Why does Mormonism want to be Associated with Christianity?

[TheBarrd]

Your friend didn't know what they were talking about, and so it's understandable that the missionaries had no response for something so off-base.

Kolob is simply the star God used to mark the days of creation.

That's it.

Actually, once they realized I wasn't going to eat them, they divulged certain information. As you say, Kolob, they told me, is a star, although according to them, it is the closest star to heaven, where god now dwells. Sometimes LDS might use the name to refer to the planet, which orbits the star named Kolob by the same name, so calling that planet Kolob is not incorrect. Or so they told me.

I find it strange that god would use a star to mark the days of creation, when stars did not exist before he created them.

This stuff just keeps getting more and more confusing to me.

 

[Rescued One]

Actually, once they realized I wasn't going to eat them, they divulged certain information. As you say, Kolob, they told me, is a star, although according to them, it is the closest star to heaven, where god now dwells. Sometimes LDS might use the name to refer to the planet, which orbits the star named Kolob by the same name, so calling that planet Kolob is not incorrect. Or so they told me.

I find it strange that god would use a star to mark the days of creation, when stars did not exist before he created them.

This stuff just keeps getting more and more confusing to me.

Some Mormon leaders have referred to Kolob as a planet.

What you need to do is get baptized, have them lay hands on you for the gift of the Holy Ghost, remain obedient, and the Lord will reveal it to you line upon line as MormonFriend says. JUST KIDDING!

 

[TasteForTruth]

Calling for resources here. Anyone who believes that Kolob has been referred to as a planet in LDS doctrine, please post the source. I'm curious, more than anything. Frankly, people can call Kolob a planet all they like. It just usually is an indicator of the person's familiarity with LDS doctrine (and, very often, suggests something about their sources of information...).

 

[Ironhold]

Actually, once they realized I wasn't going to eat them, they divulged certain information. As you say, Kolob, they told me, is a star, although according to them, it is the closest star to heaven, where god now dwells. Sometimes LDS might use the name to refer to the planet, which orbits the star named Kolob by the same name, so calling that planet Kolob is not incorrect. Or so they told me.

I find it strange that god would use a star to mark the days of creation, when stars did not exist before he created them.

This stuff just keeps getting more and more confusing to me.

By that logic, how could there be a day before days were even created?

 

[TheBarrd]

By that logic, how could there be a day before days were even created?

You may not have gathered as much from what I type, but I have a deep, abiding respect for science. I am one who thinks that for Christianity to fight against science reveals a lack of faith in the God we believe in. I have often said that "science cannot discover anything God didn't put there in the first place", which is something I deeply believe.
The most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe, as most of us probably know, is the "big bang" theory. And as you probably also know, science has been able to trace the movement of the stars back to the beginning...which, they say, was around 13 or 14 million years ago. Further back than that, science cannot go.
There evidently was a day when there were no stars.
Before there was a universe, time as we know it could not exist...if you don't believe me, check out Einstein's famous theory.
The only thing that could have existed...indeed, would have to have existed, if there were to be a "big bang" in the first place...would be energy.
Not religion...but science. I have enough faith in my God to consider both of these.
Do you?

 

[TasteForTruth]

You may not have gathered as much from what I type, but I have a deep, abiding respect for science. I am one who thinks that for Christianity to fight against science reveals a lack of faith in the God we believe in. I have often said that "science cannot discover anything God didn't put there in the first place", which is something I deeply believe.
The most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe, as most of us probably know, is the "big bang" theory. And as you probably also know, science has been able to trace the movement of the stars back to the beginning...which, they say, was around 13 or 14 million years ago. Further back than that, science cannot go.
There evidently was a day when there were no stars.
Before there was a universe, time as we know it could not exist...if you don't believe me, check out Einstein's famous theory.
The only thing that could have existed...indeed, would have to have existed, if there were to be a "big bang" in the first place...would be energy.
Not religion...but science. I have enough faith in my God to consider both of these.
Do you?

I'm pretty sure you meant "billion," not "million." That aside, I thought that the most recent theories on the universe's origins (or at least the big bang) theorized that the universe, prior to the big bang, was a singularity. There is nothing about energy outside of the singularity having any bearing on it. In fact, I didn't think there was any theory that attempted to penetrate beyond the singularity, to explain what preceded the big bang. Whose theory is it that says energy was there?

 

[TheBarrd]

By that logic, how could there be a day before days were even created?

