Difference between revisions of "Question: Do the statements in the Book of Abraham regarding Kolob's revolution time make any sense?"

(→‎{{Response label}})
m (→‎{{Response label}})
Line 37: Line 37:
 
:. . . answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, ''which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time''.
 
:. . . answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, ''which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time''.
  
−
If Kolob is swifter, then it is not swifter on its rotational motion on its axis, because it is equal to the rotational motion of Oliblish.  Therefore, it can only be swifter in its motion around its parent body in its orbital path.  Now, if we take the center of the Galaxy as a possible model of what is happening, the closest stars to the Galactic Nucleus are moving at incredibly fast speeds in the central parsec of the Galaxy.  This is because the Galactic Nucleus (called "Saggitarius A*" pronounced "Sagittarius A Star" because the Galactic Center is in the constellation Sagittarius) is a super-massive black hole with extreme gravity that can easily swing huge stars around it at incredible speeds like a gigantic sling.  If we take the star S2 (Sagittarius #2) around the Galactic Nucleus as a model, which is the closest, S2 has "the fastest known ballistic orbit, reaching speeds exceeding 5000 km/s (11 000 000 mph) or 2% of the speed of light . . ." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_%28star%29]).  Though S2 is probably not Kolob, it stands to reason that a body that is orbiting around such an object in such close proximity in its closest approach would have an incredible speed.  A very large star near to such an object would likely be the fastest of all the large bodies in its system.  This is one possibility for how a very large star could be swift in its orbital motion.  Therefore, Kolob is swift in its motion on its orbital path, but slow in its rotation on its axis, which takes 1000 years.  So 1000 years is a day in Kolob, not a year in Kolob, according to the regular English usage of the terms.  Yes, one could say in response that "revolution" is not the usual English term for rotation on an axis, at least in modern scientific terms, so why should we go in favor of this interpretation for either the word year or the word day?  Well, a person can favor whatever he would like in his own personal interpretation, but some believe that this is in line with where the evidence points.  Others may not, and may even disagree with the use of some of the evidence.  That is the whole point.  We have disagreement among theorists on these points.
+
If Kolob is swifter, then it is not swifter on its rotational motion on its axis, because it is equal to the rotational motion of Oliblish.  Therefore, it can only be swifter in its motion around its parent body in its orbital path.  Now, if we take the center of the Galaxy as a possible model of what is happening, the closest stars to the Galactic Nucleus are moving at incredibly fast speeds in the central parsec of the Galaxy.  This is because the Galactic Nucleus (called "Sagittarius A*" pronounced "Sagittarius A Star" because the Galactic Center is in the constellation Sagittarius) is a super-massive black hole with extreme gravity that can easily swing huge stars around it at incredible speeds like a gigantic sling.  If we take the star S2 (Sagittarius #2) around the Galactic Nucleus as a model, which is the closest, S2 has "the fastest known ballistic orbit, reaching speeds exceeding 5000 km/s (11 000 000 mph) or 2% of the speed of light . . ." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_%28star%29]).  Though S2 is probably not Kolob, it stands to reason that a body that is orbiting around such an object in such close proximity in its closest approach would have an incredible speed.  A very large star near to such an object would likely be the fastest of all the large bodies in its system.  This is one possibility for how a very large star could be swift in its orbital motion.  Therefore, Kolob is swift in its motion on its orbital path, but slow in its rotation on its axis, which takes 1000 years.  So 1000 years is a day in Kolob, not a year in Kolob, according to the regular English usage of the terms.  Yes, one could say in response that "revolution" is not the usual English term for rotation on an axis, at least in modern scientific terms, so why should we go in favor of this interpretation for either the word year or the word day?  Well, a person can favor whatever he would like in his own personal interpretation, but some believe that this is in line with where the evidence points.  Others may not, and may even disagree with the use of some of the evidence.  That is the whole point.  We have disagreement among theorists on these points.
  
 
Now, back to the criticism above, and we quote again:
 
Now, back to the criticism above, and we quote again:

Revision as of 10:27, 17 July 2011

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Answers portal
The Book of Abraham
IE Jan1968 cover.jpg
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    RESOURCES

FAQ:

Book of Abraham content:

Production:

Perspectives.icon.tiny.1.png    PERSPECTIVES
Media.icon.tiny.1.png    MEDIA
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    OTHER PORTALS
  • [Pending]
==

Questions

== "LDS doctrine regarding astronomy is permeated with references to time being measured, or 'reckoned' according to a star's or planet's rate of rotation. Furthermore, this 'reckoning of time' is a prime distinguisher in terms of 'greatness.' From the standpoint of modern cosmology, this makes no sense at all. Rates of rotation are largely arbitrary, and of little comment or concern from a fundamental point of view."

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

==

Detailed Analysis

==

The biggest issue at hand is that the authors of the web page where the above criticism of the Book of Abraham was found have pretended to know the meaning of these scriptures to be able to set up yet another straw man to refute. The problem is, that the Book of Abraham cosmology is so ambiguous that not even LDS people, let alone critics of the Church, can claim to know what it is actually trying to say, so any criticism automatically creates a straw-man. Various LDS theorists have differing points of view on this.

