Talk:Kolob/Archive 2

Article: Kolob

This is an archive page documenting discussions occuring during calendar years 2006 to 2014.

Merge
Article If You Could Hie to Kolob merged here - the old page had no talk page.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

broken link
"A symbolic interpretation of Kolob" which used to point to appears to no longer be on bibleman.net; I have removed the link. If someone can find somewhere else where it is hosted (on bibleman, or elsewhere) please add it with the correct URL. --Matthew 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Zions
it seems appropriate to mention Zion National Park here, but Pop culture doesn't seem to fit, somehow. If someone else has a better idea (I was thinking making it something like In modern culture or In the US but just couldn't get anything to fit well enough in my mind to be convinced. --Matthew 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * how 'bout: Cultural use or Cultural usage?  WBardwin 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Value
As an encyclopedia article, this entry fails horribly. For one, it is way too long. There needs to be a simple section explaining the basics about Kolob and another (or perhaps others) explaining current theories. I deleted the section or "representationalism" because it was not only esoteric but irrelevant. At most it deserves its only article with a one line description in the main Kolob article. The term "representationalism" is unreferenced and unexplained. It's unacceptable.

The section on theories of word origin is riddled with errors. Some sentences are completely false: "Most Egyptian scholars (who are neither critical nor interested in Mormon theology) believe that while Kolob may be of Semitic origin, it was not translated (rendered) from the papyri Smith possessed, but merely transliterated from a word he allegedly heard M. H. Chandler, the previous owner, use; and this prior to Smith's translation of some of the papyri's characters." First of all, most Egyptian scholars are not even aware of the word "Kolob" or of Joseph Smith's connection to M.H. Chandler. In is inaccurate to state that egyptologists believe that he heard the word and transliterated it. In fact, it is unlikely that even more than a handful have an opinion on the matter at all.

Next sentence: "The word is specifically claimed to be the Arabic 'qalb' (plural 'qulob'), meaning 'heart' or 'center.'" Why use the passive voice? WHO claims that the word has a connection to the Arabic "qalb?" If someone really believes that, please reference that person. Following sentence starts, "It is contended..." Once again, the writer frustratingly uses the passive voice. Who contests that? What is his/her name?

On a more fundamental level, the contention that "Kolob" may be connected to the Arabic "qalb" (heart) and thereby to Reformed Egyptian through the Afro-Asiatic language family is extremely, extremely weak. Is may just as easily be linked to the Arabic word, "kalb" (dog) or to any number of similar sounding words in the Semitic family. Since Joseph Smith gave no explanation of the word, there is virtually no evidence.

Next problem: "Some critics supporting and discounting Smith are apt to find legitimate Semitic origins and relations to the hypocephalus in order to empathize a non-African presence in Egypt. This has caused widespread controversy." First, "empathize" is not that best word. Secondly, I can say with total certainty that there was not "widespread panic." The writer sounds like he/she is trying SO hard to make this article sound important.

The statement that Kolob as Jesus Christ is "orthodox but relatively uncommon" is unsubstantiated. It is neither orthodox nor unorthodox. Rather it is unimportant. Leaders of the LDS Church do not speculate on the meaning of Kolob nor brand certain interpretations orthodox or unorthodox.

This article, in short, is without legitimate references or experts. Kolob is an element of Mormon theology and nothing else. Egyptologists are not concerned with the theory of the word "Kolob", though they may have some interest in the original papyri. The article should focus on its appearance in Mormon scripture with a no more than a brief discussion of its possible origin. After all, this encyclopedia is about consensus, not esoterica. If the FARMS people want to speculate more, they have their own website. They are free to keep pumping their internally reviewed literature to their limited audience without restraint. However, when they enter the realm of scholarly consensus, their ideas must have merit and include references. Otherwise, it looks like it was conjured out of thin air. (this unsigned contribution was made by 67.190.60.206 on 2 September 2006)


 * Restored the deletion referred to by the anon above until his concerns have been reviewed and/or addressed. WBardwin 16:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Kolob
Because of the length of time that such a planet would take to rotate, it would mean that one side was extremely hot (depending on how close it was to the start it orbited) and at night, it would be so cold that it would near absolute zero (-273.16°C). It may be so hot on the day side that the rock would turn molten and even boil into space, and anything on it's service would be vapourised by the heat. There would be no atomosphere because the heat would have boiled it into space. With the described size of the planet, if it's this size, the stars would have to be massive. It would be under the influence of the planets gravity so much that the star would wobble all the planets around out of orbits as the planets transited each other. Planets and other bodies would possibility crash into Kolob and the star because of the gravitational disruptions caused. If the planet slowed down enough and was close enough to the star, it would literally be boiled away into nothing. Whether it was made of rock or gasses, it would need far more chemical matter that the stars could ever happen to hold. 11:29, 13 October 2006 84.66.26.43 (Talk)


 * moved from article for discussion. WBardwin 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WBardwin, for the record, I didn't write the above. My question is, what needs to be discussed?  Are those statements incorrect or would you like references or do you feel it is not important?  I'm not a physicist, but I believe that the orginal writer is essentially correct.  Would an opinion from a genuine PhD in cosmology or similar be sufficient to keep or do you have other issues with it?  Regards Friedonc (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All that is needed is a source from outside of LDS cosmology. Wikipedia must present unbiased, scientific opinions. --71.195.78.202 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sagittarius A
I think kolob is very massive therefore it slows down time and takes 1000 of our years by the time it rotates once. I think we could find out if Sagittarius A is indeed Kolob. The mass is estimated to be 3.7 solar masses and it has a radius of about 17-light hours. We need the correct relativity equations. Since Kolob is compare to Earth here is the earth's weight 59742KG earth's radius 6,378.135 km. I imagine if it possible that we could stand on Sagittarius A it would seem 1 day has past when 1000 years has past on Earth relativily speaking. However I don't got the correct relativity equation.