Perhaps I never mentioned that I have a deep and abiding respect for, and belief in, science. IMHO, Christians of any stripe who rail against science reveal their own lack of faith in our God. I have often said, and in public, too, that science will never, ever discover anything that God did not put there in the first place.
I truly believe that.
The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe at this time, based on the movement of the stars, is the "big bang" theory. Science has been able to trace the movement of the stars back to the very moment of the big bang...roughly 13-14 billion years ago.
Before that, there were no stars. Now, if you consider Einstein's famous theory, before that, there was no time.
However, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, and since energy would be necessary if there were to be a big bang in the first place, there was energy.
I respectfully submit that that energy...or should I say Energy...is what we know as God.

 

[Rescued One]

Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Egyptian papyri:

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 those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years...


16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3

There was an article in the Ensign magazine about The Book of Abraham. I'll post an excerpt here.

Abraham learned that just as one planet or star is greater than another until one comes to Kolob—the great governing one (see Abr. 3:9)—so, too, one spirit is greater than another until one comes to Jesus Christ—the great governing one (see Abr. 3:19, 24). A careful comparison of the characteristics of Kolob with the characteristics of Jesus Christ demonstrates that Kolob was, and is, a profound symbol of the Savior. We offer a few examples. Just as Kolob is “the great one” (Abr. 3:3), so Jesus Christ is “the Great I AM” (D&C 29:1). Just as Kolob is “the first creation” (Facsimile 2, fig. 1), so Jesus Christ is the first creation—“the firstborn” (D&C 93:21) of our Father’s most important creations, his children. Just as Kolob is the source of light for other stars and planets (see Facsimile 2, fig. 5), Jesus Christ is the source of light for the immensity of space, including the sun, moon, stars, and earth (D&C 88:5–13). Truly, the book of Abraham is a remarkable text, preserving a unique testimony of Jesus Christ written in the design of the physical universe and emphasizing again that all things do indeed testify of the Savior (see Moses 6:63).
Andrew Skinner, The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book, Ensign, March 1997


Writers in the Latter Day Saint movement have taken positions on both sides of the issue of whether Kolob is a star or a planet. Brigham Young, second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), spoke of Kolob as a planet.[21] Likewise, LDS Church apostles John Taylor,[22] Orson Pratt (a mathematician with an interest in astronomy),[23] Orson F. Whitney,[24] and Alvin R. Dyer[25] referred to Kolob as a planet. Other Mormon theologians have also viewed Kolob as a planet.[26] Several other Mormon writers have referred to Kolob as a star, including B. H. Roberts[27] and LDS Church president David O. McKay.[28]
Kolob - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kolob | World Public Library - eBooks | Read eBooks online

I'm not going to try to understand this because I don't think it can make sense in a trillion years.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Way's answer was actually the best one. There isn't a difference, at least not within a particular context. But I don't think that's what you were asking. I understood you to be asking about the Restored Gospel vs. the Gospel of Nicene Christianity.

The high points are that the two systems disagree on certain attributes/characteristics of Heavenly Father, the origin of Heavenly Father, the nature of the Godhead, the origin of Jesus Christ, and a few other noteworthy things.

Thank you for the excellent answer. That is exactly along the lines I was thinking.

Do you think there is an objective means of determining which of the two is accurate and which is not? Obviously, if they disagree they both cannot be correct.

 

[Rescued One]

Thank you. Then why do you not refer to it as the Gospel rather than the Restored Gospel?

They frequently do. Among themselves, they say Gospel more frequently than Restored Gospel.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Thank you for the excellent answer. That is exactly along the lines I was thinking.

Do you think there is an objective means of determining which of the two is accurate and which is not? Obviously, if they disagree they both cannot be correct.

Objective, as in scientific? No. I don't think so. And appealing to the Bible to sort it out is an exercise in insanity, unless the only interpretation one entertains—ever—is his own. This is (in part) why I, personally, rely so heavily on what claims to be revelation to answer what is true and what is not, where this question is concerned. God has given us all a means of testing revelation. But He has not provided an "objective" way—outside of revelation—to sort out our various theological contradictions. At least none that I have ever found.

Do you know of one?

 

[TasteForTruth]

They frequently do. Among themselves, they say Gospel more frequently than Restored Gospel.

Exactly.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Objective, as in scientific? No. I don't think so. And appealing to the Bible to sort it out is an exercise in insanity, unless the only interpretation one entertains—ever—is his own. This is (in part) why I, personally, rely so heavily on what claims to be revelation to answer what is true and what is not, where this question is concerned. God has given us all a means of testing revelation. But He has not provided an "objective" way—outside of revelation—to sort out our various theological contradictions. At least none that I have ever found.

