nearest to God"

"What does that mean?"

"It's a representation of Christ, the Firstborn of God and the one who stands at the right hand of God"

"Oh, so Kolob is a symbol more than a literal thing?"

"That's how I see it"

I am fairly certain, all-in-all, that one can go through this entire life entirely missing the Kolob/Christ symbolism without any eternal consequences. Doesn't seem like getting all up in arms about the fact that people miss this is worth it.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

Exactly no one has made this claim. Not one person.

I believe that no one has even claimed that the book of Abraham is literal truth in every syllable. Rather, the claim has been that Abraham represented these things as literal. That much, at least, seems obvious. And if Abraham believed they were literal -- which, in context, it seems clear he did -- I don't see any good reason to dismiss them out-of-hand unless we have a compelling reason to do so.

Why are there no stars or a reference to stars in facsimile #2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

For the same reason there are no elephants or references to elephants in Facsimile #2, I suppose.

Really that is your answer?  Just wondering - have you read the explanation of facsimile #2 and to be sure - your witness to me is that this (facsimile #2) has nothing of significance to add, ponder or consider (any more than elephants);  when seeking understanding of Abraham chapter 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Really that is your answer?

Yes.

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just wondering - have you read the explanation of facsimile #2

Yes.

 

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

and to be sure - your witness to me is that this (facsimile #2) has nothing of significance to add, ponder or consider (any more than elephants);  when seeking understanding of Abraham chapter 3?

What on earth are you talking about? I made nothing even remotely resembling such a claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes.

Yes.

 

What on earth are you talking about? I made nothing even remotely resembling such a claim.

I am trying to understand why you brought up elephants in reference to facsimile #2.  Since your response seemed sarcastic and irrelevant I am asking for clarification.  Would you explain your understanding of facsimile #2 and why it is presented with chapter 3 of Abraham?  Specifically if the references to stars is literal as you insist is obvious?  I am wondering why it is not so obvious from the facsimile #2.  Since you hold the opinion that this is obvious - I thought I would try to understand your insight and why you felt it was important to include elephants into the discussion?  Does it bother you that I ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think the 1000 years is not a literal time period of 1000 years, but a time period of great length, and it simply means that the time reckoning of God is far greater than that of man.  That God sees vast amounts of time as man sees a day.   And that the organization of the Great Councils was done over a long period of time.

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