The Kolob Theorem

[TruthSeeker24]

Hey guys, I did a search on this theorem, and only found it briefly mentioned here and there. I've been reading the book, "The Kolob Theorem," and I'm absolutely fascinated by it. What do you guys think of this book? Agree or disagree? Why?

[shalamabobbi]

Yes, falling into a black hole is getting celestialized

um, er, what he says:

http://quantumleap42...ob-theorem.html

read the first two comments:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1566846412

ETA: I just realized an easy way to make a quick buck. Gotta go..

Edited September 24, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[SamIam]

Hey guys, I did a search on this theorem, and only found it briefly mentioned here and there. I've been reading the book, "The Kolob Theorem," and I'm absolutely fascinated by it. What do you guys think of this book? Agree or disagree? Why?

Can you provide some specific thoughts from the book?

[SamIam]

Yes, falling into a black hole is getting celestialized

um, er, what he says:

http://quantumleap42...ob-theorem.html

read the first two comments:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/1566846412

Just for the sake of dialogue...why does it seem inconceivable that a black hole could not be the place of a celestial abode?

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam

[TruthSeeker24]

Well, I suppose you would need to read the book to get the evidence aspects of the theorem, as they are quite expansive to take the time for posting. But in general, it argues that Kolob and the governing stars are in the center of the milky way. And all other galaxies are systems owned by other Gods.

[TruthSeeker24]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, black holes are simply a theory to come up with an explanation for the insurmountable amount of energy that's located in the center of our milky way

[mfbukowski]

Baloney.

Anyone who thinks religion is about science understands neither.

[TruthSeeker24]

Baloney.

Anyone who thinks religion is about science understands neither.

How so? I was under the impression that Science was widely accepted as gospel truth in Mormonism. As far as that science is correct of course.

[shalamabobbi]

Just for the sake of dialogue...why does it seem inconcieveable that a black hole could not be the place of a celestial abode?

Hawking radiation..

[mfbukowski]

There is no way out of the literalism trap.

If religion is about science, the earth was created in 6 days. The problem with that is that science doesn't say that. So take your pick- if you want to be literal, it's religion OR science, not some mix that sounds like fun.

End of story.

We can build mansions of angels on pinheads if we want, but it's all fairy tales. I mean that's ok if you want to spend your life on fairy tales but I don't.

Aren't you glad you asked?

Scriptures are phenomenal and true, science is phenomenal and true, but don't think one is talking about the other. That's my humble opinion.

[mfbukowski]

How so? I was under the impression that Science was widely accepted as gospel truth in Mormonism. As far as that science is correct of course.

It IS the truth.

About science.

[TruthSeeker24]

Nice views I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on point.

[mfbukowski]

How so? I was under the impression that Science was widely accepted as gospel truth in Mormonism. As far as that science is correct of course.

To clarify, in principle you are right but that assumes we have the correct understanding of both science and religion- in such a case they would be compatible.

When we understand that they are both stories and metaphors we come up with to explain phenomena we observe, we will be there.

We are not there yet.

[mfbukowski]

Nice views I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on point.

ok with me!

[USU78]

Just for the sake of dialogue...why does it seem inconcieveable that a black hole could not be the place of a celestial abode?

You keep using that word. . . .

[SamIam]

There is no way out of the literalism trap.

If religion is about science, the earth was created in 6 days. The problem with that is that science doesn't say that. So take your pick- if you want to be literal, it's religion OR science, not some mix that sounds like fun.

End of story.

We can build mansions of angels on pinheads if we want, but it's all fairy tales. I mean that's ok if you want to spend your life on fairy tales but I don't.

Aren't you glad you asked?

Scriptures are phenomenal and true, Science is phenomenal and true, but don't think one is talking about the other. That's my humble opinion.

Perhaps a bit myopic and perhaps not considering doctrinal implications... If all truth will someday be circumscribed into one great whole, then of necessity the true portions of science must at some point be embraced within the circle of eternal truth.

Another point is that if science and scripture do not intermesh, why is the Book of Abraham so full of scientific realties as revealed to Abraham. A condition that Bruce R. McConkie indicates is the right of everyone that has their calling and election made sure:

Those who receive the Second Comforter see the visions of eternity and have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom. "And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old," saith the Lord, "and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know

, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and

before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man." (D&C 76:7-10.) (B R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: 1982, 680.)