Do you know of one?"

The one I rely upon is rejected by you. There is no further reason to pursue this discussion because we are in complete disagreement as to the basis for determining the accuracy of one gospel over the other.

Suffice it to say on my part that there is not a scintilla of evidence of the Restored Gospel prior to the advent of Mr. Smith in the early nineteenth century. You cannot restore something that never existed.

 

[TasteForTruth]

][/COLOR]The one I rely upon is rejected by you. There is no further reason to pursue this discussion because we are in complete disagreement as to the basis for determining the accuracy of one gospel over the other.

Do you mind sharing with us the objective test to which you subject this question?

]

Suffice it to say on my part that there is not a scintilla of evidence of the Restored Gospel prior to the advent of Mr. Smith in the early nineteenth century. You cannot restore something that never existed.

[/COLOR]

I already stated clearly what "Restored Gospel" means (at least to me). Your statement does not take my definition into account, so you must be using some other definition.

 

[katerinah1947]

Objective, as in scientific? No. I don't think so. And appealing to the Bible to sort it out is an exercise in insanity, unless the only interpretation one entertains—ever—is his own. This is (in part) why I, personally, rely so heavily on what claims to be revelation to answer what is true and what is not, where this question is concerned. God has given us all a means of testing revelation. But He has not provided an "objective" way—outside of revelation—to sort out our various theological contradictions. At least none that I have ever found.

Do you know of one?

Hi guys,
I was a scientiic type. Later as I worked in that field, being totally Agnostic, meaning I did not know if God was real, and I did not know if He wasn't, plus I never saw a proof of God, and didn't know if The Bible was Real either, one day by accident, to counter the Jehovah's Witness Threat to my family, knowing nothing, and them telling me nothing after even writing twice to their headquarters, I was faced with trying to figure out, if they were right or wrong, on my own.
That is a standard type of problem in science. Sometimes no one knows, and it is your job to find and anwer, if you can, and if there is one. In that field, even if I said I could not find an answer, that is quite acceptable and happens all of the time.
So, having nothing to go on, I looked at the problem. Those guys said: We follow the corrected Bible, and essentially that is all we do, while it has been corrupted by others.
So, I said, I can do that one thing, and for now. I can look at the Bible and try and find out if it is Real or not. I didn't know, so I needed to do that as my first step in the problem before me, if they, the Jehovah's Witnesses were right or not.
A short time later (10 years or so.), I had an answer. The Bible is Real. It talks about God, so God is Real.
The method used, is long, and is what you guys call falsifiable, but a word usage I have never ever seen or heard of in all my years of working that way. (About 38 years professsionally, and I still work that way now.).
In order to do what I did, you need to know how to do advanced reasearch correctly, and you totally have to understand controlled experiiments. Plus you might need some mentoring if you are new to this, to keep from making errors.
The paper, that I submit for this, is the following:
Proof of Bible, 10 years.
Results: The Bible is Real, by the following Definition of Real. It is true, where
it says it is True, and it is False where it says it is false.

Method:
1. Prove Bible is wrong, and have a provable proof that it is wrong, from what you personally know. Mine was science.
2. Present proof to ohers.
3. If 1.) and 2.) are true, then present to the world.
4. If this is still true, then the work is completed, awaiting further proofs or
valid counter proofs.
Results:
1. Proved Bible wrong in two places. Age of Adam, and time of Noah's Ark.
2. Presented proof to others.
3. Counter claims came in.
4. Evaluated counter claims.
5. Counter claims adequate.
6. Bible is now not provably wrong by me.
7. Look to the world now.
8. Has anyone proven it wrong scientifically ever?
9. No one has.
10. I can't prove the book wrong. I can't prove the book right.
11. Take a break.
12. Break over.
13. Step two. Evaluate the problem
14. Done. Propose next step to run controlled experiements.
15. Five intial experiments picked as starting number. Will do 200 if needed.
16. Design Experiments.
17. Run first experiment.
18. Run next and the next and the next.
19. Collect Results.
20. Throw out every thing that is possible to throw out, that might be erroeous, objectively, but meanly.
21. Done.
22. Summarize Data.
23. Done.
24. Publish and disseminate.
25. Done.
"The summary of the five controlled experiments is the Bible is Real. It is true where it says it is true and it is false where it says it is false.
26. DONE.

Well that may make no sense, to non researchers. But that is what the work looked like. It only took 10 years to complete.

Follow on: Within months of completing this work, it became more than impossible, to forget the original work, as what humans say is supernatural, now became my weekly experiences. I went to look as to why. There in that book, the reason is listed. I just then accepted that also, like the proof of The Bible.

LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
P.S. Does that help anyone.?
...Katie., .... .

 

[Theway]

Not quite. I would never say that God the Father had once been a man, because He is eternal. Men did not exist at all until He created them. I suppose it is a difficult concept, believing as you do, but God doesn't need a body to be God.

Actually, I don't think any Mormon has made the claim that one needs a body to be God??? We believe Jesus was God before He came to this earth, we also believe that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is also currently God and does not have a body.
The irony of your statement above is that you separate your God the Father from God the Son when it suits you, yet you insist that our God the Father can not be separated from God the Son in any way.
Perhaps we need to start at the basics in order to get a better understanding of each other...
What makes God, God, in your understanding?

Now you are talking about Jesus Christ, Who is God Incarnate. Quite a different story. Again, a difficult concept for you.

See what I mean!
Look, it's actually a very simple concept, you just are embarrassed to own up to your own beliefs....
Does Jesus have an resurrected, eternally incarnate body of flesh and bones?
Do you worship Jesus?
Is Jesus God?
Is there only "One True God?

If you answered yes to each of these questions... Then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that you worship the One True God which has a body of Flesh and Bones!

Now you may try to chant the magical incantation "The Trinity!" thinking that it will magically make all your paradoxes and contradictions vanish.
However, I'm here to tell you that the king in that body has no clothes?

I really was hoping to find that the notion that god was once a man wasn't really something Mormons truly believed. I suppose that I am questioning.
And I learned much more than I had bargained for.

Yes, I get that. That's why I'm not going to pretend to answer you as though you were someone sincere in your queries. Just as long as you don't also feign to be insulted by my replys.

Actually, I have learned a great deal from the Atheists I have spoken with. Most of them are pretty reasonable people, who will admit that they don't know.

Again....I find it funny that you find it reasonable when an Atheist tells you "I don't know" however, post after post by Mormons on this thread have consistently replied to a lot of your questions with a "we don't know" and yet we are somehow being unreasonable????

If you were waiting for me to agree that god was ever a man from another planet, or even that he could have ever been a man from another planet, you should have given up long ago. It's never gonna happen.

I don't know why you would think that I want you to agree to that, when this is one of those questions which Mormons have answered you as "we don't know"? Despite that, you keep ignoring us and inserting your own strawman that this is what be believe.

I never said such a thing. And I'd smile behind my hand at anyone else who thought such a thing.

So you don't believe that God declared his word through the Urim and Thummim in the Bible???

Have you walked on water yet? I'm not the one who thinks that Jesus was ever a "natural man"...I don't expect to walk on water, or feel virtue going out of me, or any such thing. Do you?

Yes! I absolutely do have faith that I can do those things, and I do believe in the reality that says I can do those things.... And Yes, most Christians do believe that Jesus was fully man while on the earth.... I guess you'll just have to explain what you mean by "natural"?

Again, you are assuming that I have never believed what the Lord has told me is true. You're assuming quite a bit about someone you've never met.
I had an open enough mind to listen to a couple of Mormon missionaries who came to my house. Unfortunately, they didn't have very open minds, however.
Did I ever tell you about the JWs who came? They don't come around any more...not since one of them became convinced that I was right and the JWs were wrong....

That is why I said you are not interested in finding truth... Just in convincing people "YOU" are right. I for one would not want anyone to join the Mormon Church because "I" was able to convince them I was right.... That is not my job, that is why God sent the Holy Spirit.

 

[Theway]

I do not know anyone who think they will be ressurected as a god.

That all depends on your definition of "god".
It is actually the very goal of all Christians, and should be the desire of every Christian to be a god.

 

[Theway]

Sometimes LDS might use the name to refer to the planet, which orbits the star named Kolob by the same name, so calling that planet Kolob is not incorrect. Or so they told me.

Ive never in all my 50+ years heard this one. Perhaps if you gave a reference to it?

I find it strange that god would use a star to mark the days of creation, when stars did not exist before he created them.

Then who is creating the billions of stars right now in the stellar nurseries of the universe from preexisting matter?
Are these false creations?

 

[Theway]

"Objective, as in scientific? No. I don't think so. And appealing to the Bible to sort it out is an exercise in insanity, unless the only interpretation one entertains—ever—is his own. This is (in part) why I, personally, rely so heavily on what claims to be revelation to answer what is true and what is not, where this question is concerned. God has given us all a means of testing revelation. But He has not provided an "objective" way—outside of revelation—to sort out our various theological contradictions. At least none that I have ever found.