 * Brilliant! I wonder if the Mormon scripture tells us what spectral type Kolob is, or perhaps if one of the books contains a useful color-magnitude diagram that would help us observationally discover Kolob. Let's get on top of that--right after we find some DNA evidence showing that the Native Americans are descended from Israelites. Any day now, really. AdamSolomon 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever thinks the native americans are not descendants and there is no evidence must also believe the human race evolved from apes. Here is some non-lds pages that show that the native americans are descendants of israelites. I just don't understand why they do not believe in the book of Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.33.208 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not brilliant. There's no evidence (even scriptural evidence) for any of his claims.  First, his "slows down time" assertion implies a lack of understanding about Space-time, and is incorrect even for his assumption.  Right now someone could come onto this discussion and post "I think Kolob is very small therefore it speeds up time and takes half a year by the time it rotates once."  What's to stop the speculation I just postulated from being just as correct as his?  Whatever you do, don't put this nonsense in the article.  This is pure speculation. -Jack Colorado, 24.10.88.246 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to other LDS articles about alien life
This article should link to others regarding alien life on other worlds esspoused in the teachings of the church. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but such a link doesn't belong in a section that gives descriptions of Kolob. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad we are in agreement. I added the link to the see also section.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Representationalism" section
This section is completely confusing. If nobody speaks up for it, I'm going to remove it -- not out of an pro- or anti-Kolob polemicism, but because it reads like gibberish. Llajwa 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove it? I think that's more than a bit harsh. If the article on the Berlin Wall or one of the past U.S. Presidents was written poorly, would you remove the entire article? The article can use some cleanup (especially where "apologists" is used. I'm not Mormon, but using the term "Apologist" implies they have something to apologize about), but deleting it outright is tantamount to censorship. If you have a problem with how it's worded, modify the article. Don't just scrap it as if it never existed. This should apply to everything, unless the subject being spoken about is somehow irrelevant to Wikipedia itself. This, I feel, is relevant to Wikipedia (being that it is an aspect of a religion, and thus something that someone might want to research). -Jack Colorado, 24.10.88.246 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed wording
I removed a bunch of wording around the loss and rediscovery of the Book of Abraham papyrus. It is really tangent to this article because facsimile 2 was never found among the rediscovered papyri. I added some wording that was much more relevant, including the difference between Egyptologists interpretations of the facsimile and Smith's interpretation. It is much more on point, and makes a lot more sense. Please let me know if you disagree. Descartes1979 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Einstein and If You Could Hie to Kolob
I inserted wording to the effect that WW Phelps (who died in 1872) anticipated Einsteinian relativity by effectively stating, in the first verse of If You Could Hie to Kolob, that exceeding the speed of light would allow time travel. This seems quite bizarre, given the fact that before Einstein, no one understood this. I'm not sure why the wording was removed, unless there is documented proof that someone else wrote the lyrics post 1905.


