The Kolob Theorem allows us to see more clearly the home we lived in before we were born and the home we will live in after we die. These places appear more real; they are made of matter, some of very fine and pure matter, and exist in time and space. It helps us anticipate the reality of the glories of ou. It helps us anticipate the reality of the glories of our future home. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
|Published (Last):||13 May 2009|
|PDF File Size:||13.53 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Why don't you give some specific examples about the scientific mistakes? You could have explained perhaps about the structure of our galaxy. I'm agree with the infantile explanation of the glory degrees but considering each galaxy as a unit it really sounds true that each one as a mini universe could be governed by a god.
Sorry for my english. Hermes, you are arguing from assumption and from a lack of evidence. This is typical in Mormon doctrine, and common as well. Mormons will say that because the universe is so big that there must be other worlds like ours and gods that govern those worlds. Even though this is arguing from the negative and lack of evidence, it is needed to justify the Mormon doctrine that man will eventually become god and govern their own worlds, and that our god was once man before he created our world.
There are MANY issues with this doctrine. First, in Isaiah , God specifically tells us that there are no other gods If our God did have a God of his own at one time as the Mormons claim, then it contradicts what God says to us in Isaiah This is the entire purpose of Monotheism and the Bible, that there is only one God, not many.
The Mormon doctrine violates our first commandment from God and the creedal 'shema' of Israel. This is false. While Elohim is applied to God in Genesis during the creation week, it is not his name. Elohim is a title which is also given to pagan gods, human judges, Moses, a city, ect. Joseph Smith didn't understand the Hebrew and commonly misrepresented it when he wrote his Mormon scriptures. Elohim can mean mighty, greatness, overwhelming power. And while Elohim is a plural word, given the plural ending 'im' , it is not used this way to God in Genesis.
We know this because in the Hebrew, the title Elohim is defined by singular grammer. In the Hebrew we read, "Elohim bara - God created" masc. This is the case throughout the Genesis account. It would have fit Joseph Smith a bit more to study the Hebrew before he wrote the B. I do have my previous post that I have written on the subject. The general thrust of the my point is that the things that are wrong with The Kolob Theorem are so subtle that very few people would recognize what was wrong.
There are also some things that while they represent the current general understanding of how galaxies work, these ideas will definitely change in the future. I have a rather unique point of view since my area of research happens to be galaxies, and I understand all of the assumptions and approximations that go into our current understanding of the universe.
After writing this post and getting some feed back, I have realized me di cuenta that it would be very difficult to explain even a small problem that the The Kolob Theorem has.
The reason for this is because the only reason I could immediately find the problems with the The Kolob Theorem is because I had spent years learning astronomy and physics, and reading research papers that include things that are not in text books. Perhaps I can offer one possible problem. From our current understanding current as in, this is stuff that the latest text books may or may not have, since the research backing it up is so new galaxies are mostly formed through mergers.
This means that two smaller galaxies or one larger one and several smaller ones will merge and form the galaxies we have today. Our Milky Way is most likely a bared spiral galaxy, that has experienced at least one merger in the last few hundred million or billion years. The only problem is we are not entirely sure where the other galactic remnant is. We think it may be the Large and Small Magellanic Cloud.
But again, we are not sure. Joe: I Really don't see how Hermes was "arguing from the negative and lack of evidence". If I think about it I might see what you mean i. This is part of the plurality of worlds debate and there are several books written on the subject that I can recommend. But it is not a stretch to think that there are other worlds with people living on them given the size, extent and number of stars, galaxies and planets in the universe.
From my perspective Hermes is raising an interesting point albeit one that is not well defined in LDS doctrine, and one that is still debated , that when we become perfect as in Matt perfect then we will be like God. And many Mormons interpret this mean that we will be able to act in much the same way that our Father in Heaven now acts as God.
As to how much we act like God i. As soon as I get there and find out how it works I'll let you know, but I'm not about to reject the promises of God simply because it doesn't jive with what other people think. This is a doctrine and a discussion that I really wasn't looking into having. In my article I specifically mentioned that was not commenting on the doctrine associated with The Kolob Theorem mostly because there is little that I want to discuss about it in a forum such as this.
