Comments on: MMTP: “Hieing to Kolob?” Edition

By: Andrea

Andrea — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:31:25 +0000

Since Joseph Smith was not an astronomer, it has to be metaphorical.

By: Pablo Wright

Pablo Wright — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:50:35 +0000

Scott B. Says:
June 10, 2009 at 11:49 am
Love the way people like pablo wright ignore that people like Kevin Barney cite an actual, existing scholarly debate, and just declare that there is no debate.

An existing scholarly debate? Allow real peer review of the Institute’s “scholarly” output, then you’d have a real debate. Otherwise you’ve little more than the musings of the house organ.
Thoughtful Latter Day Saints deserve better that that, Scott B. and John C.

By: John C.

John C. — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:13:06 +0000

pablo,
Troll ye elsewhere!

By: Scott B.

Scott B. — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:49:06 +0000

Love the way people like pablo wright ignore that people like Kevin Barney cite an actual, existing scholarly debate, and just declare that there is no debate.

By: pablo wright

pablo wright — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:23:59 +0000

Love the way people like Kevin Barney invoke expressions like scholarly debate. The scholarly conclusion is that the Book of Abraham is not real, only metaphorical. Unless it was written by an astronomer, you can also forget the astronomy.

By: Mark A. Clifford

Mark A. Clifford — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:22:25 +0000

Vaishnav Hindus are committed to the idea that God has a body, because as Srla Prabupad put it, “KRSNA cannot fail to have a quality that created beings have,” and they are not Mormon. There are a variety of ways to understand the notion of Divine embodiment. They include, but do not have to be as simple as, the proceeding formulation that “God has a body that is in a certain place at any given time”.
Mormonism, in at least some sense, is a “new kid” on the block theologically. We are still working out what our scripture implies, intends, and insists on. There are several Mormons, even good ones, who are open to the idea that God’s embodiment can be viewed in several ways, for example Bob Millett: “God has a body but it does not have Him”.
The point (for me at least) is that “it” never is, and should not be, as simple as “either it is metaphorical or it is not” or “either He is here or He is there.” Mormon scripture is at least as committed to God’s immanence as it is to the notion of embodiment (see D&C 93). Developing an understanding of how these things are simultaneously true is the fun part, and the “Mormon-ey” part. I doubt that we is going to end up “protestants with a temple” in any case.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:34:17 +0000

There is certainly a question of accuracy that is separate from the question of whether the description was intended to be metaphorical.

Presumably, Mormonism is committed to the proposition that our Heavenly Father has a body, and that his body is only in once place at one time. Presumably he has a home somewhere, and wherever that is we might as well call “Kolob” for lack of a better name.

If on the other hand, we abandon the idea that God has a body that is in a certain place at any given time, I don’t see how the resulting Mormon theology would differ significantly from classical theism. Protestants with a temple, more or less.

By: John C.

John C. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:48:04 +0000

S’truth! I don’t think we’ve had a poll that mattered yet.

By: Steve G.

Steve G. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:45:15 +0000

12. thats a given for every BCC poll

By: Seanette

Seanette — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:50:49 +0000

We needed a choice for “does it matter?” ;-)