 * If you have a published source that asserts that Phelps anticipated Einsteinian relativity, then feel free to provide it and replace your material. If this is your personal opinion, then I'm afraid that it violates Wikipedia's policy of "no original research."  Best wishes........WBardwin (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is interpreting a primary source; what you need is an secondary source that supports what you are saying. The issue is that wikipeida or you can interpret a hymn to say a specific thing. A primary source should only be used when no interpretation is necessary. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost. (Sorry, I'm new to this.) If I were an observer from Mars (who happened to speak English) and stumbled across the lyrics to IYCHtK, I would be forced to conclude that the author did indeed mean that speed alters time. In this sense, no secondary source _is_ needed. The primary source seems not to require interpretation. What else might that first verse conceivably mean? From here to another planet in the "twinkling of an eye" directly implies faster than light travel. If you continue "at that same speed," why would one hope to "Find out the generation Where Gods _began_ to be," if one did not mean that speed alters time? I see no alternative. --Hermanoere (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hermanoere, I think you're stretching here. If we're going to be super open-minded about it, it could mean many things such as (but not limited to) using a worm-hole, warping of space time, using an alternate dimension, an omnipotent being with powers we are unaware of or a number of other things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedonc (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Stretching" exactly how? I think your comments only reinforce my point. Somehow WW Phelps was anticipating modern physics. Before Einstein, there was no conception of worm-holes, space-time, alternate dimensions. That's what makes this such a quirky song. Who, before Einstein, could conceivably have made any connection between speed and history? You, as a modern observer, recognize he could have meant worm-holes, etc. But why would a nineteenth century religious fanatic have any reason to write those words? (As an aside, he was clearly not talking about omnipotent beings. He was talking about mechanics. If YOU could hie very fast, and continue at that speed, you'd go back in time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermanoere (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(I am also new to this) But I think that the lyrics are reaching forth for something that may be very unbelieveable and silly for those that are not deeply immersed into the religion or subject. Kolob is rarely metioned during the church services and conferences, the song is rarely sung during "sacrement meeting". (Imagine if someone that would be investigating heard that song, what would they think of it.) I myself is LDS and Kolob interests me very much, I don't fully understand it. Though I might have a more understanding than mostly everyone here that has put in their imput. [8:06pm, 27 Aug 2009..... 0R4N63-238R4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0R4N63-238R4 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The result was Merge with caveats. Descartes1979 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should merge If You Could Hie to Kolob with this article - it is very short, and we could easily make a little section on this page that is much more concise. Descartes1979 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure, why not?—with one caveat. (Unless someone thinks that there is a substantial amount of information on the hymn that is going unsaid on that page right now.) The caveat is that if If You Could Hie to Kolob becomes a redirect, I would keep a category on the redirect page so people examining Category:Latter Day Saint music can still find the information about it. Snocrates 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Descartes1979 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the standard for Hymns in general? Do they usually get their own article?  I would think that only a couple of really important ones that have cultural or historical significance would get it. Descartes1979 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect to LDS hymns, that's been my impression—that only relatively significant ones get their own article. The main article is at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hymns. However, Category:Christian hymns is quite large, so I'm not sure how significant each of these is. I think it should be governed like any other article—there shouldn't be an article about the hymn unless there are secondary sources which discuss it. Whether that's followed or not—I doubt it. In any case, I don't think "IYCHTK" would be counted among the most significant of LDS Church hymns; it's more notable for its unusual doctrinal teachings than for its status as a beloved hymn or one that's generated a large amount of secondary material, I think. I could be wrong, though.Snocrates 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, but not because the topics aren't conceptually separate. I agree with Snocrates that the hymn is not among the most significant (it's no "Spirit of God..." or even "O My Father"). I think an article only exists because it strikes some observers as one of the wackiest LDS hymns. (See Plan 10 From Outer Space). There's currently very little information in the article anyway. Another option is making a "List of Latter Day Saint hymns," which would list the name, author, traditional tunes, and hymn numbers in various Latter Day Saint movement hymnals. There already is such an article, although the lists don't have all this information. Unequivocally support merge. Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - agree with Snocrates that a If You Could Hie to Kolob redirect/category is important. But I like Cool Hand Luke idea of expanding the Hymn list as well.  WBardwin (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; I agree with Snocrates on the caveat. I also have some more caveats: It should be made clear that this is a highly-related but nearly-separate topic, and the lyrics should be clearly under this section (merged from the song article). &mdash; Val42 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we are pretty much in agreement. I will merge the articles, creating the category on the redirect page as User:Snocrates suggested, as well as including the lyrics on the final page. Descartes1979 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT!!!