As for the rest of your comment, here is a link to an excellent resource that address that question. The short answer is, we think that the philosophical Greek idea of "Oneness" is not biblical and was never intended by the original authors, but instead they understood the "oneness" of God to be unity rather than a metaphysical sameness of substance.
We believe in a God that is perfectly unified, and that those who are made perfect can become one with God even as the Son is one with God. We tend to use it to refer to God the Father, much in the same way you explain it. As for JS "writing" B. The concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical. See Heath Introduction, The terminology of Archimedes, p. Hypothesizes, theory and theorem are what they are: progressives stabs at truth.
And should be held as such. Logic suggests that a more recent theory progresses toward greater truth, but this is not always the case. The studies you reference but do not cite maybe closer to the truth but without evidence who is to say. Even empirical data is only as reliable as the interpretation thereof. That is why revealed truth is necessary.
Without it, we are forever wondering in the desert and never entering into the promised land of eternal truth Jacob Therefore, in my opinion, theory and theorem can not detract from Real Truth revealed truth they can only attempt to be reconciled to it.
Nevertheless, in the hierarchy of truth-seeking methodology opinion may not even occupy the lowest rung. I appreciated your commentary. It makes me want to read the book, and see what pieces of truth it may or may not contain. I think it's worthwhile to always read pet theories with a grain of salt. Science is ever evolving. I am not certain this post was the correct forum for your comment, though comments are always welcome. If you'd like, I have a rather well written, lengthy commentary on the Plurality of Diety that existed in biblical teachings, and culture, from Old Testament times through the early Church Fathers.
I was not the author. Further, I would suggest that you are referencing "cultural doctrine" and not "canonical doctrine. Terryl Givens has commented that what appears so disconcerting about Mormon Doctrine is not its zaniness, which is no more zany than the doctrine of other faiths, but the certainty with which Mormons process their beliefs - in particular those that are linked to the afterlife.
Please excuse my paraphrasing. GOCO and Magila thanks for your comments. For any future readers of this post and those who read this far into the comments, I would like to emphasize a few things. I am not saying that you should not read the book. If you want to read it go ahead, its just that it should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to read this book then you may but as a reminder to both members of the Church and those who are not Mormons, this book does not reflect doctrine.
The second thing I want to make clear is that my critique of the book does in no way touch on the validity of Church doctrines. My comments were solely confined to the astronomy. I did this because I am both qualified and competent to make this judgement if this were a legal trial then I would be what is called an expert witness. This does not mean that I am the most competent or knowledgeable person that can speak on this subject it is just that my qualifications and knowledge are sufficient that if anyone more qualified than me reviewed the book then they would most likely come to the same conclusion.
Anyway enough with the legal mumbo jumbo. My point is that I deliberately did not address doctrinal questions in my post, so it should not be taken as a commentary on the LDS doctrines mentioned in the book. My only purpose was to point out that Dr. Hilton was trying to establish an untrue correlation between LDS doctrine and an outdated or incorrect understanding of astronomy.
The only fault I could find and the only one that I will point out is the problem with the astronomy. This means that I am in no way intending my review to question any LDS doctrines.
This also means that if there are specific criticisms of LDS doctrines, then this book cannot be used since it does not represent LDS doctrine. It is only the opinion of Dr. Hilton who I hope to meet someday. I just stumbled across this post, and while my knowledge is much more limited than most who seem to frequent, I found this beautiful: The truth of God is more amazing than anything that you will find in The Kolob Theorem. Thanks Ross for your comment.
From the very little that I actually know about the works of God the truth is much more amazing than we realize. It's something that I get glimpses of every once in a while when I am reading the scriptures or learning about how the world works. There is so much more than just what we know now. That is partially why I wrote this review, because The Kolob Theorem is trying to apply a very limited understanding through no fault of Dr. Hilton to something that is much more complex and amazing than we can can realize right now.
Though I grew up in the same neighborhood with Dr. Hilton's kidsI never read this book until this year.
The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe
Why don't you give some specific examples about the scientific mistakes? You could have explained perhaps about the structure of our galaxy. I'm agree with the infantile explanation of the glory degrees but considering each galaxy as a unit it really sounds true that each one as a mini universe could be governed by a god. Sorry for my english. Hermes, you are arguing from assumption and from a lack of evidence. This is typical in Mormon doctrine, and common as well.
The Kolob Theorem, a Mormon’s View of God’s Starry Universe