Talk:Kolob
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Archive
[edit] 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)
[edit] broken link
"A symbolic interpretation of Kolob" which used to point to [1] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Problems with Kolob
Because of the length of time that such a planet would take to rotate, it would mean that one side was extremily 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 Collob and the start 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)
[edit] 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. [2][3] I just don't understand why they do not believe in the book of Mormon. [4] —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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
-
[edit] Merger proposal
[edit] 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)