I have been a mormon for my entire life and i have never once heard of Kolab 66.41.186.212 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not surprising. This tidbit of knowledge about a star that is closest to the throne of God is virtually meaningless. It has no doctrinal position or value, is not "taught", but can be found in scripture and the writings of Joseph Smith (and he gave it about as much weight as the LDS Church currently does). It is about as important as the name of the brother of Jared, which is not in the scriptures, but was revealed in a patriarchal blessing that Joseph Smith once gave. It is simply a curiosity within the LDS Church and nothing more. Those outside the church often completely mischaraterize it and often make a mountain out of a one ant mound. You will find it in the lower quality (read really poor) anti-Mormon literature. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... It's right in Abraham 3... Kingsfold (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this an ancient post storm, but it seems odd that this little tidbit would be considered meaningless. the explanation for Facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham says the word signifies "first creation", and and is "nearest the celestial, or residence of God". Of course there's not much else in there about it. Not saying it necessarily means anything, jsut strikes me as odd that the "first creation", the one "nearest the residence of God" has very little importance, for wahtever thatch worth, as it does a lot of people. And I see you're back to your insults about "low grade" anti mormon material.... Alienburrito (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an insignificant topic. The idea has captured the imagination of several Mormon writers, and it served as the inspiration for an important Mormon hymn and the Battlestar Galactica series. In my experience, the Kolob doctrine isn't much talked about explicitly, but it's an underlying assumption of a lot of Mormon discussion, even at church. The doctrine that God lives on a planet is a natural consequence of Mormon cosmology. Anyone who knows that the Mormon God has a physical body shouldn't be surprised that he lives on a planet around some star. CO GDEN  07:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it isn't insignificant, and stating that it is based on its not being emphasized in some Mormon doctrines is rather a reflection of the lack of spiritual yearning for closeness to God by the leaders of that denomination. Obviously, if you attend church activities, are familiar with the canonical scriptures and "support the church" you can pat yourself on the back and think "I'm a good Mormon", however, actually harboring a deep yearning for being in the immediate presence of the highest being and source of all creation is another standard altogether – transcending denominational belonging and adherance – and will manifest in many such people as a keen interest in any lore that can stimulate the imagination and deeper commitment still to please not only your immediate elders and community expectations but to get to know, inasmuch and in as deep a sense as that is possible, our Holy Father. __meco (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize Meco, but I really laughed out loud when I read your post. You cannot really be serious. On a level of importance for exaltation, knowing there is a star called Kolob is meaningless. Knowing about Kolob means nothing when discussing salvation. Jesus taught us so much that allows us to become holy and emulate his example. Striving to understand what is a priority and how best we might act or respond is what takes a lifetime to learn. In the Book of James is discussed what is really of import. James 1: 27 -- "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." How does knowing that there is a star called Kolob measure to loving our fellow humanity? How does it demonstrate that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength? How does it demonstrate that we love one another? I am not proposing that the mysteries are without value, but Kolob is not even a mystery. It is a tid-bit of knowledge, a vocabulary word that is of little value. Knowing it does not make us closer to God or our Savior.
 * The fact that a media writer used it as a basis for writing a script for Battlestar Galactica is at best trivia. COgden, you are a better scholar than that; it belittles your position and it is not amusing. -- Storm  Rider  20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since your commentary to me looks more like an invitation to polemics, and indeed you start off by making it abundantly clear that you don't take my writing seriously, nor do you afford the contingency that it is written in earnest, I shall end my response here. __meco (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Meco, that would be a misinterpretation of my intent and my words. Do you really, earnestly think that knowing that the star closest to where God sits is called Kolob will aid you in your desire to emulate Christ or in your efforts to refect pure religion? That was the intent of my words above. -- Storm  Rider  22:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've been Mormon all my life, and I agree that Kolob is insignificant in our theology. We never talk about it. Even the related hymn isn't sung much anymore. 66.75.30.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