If their understanding is going to eclipse the wise then to me that suggests they will understand where science men have failed against the science of God but it will all be interwined with correct understanding.

Additional insights from D & C 88, 76 and sundry other places in scripture may use scripture speak to discuss scientific points.

Is it not interesting that prior to 1830 all we knew about creation was the Biblical account. This was sufficient for the scientific advances to be made in its time. However, with the restoration came far more concrete and detailed theology concerning the association of celestial conditions that bordered or pointed in the direction of the future of scientific advancement.

Why?

I believe it was in part preparation for the advances to be made in scientific discovery and to give a stronger ideology that would excel beyond pending scientific explanations but would give the faithful a place to focus their faith. In other words instead of keeping science and religion as two separate perspectives, God revealed science based theology. The two topics could have been left alone to go their separate ways but instead God provided D & C 88, the Book of Abraham, and dozens more quotes from prophets which in point of fact require the Saints to ponder upon light, celestial orbs, gender in planets, the passage of time etc. In hindsight, the passage of time concepts of the theory of relativity could be deduced from Abraham 3’s descriptions of the nature of the passage of time and how it is reckoned. All of these things were God speaking in his way concerning scientific issues that must have some significance in our salvational progress or why the point of expanding in this area of instruction? ....................

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam

[rameumptom]

For me, heaven is everywhere. Each kingdom of heaven is everywhere, as is outer darkness. They are just on different wavelengths of existence. When the earth is celestialized, does it mean it will suddenly be sucked into the black hole in the center of the galaxy? I don't think so. There is no need for it.

[SamIam]

Hey guys, I did a search on this theorem, and only found it briefly mentioned here and there. I've been reading the book, "The Kolob Theorem," and I'm absolutely fascinated by it. What do you guys think of this book? Agree or disagree? Why?

Well, I suppose you would need to read the book to get the evidence aspects of the theorem, as they are quite expansive to take the time for posting. But in general, it argues that Kolob and the governing stars are in the center of the milky way. And all other galaxies are systems owned by other Gods.

I am not ready to read the book yet. About 8 months ago, my own studies took a turn and I found myself pondering what sounds like similar information as people tend to point to when they mention the book. I have complied a document of almost 200 pages that I am in the process of final clean up on. So if you do a general gloss of one of his principles, I am sure that I have covered some aspect of it in my material.

My thoughts on this type of material are:

1.) Most people will completely discount any valid association with any effort to constrain science within scriptural boundaries.

2.) The crisis of nomenclature. If you just think through D & C 88 and the references on light and quickening etc one can readily observe that when God uses the term light he does not mean to limit his use of the word to the visible spectrum. Instead it is apparent that what he means is the entire electromagnetic spectrum that encompasses all forms of electromagnetic emissions that originate in the sun, or the stars, or even that are created from within the earth’s electromagnetic fields. This same issue applies to so many aspects of scripture. ie. to be tuned to the spirit...could that have anything to do with sympathetic harmonics etc. So if someone is going to even have a chance of comprehending where there might be overlaps they are going to have to put hours and hours of effort into simply researching and pondering through the language differences so that they begin to see where God is referencing something that man describes differently. Very few are willing to do such.

3.) Most people are far too uninformed about current scientific observations to recognize possibilities. When Joseph Smith mentions that at some future date the orb will become a clear crystal and a urim and thummin, how many people are going to see possibilities that the fact that science has recently discovered orbs that they believe to be made of diamond cores. Not conclusive but simply point to consider within the bounds of proper pondering.

Gotta break for now ---appointments to keep.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps a bit myopic and perhaps not considering doctrinal implications... If all truth will someday be circumscribed into one great whole, then of necessity the true portions of science must at some point be embraced within the circle of eternal truth.

Another point is that if science and scripture do not intermesh, why is the Book of Abraham so full of scientific realties as revealed to Abraham. A condition that Bruce R. McConkie indicates is the right of everyone that has their calling and election made sure:

Those who receive the Second Comforter see the visions of eternity and have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom. "And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old," saith the Lord, "and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know

, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and

before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man." (D&C 76:7-10.) (B R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: 1982, 680.)