Do you know of one?"

The one I rely upon is rejected by you. There is no further reason to pursue this discussion because we are in complete disagreement as to the basis for determining the accuracy of one gospel over the other.

Suffice it to say on my part that there is not a scintilla of evidence of the Restored Gospel prior to the advent of Mr. Smith in the early nineteenth century. You cannot restore something that never existed.

Call me curious.....

Exactly what objective way have you discovered for determining Biblical truth?

I would seriously love to hear this one.

 

[TheBarrd]

Permit to strongly assert that there is something you're missing. I don't know what it is, though. I try not to get into the broken-record method of explication. Sometimes if you simply phrase something another way, it becomes easier to understand. Sometimes it comes down to simple things, like word definitions. In fact, the longer you express your hang-up on the "man" thing, the more it seems that this could play a big part in the confusion (word definitions, that is). We'll see, I guess.

OK. Good. When you say "man," what, precisely, are you talking about? This very well may be where the hurdle lies. If what you understand "man" to be is wholly, and irreconcilably incompatible with "eternal," then that could be the clue here.

When I say "man" what am I talking about? I am the mother of seven kids, three of whom are boys, all of whom are grown with kids of their own.
A "man" is a mortal being, whose life began when his parents conceived him, and whose mortal life will end at his death. God breathed His spirit (small s) into him, as into his sisters, at his conception, and not before. That spirit, which is the essence of who he is as a man will live after him, but it did not exist before him. In other words, "man" is wholly and irreconcilably incompatible with "eternal".
But there is more to it than that. God states in the Bible that He, and He alone, is the only God that exists. There are no other Gods, anywhere, not anywhere in all of the Universe or beyond. He existed before time began. He and He alone is Holy, He and He alone is omnipotent, He and He alone is the Creator of all things. For a man...a creature made by Him, to suppose that he might one day be as He is seems to be incredibly disrespectful...as if my coffee table, or my little dog, should suddenly declare that he will now become a man and rule his own household. Never gonna happen.
With no intention of trying to pour the salt of sarcasm into any wounds, it honestly, with all the respect I have for you, TfT, feels an awful lot like blasphemy.

I do, but I wasn't talking about friendship. I wasn't calling into question your ability to be friends with someone with differing beliefs. I was talking only about comprehension of another person's beliefs. I was talking about how easy it is to feed the already-skeptical mind—to poison it against an idea, not a person.

Fair enough. I was trying to show you that I understood, because I have dealt with the ultimate skeptics...those who "hate" all things Christian...and not only gained their trust and respect...but actually saw one kneel to pray to the God he thought he hated...
Of course, I did not do this alone. I learned to love these kids from Christians who were much more mature than I will ever be, I'm afraid.

A trait I share, actually. The TFT you're talking to right now is not the TFT of many years ago. I have had to learn the hard way that there is very, very little room for certain types of expressions in this forum which, in other environments, are usually not problematic. Sarcasm being one of them. And I'm still not perfect here. I bite my keyboard-tongue a great deal. I, also, know the carnal satisfaction of pouring the salt of sarcasm into others' wounds.

Thank you for telling me that, TfT. If possible, I have even more respect for you than I already had. Just between you and me, true sarcasm requires some intelligence, yes? Dealing with my kids, you quickly learn not to pull away from it, but to embrace it. Fencing with mine is a real challenge. It wouldn't do to have a thin skin at my house...they'll send you running in tears in less than five minutes.
I can't imagine where they got it from
However, since we are in an internet forum, perhaps it would be best if we both kept our swords in their sheaths. I promise, I will do my very best to resist the temptation...and bite my keyboard-tongue...just try not to give me too easy an opening, OK?

Yes. My objective was not to slight the Bible's legitimacy, but to point out that your belief system is just as vulnerable to the criticism of skeptics and unbelievers and strict literalism/logic worship as is mine. If we can somehow agree that here, in this forum, in spite of the fact that your beliefs are "orthodox" and mine aren't—if we can arrive at the place where no system gets any more benefit of the doubt than another, then we may be able to begin to see what the other person sees...to understand what the other person understands. We needn't embrace, but at least we can understand. And we might—just might—discover that what we initially judged to be ridiculous at least does actually makes some sense. And we'll arrive there faster when we start from the point of admitting that our own beliefs also don't make any sense...to someone.

I will concede the point.

Then we needn't bring it up again. Unless you call my bluff!

I believe we're beginning to understand one another better.

Maybe. I hope you are beginning to understand me.

Indeed. Here, anyway.