I'm going to put my comments here rather than start a new subtopic. Tell me if you think I should move it, BUT I really think this article needs a more overt statement saying how unknown and irrelevant this is to Modern-day Mormonism. ("Relevance" in the sense you always hear on the news--this simply doesn't enter the mind of nearly any Mormon ever.) Most every reference in the footnotes is either 100 years old or comes from someone we've never heard of, and I'm just not sure that point is sunk home in the article. In fact, searching on LDS.org you see the last time it was mentioned from the pulpit was in 1896, and even then as a diminutive to say "I don't know that any more than I know about Kolob!" See this. --Mrcolj (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Semitic roots not likely
The Semitic origin of word Kolob is pure speculation. There is no evidence to support Joseph Smith's claims regarding alleged Israelite settlement in the Americas. 76.119.232.67 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilton Books
Seems to me that hiltonbooks refering to website hiltonbooks.com is a tad self-serving. Removed.Friedonc (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove References To Egyptologists
Egyptologists are mentioned numerous times in the article but never seem to be cited or even names. I think they're made up; I will come back and remove the word "Egyptologists" from the article entirely if I can't find some evidence to support it. This is not a Wikipedian article. 125.236.211.165 (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Star or planet
The Book of Abraham is clear that Kolob is a star. However, the confusion that is presented in the article is not within the Book of Abraham, but in how individuals have referred to Kolob: some say star while others say planet. The use of the term planet was particularly more prevalent in the early times of the Church. I would like to reword the section to reflect the reality that confusion is in terminology used by individuals and not in the Book of Abraham.-- Storm  Rider  18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The astronomical distinction between a star and a planet is gradual. See brown dwarf. It could be just that. __meco (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In a topic of faith it would seem difficult to compare, in this context, scientific anomolies, etc. This is more a problem of individuals using the incorrect label in conversation. Specifically, Kolob is clearly identified as a star. It is only identified as a planet by imperfect humanity. To me it is evident that these individuals misspoke when terming Kolob a planet. -- Storm  Rider  21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Book of Abraham is at all clear whether Kolob is a planet or a star in the astronomical sense. In one part is says it is a "star", but in another part, it is part of a hierarchy of "planets". It also calls Earth a "star", and refers to the sun as a "governing planet". Essentially, the Book of Abraham uses the terms "star" and "planet" interchangeably, in a way having much more affinity with astrology than astronomy. CO GDEN  04:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Every reference to Kolob is to it being a star in the BofA. In the reference provided to explain the confusion it alludes to "stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven" and calls these lights Kokaubeam. The article then explains that these lights are both planets and stars.
 * Regardless, the article used to justify the confusion is not doctrinal and does not represent the position of the LDS Church. It is the opinion of scholars, nothing more or less. The use of the term planet by early leaders is more an example of a misuse of terms than a confusion between what is a planet and what is a star.
 * Abraham was known to be an astronomer. There is certainly discussion among scholars about the prevalence of astrology among ancient Israel. Was what Abraham did more astrology than astronomy? I would tend to fall on the astronomy side, but then I am an expert in neither. For me personally, when I read the text, I find it impossible to state anything other than Kolob is a star. The confusion only develops when attempting to compare what other things are called to Kolob given that it is a star. Those comparisons become personal interpretation of scripture. Taking the verses for what they say, Kolob is a star.
 * As an aside, I do fully concede that LDS individuals mindlessly call it planet or star without any hesitation. -- Storm  Rider  06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can say that the Book of Abraham calls Kolob a "star", but you can't distinguish whether this use of the word "star" refers to an astronomical star or planet. In the Book of Abraham, "star" and "planet" were interchangeable. Thus, to simply say that in Abraham, Kolob is a star misleadingly obscures the inherent ambiguity built in by Abraham. Mormon leaders like Orson Pratt, who was a noted astronomer of his day, were not just being stupid when they read Abraham as saying Kolob was an astronomical planet. After all, the book says that God considers one rotation of Kolob to be a "day", implying that he lives there. That interpretation, made by several Mormon authorities and most commonly held within Mormon pop culture, is just as reasonable as the competing interpretation of Kolob as an astronomical star somewhere near God's actual unnamed planet. CO GDEN  10:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are stretching. When it states that Kolob "is near unto me" certainly makes it clear God is not standing on it. Nor did I say that Orson Pratt or anyone else was "stupid". It is clear that individuals misspeak. It is not ambiguous when it clearly states it is a star. Also, it is "NIGH" unto Kolob that time was measured. It does not say on Kolob. If Kolob is near to the throne of God and time is reckoned in a given structure when you come nigh to Kolob, it is not saying Kolob is center of the measurement, only that where God's throne is. Greatness is measured in being near to God, not in the entity itself. No, it does not imply that God lives there, only that it is near to his throne. The only way getting to Kolob being the home of God is by misreading or misinterpretation of scripture. The most prominent group that does this is anti-Mormon literature; not Mormon pop culture. It is an almost universal, disingenuous, anti-Mormon story used to sensationalize their "story". However, when any literate person actually reads the five verses dealing with Kolob, they immediately see the silliness of the proposition. -- Storm  Rider  16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't argue that Pratt simply "misspoke" when he considered Kolob to be a world, rather than what modern astronomers would call a "star". His works show that he obviously did a lot of thinking about this, and as a self-taught astronomer/theologian he would be very interested in this subject. Ultimately, the only thing we can say for sure about Kolob is that Smith called it a "star", but that he used the terms "planet" and "star" interchangeably. We cannot say definitively whether Smith had a preference as to whether Kolob was a planet or star in the modern astronomical senses of those terms--or even if Smith fully understood the difference.
 * By the way, as to the still-common Mormon conception that the planet that God lives on is named Kolob, I'm not advocating this theory, but you can't deny that it still exists in Mormon culture. But it has perhaps been going out of fashion since the '70s. I think it is based partly on D&C 130, which says that "the reckoning of God's time, angel's time, prophet's time, and man's time [is] according to the planet on which they reside," which in the case of God and angels happens to be a planet described as "a sea of glass and fire" (v. 7). A Mormon might be excused for thinking that God "resides" on Kolob, considering the statement in Abraham that "one revolution [of Kolob] was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning." After all, no other heavenly creation is "nearest unto the throne of God" than the planet on which he lives.