If their understanding is going to eclipse the wise then to me that suggests they will understand where science men have failed against the science of God but it will all be interwined with correct understanding.

Additional insights from D & C 88, 76 and sundry other places in scripture may use scripture speak to discuss scientific points.

Is it not interesting that prior to 1830 all we knew about creation was the Biblical account. This was sufficient for the scientific advances to be made in its time. However, with the restoration came far more concrete and detailed theology concerning the association of celestial conditions that bordered or pointed in the direction of the future of scientific advancement.

Why?

I believe it was in part preparation for the advances to be made in scientific discovery and to give a stronger ideology that would excel beyond pending scientific explanations but would give the faithful a place to focus their faith. In other words instead of keeping science and religion as two separate perspectives, God revealed science based theology. The two topics could have been left alone to go their separate ways but instead God provided D & C 88, the Book of Abraham, and dozens more quotes from prophets which in point of fact require the Saints to ponder upon light, celestial orbs, gender in planets, the passage of time etc. In hindsight, the passage of time concepts of the theory of relativity could be deduced from Abraham 3’s descriptions of the nature of the passage of time and how it is reckoned. All of these things were God speaking in his way concerning scientific issues that must have some significance in our salvational progress or why the point of expanding in this area of instruction? ....................

I don't think so.

Read the post again. If the poetry coincides it coincides but it is still poetry. I have no problem with a coherence theory of truth.

If anyone here is myopic it is not me. Of course all truth is one, once you understand it.

We are talking passed each other.

Edited September 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2.) The crisis of nomenclature.

That's the only one anyone has to worry about. Get the definitions in a row and all the other alleged problems go away.

[shalamabobbi]

In hindsight, the passage of time concepts of the theory of relativity could be deduced from Abraham 3’s descriptions of the nature of the passage of time and how it is reckoned.

Are you interested in a joint book project? (ETA: see ETA in post #2)

gender in planets

So I guess the earth is male? No mother earth?

Here is some discussion to begin a debate on the correct location of the planets jewels:

http://www.dailygala..._chimboraz.html

Edited September 24, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[KevinG]

Awww... I was hoping the Kolob Theorem was a Big Bang Theory episode Where Leonard and Sheldon are visited by LDS Missionaries.

[TruthSeeker24]

lol That would be awesome.

[SamIam]

Are you interested in a joint book project? (ETA: see ETA in post #2)

So I guess the earth is male? No mother earth?

Here is some discussion to begin a debate on the correct location of the planets jewels:

http://www.dailygala..._chimboraz.html

You have already passed by one quote without considering its implications on the Bruce R. McConkie visions of the eternities. Does that not hold something worth a thought on this subject?

We'll try one more from Joseph Smith:

General Law asked why the sun was called by a masculine name and the moon by a feminine one. I replied that the root of masculine is stronger, and of feminine weaker. The sun is a governing planet to certain planets, while the moon borrows her light from the sun, and is less or weaker. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 1932-1951], 5: 210 - 211.)

Here's another from Moses:

Moses 7:48

48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the

earth

; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me,

the mother

of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I crest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?

49 And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?

Here is another by Brigham Young:

Let me open the eyes of your understanding. There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be. (Brigham Young, "For This Is Life Eternal," Brigham Young Addresses, edited by Elden Watson, 2:230.)

There are several more but I am not sure this is really of interest to you so I will not burdern you further. However, there is something in what these men know and what they are saying that is relative to the conversation.

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

I don't think so.

Read the post again. If the poetry coincides it coincides but it is still poetry. I have no problem with a coherence theory of truth.

If anyone here is myopic it is not me. Of course all truth is one, once you understand it.

We are talking passed each other.

You speak in riddles and call it poetry

It's no wonder I'm confused

A half thought here, a half thought there

Im feeling quite abused

If you're not myopic, then I must conceed

I've the symptoms that comply

I've read it twice and my brain's complaint

I still can't see it though I try.

Yet there is a glimmer in my mind

of conversations long ago

do you refer to symboled words

perceived according to what we know?

Edited September 24, 2012 by SamIam