 * Again, I'm not advocating this idea, just noting that it is still circulating within Mormonism, and it's not without a certain logic. Personally, I could care less whether the "sea of glass and fire" of D&C 130 is called Kolob or some other name. The point in D&C 130 was that God and the angels reside on a planet--whatever its name--that also doubles as a seer stone. And the point in Abraham/Egyptian Grammar was simply that God's throne is near the pinnacle of a hierarchy of fixed and wandering lights in the heavens. I don't think there's any particular evidence, as of the mid-1830s when Abraham was translated, that Smith believed that God lived on a physical planet. In fact, while he was translating Abraham, LDS canon still taught that God was a spirit. CO GDEN  20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(new indent) I don't know COgden, I find it more in anti-Mormon literature than in current LDS thought. I live in Washington state, so that may explain some of our difference perceptions. Neither of us is correct or wrong; just a difference of perception. I agree that I can understand how some LDS get it wrong, but once they read Abraham it becomes clear as far as where God lives. In my own thoughts, I guess I have never really wondered about where God lives. His exact location pales for me when compared to feeling his presence. I don't think I am unique, but like most people. We hunger for his presence and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit because we rejoice in his presence. -- Storm  Rider  20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fix the bad dates regarding Smith and translated hierolyphs
Smith was "translating" Egyptian after the first translation of the Rosetta Stone was available. See the Wikipedia article []. --24.24.141.22 (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)cb

Time to archive again?
This talk page is long but all of the conversations are very stale. Is it time to archive this talk page again? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

POV-check
As far as I can see, this article is about a "mythic system" belonging to the Latter-Day-Saint religion, and so Kolob should be taken as it is. However, some fool have interspersed the text with denigrating comments, explaining that "Joseph Smith made it up", "Joseph Smith was hanged as a horse thief" and similar insults. I marked the text with Template:POV-check in order to clean away such misuses of Wikipedia. The text should be about how Latter-Day-Saints regard Kolob, everything else is irrelevant. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I cleaned it myself and warned the responsible user Shrubbmeister for vandalism. He disrupted the page with an obvious intention. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of fringe material
I just removed a bit of fringe material from the article. Part of it was material from Michael Rhodes, which was not properly designated as being on the academic fringe. (See WP:FRINGE.) The material itself was not entirely objectionable, since this is an article about a fringe topic and there is someleeway; however, the quote was excessively long and improperly incorporated into the article. (See WP:LONGQUOTE.) I also deleted a section on Mormon theories about an Egyptian source of the word, as the section was badly written, uncited, and full of apparently-original research. There might be a minor place in this article from fringe theories, but such material needs to be carefully handled. We just can't incorporate fringe theories as if it were mainstream academic material. CO GDEN  16:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the word PLANET
I am not senior enough to make changes to the article. I fear my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia would result in a violation of some rule. I trust someone of greater skill will make the necessary changes.

I haven't found anything in any Official Mormon scripture or doctrine mentioning Kolob specifically as a planet.

The etymology of the word "planet" is Greek, for WANDERER. The reason why we use the word planet today, to describe Venus, Saturn, etc...is because they were bright objects (supposed Gods) in the sky, that appeared to wander, unlike the stars that traveled in a rather straight course through the sky.

Kolob is described as a Star ( light in the heavens), not a planet on which God lives on. So for the sake of intellectual honesty, lets name it accordingly.

According to what I know of Mormonism, God is the Center(Fulcrum/Judge) of the Universe (Cosmos/Kingdom), who sits upon his throne in the heavens yonder. The Temples/Tabernacles, where also where God dwells, are the center of the Mormon communities. God is the center of their lives. HE DOES NOT DWELL ON PLANET KOLOB. HE HIMSELF IS ALSO NOT A PLANET.

The reason why I am making an argument about this, is in obviously in regards to the conversations I've been having with Mormon and Anti-Mormon. I knew that all groups (mormon/non-mormon/anti-mormon) that have been discussing this topic were using wrong information. I felt inspired (laugh out loud) to find the source(s) of their misinformation.

They are making statements saying that God lives on the planet* Kolob or that Kolob is Earth. This is obviously a FALSE INTERPRETATION of what is found in Mormon Doctrine, and I suspect that this article is responsible for some of the misinformation that all parties have been using.

So long as Wikipedia is employed essentially as a propaganda machine rather than as a forum in which humanity can learn...hopefully for the benefit of all...I highly doubt anyone is going to benefit, since prolonged propaganda typically results in violence or coercion as exampled throughout history.

All war is based upon deception. Lets hope Wikipedia doesn't suffer the same fate as the Library of Alexandria.

I am a neutral party (a Nihilist, muahaha) that only serves the Truth (what is real). I don't want to argue with people who don't know what they or others believe. Ignorance is bliss, except for those which are not. Loneindividual (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Star or planet?" section includes a discussion of why Abraham is unclear on whether Kolob is supposed to be a star or planet in the astronomical sense. The terms are used interchangeably. For example, the scripture calls Earth a "star," and the sun as a "planet." Plus, many authoritative Mormons such as Brigham Young, etc., referred to Kolob as a planet. CO GDEN  22:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kolob is not essential doctrine RE: WHAT!!!
I know it's been awhile since this topic was addressed, but I'm going to put my two cents in there if it helps the article. Kolob is IRRELEVANT. No where in LDS doctrine is there a saving ordinance that mentions Kolob or knowing about Kolob. It simply isn't taught in the faith because it is not essential. I agree with Mrcolj. It hasn't been mentioned by the presiding authorities for over 100 years because it's just plain not important. It should be noted in the article of its irrelevance to essential mormon doctrine. Non-mormons dwell on it like a diseased cist as some perverted quack-job hoohah. Before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, let me say this: The fact that it is not essential does not mean that it is not significant. If your into deep donctrinal theology then Kolob has a lot merit, but as the discussion poster plainly pointed out: They're mormons themselves and didn't even know about it. Most of the body of the church doesn't know that much about it Either. We know it's a celestial body that's physical presence resides closest to the throne of God and that Abraham probably knew a whole lot more about it than we do. The point is, Kolob (is it a planet or a star?, where is it? How big is it? How many revolutions does it have? etc) none of those things are important to the core of mormon faith and I think its relative insignificance in the essential doctrine and saving ordinances of the church should be mentioned in the article. Something to the effect of "Most LDS churches do not focus on the concept of kolob as being important to the Plan of salvation". I dunno. You guys are the Wikiexperts. Thanks for your consideration. Superbuttons (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that we need a source meeting our criteria at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Superbuttons - your assertions are the same apologetic arguments that always come up on this topic. Fact is, this is mentioned in the standard works, it is part of the Book of Abraham which is highly controversial, and is a core belief of the Mormon church. If you only talked about "saving ordinances" related to the Mormon church on the wikipedia, then 90% of Mormon topics wouldn't exist here - because there are only 5 or 6 saving ordinances. There is no "deep" doctrine (I have heard this phrase so many times before) - there is one doctrine. Xenu the intergalactic overlord isn't taught to any Scientologists until they reach the upper levels - but it is still part of what they actually believe is true about the universe. And in my opinion highly relevant to being included in any discussion on Scientology because it shows just how wacky they are. If Mormons are uncomfortable talking about what is actually in their scriptures, and what Joseph Smith thinks Egyptian hieroglyphics say - then why don't they drop this from their doctrine?--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dougweller, I'll look for a source. And Descartes1979, maybe I didn't make myself clear.  I'm not saying Kolob shouldn't be mentioned or "dropped" from our doctrine. I don't know anything about Scientlogy, but I know that Kolob isn't a secret because it's "kept from the lower members" all it takes is a simple look through of the book of Abraham and you have as much knowledge of Kolob as anyone else. If you want to get serious about what the mormons teach, then listen to a general conference session.  They teach the trunk of the tree, not the twigs and leaves.  If you spend all your time out on the brances and have no faith in the trunk, then you're bound to fall and hit the ground hard.  "Deep doctrine" is only that: branches, twigs, and leaves. You can be saved with the trunk alone, but you cannot be saved with a handful of leaves.  That is why it is non-essential doctrine, and that's why some members don't even know about it.  God does not care if you know about Kolob or not. He cares if you have faith in Jesus Christ and keep your covenants.  That's the trunk of the tree. =) Superbuttons (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And absolutely nothing you said above has any relevance for this wikipedia article. As I said, there is one doctrine. No more no less. And it will be treated with NPOV in this article. It doesn't matter if people don't know about it - this is what the church teaches and accepts as truth, so it will be presented as such. Who cares what you think the Mormon god thinks about all of this? This is not a forum for trying to hone the message of the Mormon church - it is an encyclopedia. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your tone is insulting and a bit demeaning. I've found a source on the matter but I'm new to Wiki and I'd rather not put it up just to have it taken down again.  It's an article from Deseret News with comments from Dr. Gee. Maybe someone can tell me if that's a viable source or not?  Thanks. If that doesn't work then I guess it's moot and I concede. Superbuttons (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop getting your feelings hurt and speak to the arguments. This is the wikipedia, and we hash things out in epic discussions on minute topics every day - in an effort to reach consensus and WP:NPOV--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From reading the various comments made by mormons, I get the impression that they don't want an article talking about Kolob. I can understand that it is an embarrassment but why be embarrassed? This is what your ancestors believed. Also, this is wikipedia, an encyclopedia. I'm not a mormon and I want to learn about a topic. I come here and do a search. I hope to find a result. Luckily, some people have taken their time to create a page. Maybe they are anti-mormon or maybe they are simply unbiased. Either way, me as an atheist, would like to read about the topic. Vmelkon (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Overuse/misuse of the term "Mormon."
I was more than a bit concerned to see all LDS references changed to "Mormon." In his most recent general conference talk, Elder M. Russell Ballard reemphasized proper usage of the full name of the Church and usage of the terms "Latter-day Saints" and "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to refer to its members. I know Wikipedia has its conventions, but I do not believe any of those conventions would be violated by assenting to Elder Ballard's request, which was simply a reiteration of Church policy on the matter. For clarification of this point, please go here. I quote the relevant part of his address for the benefit of all concerned: "Given His clear declaration, we should not refer to the Church by any other name, such as 'Mormon Church' or 'LDS Church.'

"The term Mormon can be appropriately used in some contexts to refer to members of the Church, such as Mormon pioneers, or to institutions, such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Church members are widely known as Mormons, and in interactions with those not of our faith, we may fittingly refer to ourselves as Mormons, provided we couple this with the full name of the Church."

Based upon Elder Ballard's words, I am worried that the term "Mormon" might be overused/misused in this article, but I wanted to discuss it first before I unilaterally changed wording. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:LDS is the guideline for these articles, and it looks like a number of changes can be made to bring the article in line with the Manual of Style. Bahooka (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Such as? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For example, Mormon apostle can be LDS apostle. I did a search for "Mormon Church" and did not see that term. Bahooka (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's just what I was saying. The term "LDS" used to appear in this article before one user unilaterally changed all references to "Mormon" without explaining or discussing it. It is my recommendation that this edit be reverted and that all references to "Mormon" be changed to "LDS" or the full Church name in accordance with Elder Ballard's words and Wikipedia's manual of style. This change should be done ASAP. Since we both agree to it, we form a consensus. And we have WP policy on our side, so anyone who challenges that edit should post here before reverting. I would take care of this myself, but I don't have time. Happy editing! --Jgstokes (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You've addressed the issue of Elder Ballard's comments, and I accept what you said, but you completely overlooked that your edit violated WP policy and its manual of style, and you didn't address that at all. So unless and until you address that, I would still be in favor of changing all "Mormon" references back to "The LDS Church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as per Elder Ballard's request. The voice of the consensus seems to be in favor of that at the moment, so unless you defend that aspect of your edit, it will be reverted anyways. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many users interpret the adjective "LDS" to be short for "Latter Day Saint"—that is, a member of the Latter Day Saint movement. The thing is, the only Latter Day Saints that teach or speak about Kolob are Mormons—members of the "LDS Church" and fundamentalist Mormons. Other Latter Day Saints have not canonized the Book of Abraham and thus Kolob plays no part in their beliefs. I realize that "LDS" in this context is meant to mean "Latter-day Saint", or member of the LDS Church, but I think "Mormon" is clearer in context. Wikipedia is not beholden to what an apostle of the LDS Church thinks is proper vs. improper usage. In an case, Ballard only seemed to be concerned with the use of "Mormon Church", which is not used in the article. Thus, I think "Mormon" is appropriately used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't violate any "policy", guidelines, or the manual of style. I'm familiar with all of them and I'm familiar with the edits I made. I didn't make a single change from "The LDS Church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to "Mormon" or "Mormon Church". All of the changes were from "LDS" being used as an adjective with a word other than "Church". Please don't make unfounded accusations. The MOS clearly states that the word "Mormon" can be used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it can also be used to refer the culture of Latter Day Saint movement organizations originating in Utah. Those are the only contexts in which the word "Mormon" has been used, and as I have pointed out, doing so is far more clear in this context than the use of "LDS", since "LDS" can be interpreted as "Latter Day Saint". Kolob and the Pearl of Great Price are not "Latter Day Saint" topics. They are "Mormon" topics. (Nor are they exclusively "Latter-day Saint" topics, since Mormon fundamentalist beliefs are also relevant to these matters.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though Good Ol'factory is correct. In these specific instanced Mormon is preferable to LDS and LDS is misleading. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. I still think the term "Mormon" is overused/misused in this article. And I have at least one other editor on my side. Since there are 2 on each side of the issue, and since we seem to be interpreting the manual of style differently, we are at a stalemate. I would suggest therefore that nothing be done one way or the other to the article content until a consensus can be formed by a tie breaker. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand how you are interpreting the Manual of Style. Could you explain? How can one misinterpret these parts?:
 * [T]he word Mormon should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations:
 * *In reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, the informal appellation Mormon church should not be used outside of directly quoted material – following a convention of Utah newspapers, the abbreviation LDS Church should be used. Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons. ...
 * "*In reference to the culture of Latter Day Saint movement organizations originating in Utah."
 * That seems pretty clear to me. Using "Mormon church"—not OK. Using "Mormon" to refer to members of the LDS Church or the culture of Utah-based Latter Day Saint churches—OK. That's exactly what I've had the article adopt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I don't get is why you didn't change "LDS" to "LDS Church" instead of "Mormon." According to the manual of style, that would have been equally as acceptable and would have eliminated the need to raise this issue. I still feel that the term "Mormon" is overused/misused here, and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. If you were to change "Mormon" to "LDS Church" we could close this conversation with honor. But I can't just sit by while a term is overused/misused in my opinion. And I'm not alone in my opinion. I will let Bahoooka explain why he/she feels the misuse/overuse of "Mormon violates the MOS. In the meantime, we are still at a stalemate. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because in context, it just doesn't work as well. I think it's more common and understandable to say "a Mormon apologist" than "an LDS Church apologist", because these authors are defending teachings of Mormonism as a whole, not just those of the LDS Church, and Mormon apologetics is a well-accepted term. And the meaning of "LDS Church author" is somewhat ambiguous—is he a writer for the LDS Church or of the LDS Church? Is he writing official LDS Church documents or is he just a garden variety adherent? "Mormon author" is relatively clearer. In the instances where an official of the LDS Church—such as an apostles—is referred to, I have used "LDS Church apostle" rather than "Mormon apostle", though. And in other instances, we're talking about doctrine or culture which goes beyond the LDS Church. To say "this is taught by the LDS Church" is more narrow than saying "this is taught in Mormonism"; the latter includes what is taught within Mormon fundamentalism. This is a topic that goes beyond the LDS Church and includes Mormon fundamentalist beliefs and teachings. From the article, what specific examples of the usage of "Mormon" are you concerned with? You've gone from alleging that I'm violating Wikipedia policy (quite a serious charge) ... to I am interpreting and understanding the MoS differently that you read it (which I didn't understand how it could be possible) ... to I did follow the MoS but used one of two equally acceptable alternatives. But through it all you haven't provided any specific examples of where exactly the problem is, except to say that using "Mormon church" is unacceptable—and that is one thing that the article has never contained. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the couple of things I noticed that could be changed were 1) the mention of Bruce R. McConkie, and that was changed, and 2) the mention of B.H. Roberts, but referring to him as a Mormon leader is about the same as Latter-day Saint leader to me, so I'm fine either way. And as I mentioned earlier, there is no instance of the use of the term Mormon Church. Also, if you want to refer to general authorities, note that Boyd K. Packer stated in April 2011 that " It is one thing for others to refer to the Church as the Mormon Church or to us as Mormons; it is quite another for us to do so" and that "The world will refer to us as they will". I think that the Wikipedia MOS:LDS guidelines, of which this article is in compliance (especially with the McConkie tweak), is appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia like this one. Bahooka (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm fine with Roberts being referred to as an "LDS Church leader" rather than "Mormon leader", since he was a leader in a specific church rather than Mormonism in general. I'd be interested if there are any specific issues that Jgstokes could point to at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken time to carefully review the changes that have been made to the article recently and the conversation which transpired in my absence and have realized I may have been a bit inflexible and unreasonable in my earlier stated opinion. My profoundest apologies for this. Having looked over the article as it now stands and given it a great deal of thought, coupled with the latest posts by Bahooka, I can now state for the record that I have no objections to the way the page currently stands. Again, my apologies if I overreacted. I have the bad habit of frequently opening my mouth and putting my foot right in it. I will take it out now and consider this issue honorably closed, and I invite all editors concerned to do the same. There are more important areas on Wikipedia that demand our attention now. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hilton book
The article cites this work a few times: This is a self-published book. Should it be removed per WP:SELFPUBLISH? We can use self-published sources in some situations IF it was "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".

The book is about how astronomy may intersect with the Book of Abraham. The author, Lynn M. Hilton, has a PhD in educational administration. He's done some amateur work in seeking Lehi's trail in Arabia and has written a concordance on the Pearl of Great Price. In my opinion, Hilton is not an "established expert" on astronomical matters and I can't see a good reason to include the reference in this article. In any case, most of Hilton's claims/speculations can be found in other sources, which are reliable, so there's not really a strong need to use this source. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this issue to the talk page. I agree with you. Let's get rid of this self-published source. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Go for it! --Jgstokes (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

RA Dec
Is the Right Ascension/Declination known for this star? If so then why hasn't it been included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.25.89 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not known. The article is about a non-scientific hypothetical star or planet within a religious belief system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)