One possible refutation of the above criticism is that the authors of that web page have confused rotation with revolution. Though the technical distinction is often blurred today, even by astronomers, at the time of Joseph Smith the two terms denoted technically different things. 'To rotate' means to spin on an axis, like a top or like a planet. It applies only to an extended body. 'To revolve' means to go around a central point and may be applied to any point that moves around another point. The Book of Abraham uses the term 'revolution,' and it is clearly being used in the technically correct sense. According to Abraham 3:5,9,

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.
9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

So the picture is geocentric (nothing wrong with that — Relativity tells us that one point is as good as another), and clearly refers to the revolution of the heavenly bodies about the Earth. The Earth rotates on its axis once per day and so a point on the surface of the earth revolves about the axis at the same rate. This is the fastest motion in the heavens. The Moon is next, with an orbital period of 27.32 days. The Moon also rotates once per revolution, so it always shows the same face toward the Earth. (This is not a coincidence, but the result of tidal dissipation.) The Sun revolves slower still, with a sidereal period of 365.256363 days. The solar rotation period, by the way, is about 24.5 days at its equator and a little longer as one approaches the solar poles, not that that matters to anything. And, apparently, Kolob revolves about the Earth once per... Well, does Abraham ever give the time for Kolob to revolve around the Earth, as seen from Earth? Remember that God does not live on Kolob. Kolob is only the great star that is nearest to the throne of God. In Abraham 3꞉4, we read

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. (emphasis added)

which seems to say that Kolob's orbital period about the throne of God is 1000 years, and that it is used by God as his unit of time. Of course, since Kolob is still far above the Sun, it "moveth in order more slow" (Abraham 3꞉5). Thus, as seen from Earth, it encircles and "governs" all intervening stars and planets. We are left to wonder. Is the Throne of God at the center of the Galaxy (in which case it would take 220,000,000 years to orbit the Earth) or at the center of the Universe (in which case, observations limit the rotation of the Universe to be very small indeed, maybe even zero) or is it somewhere else altogether?

Yet Another View On This Issue

As was stated at the beginning, LDS theorists have differing points of view on the meanings of these passages in the Book of Abraham. Some interpret the statement in Abraham 3:4 as meaning the rotational period of Kolob's axis (the angular motion) when referring to the "revolutions" of Kolob that take one thousand years. Because in the context, it is speaking of a "day" to the Lord. The word "day" when applied to normal usage refers to the earth or another body rotating on its axis. A "year" (as the term is used normally in English) refers to a revolution of a body around its parent body. Therefore, it is difficult to see how a "year" in Kolob, or its rotation around the parent body is a "day" to the Lord, or a day in Kolob. In this case, it seems pretty straight forward that the word "revolution" refers to the rotation on the axis. It is understandable how critics could interpret it this way, as meaning Kolob's rotation on its axis, because this is the way some reasonable people believe about this passage even in the Church. This is further evidenced by the fact that in the explanation for the Facsimile #2, Figure 1, it says:

The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth.

Here we are faced with the fact that it is saying "One day in Kolob." This clearly specifies this one thousand year period as Kolob's day. In the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, when referring to Kolob, it says that:

. . . Kolob in its motion . . . is swifter than the rest of the twelve fixed stars; going before, being first in motion, being delegated to have power over others to regulate others in their time . . .

Now, the Kirtland Egyptian Papers controversy is out of scope here, but suffice it to say that it is the view of some that there is no good reason to ignore this material just because it is not in the scriptures, when it has bearing on the subject at hand, and adds critical details. So, anyway, if we say that it is swifter than the rest of the twelve fixed stars, in which way is it swifter? About Oliblish in the explanation for Facsimile #2 figure 4, it says:

. . . answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.

If Kolob is swifter, then it is not swifter on its rotational motion on its axis, because it is equal to the rotational motion of Oliblish. Therefore, it can only be swifter in its motion around its parent body in its orbital path. Now, if we take the center of the Galaxy as a possible model of what is happening, the closest stars to the Galactic Nucleus are moving at incredibly fast speeds in the central parsec of the Galaxy. This is because the Galactic Nucleus (called "Sagittarius A*" pronounced "Sagittarius A Star" because the Galactic Center is in the constellation Sagittarius) is a super-massive black hole with extreme gravity that can easily swing huge stars around it at incredible speeds like a gigantic sling. If we take the star S2 (Sagittarius #2) around the Galactic Nucleus as a model, which is the closest, S2 has "the fastest known ballistic orbit, reaching speeds exceeding 5000 km/s (11 000 000 mph) or 2% of the speed of light . . ." ([1]). Though S2 is probably not Kolob, it stands to reason that a body that is orbiting around such an object in such close proximity in its closest approach would have an incredible speed. A very large star near to such an object would likely be the fastest of all the large bodies in its system. This is one possibility for how a very large star could be swift in its orbital motion. Therefore, Kolob is swift in its motion on its orbital path, but slow in its rotation on its axis, which takes 1000 years. So 1000 years is a day in Kolob, not a year in Kolob, according to the regular English usage of the terms. Yes, one could say in response that "revolution" is not the usual English term for rotation on an axis, at least in modern scientific terms, so why should we go in favor of this interpretation for either the word year or the word day? Well, a person can favor whatever he would like in his own personal interpretation, but some believe that this is in line with where the evidence points. Others may not, and may even disagree with the use of some of the evidence. That is the whole point. We have disagreement among theorists on these points.

Now, back to the criticism above, and we quote again:

LDS doctrine regarding astronomy is permeated with references to time being measured, or 'reckoned' according to a star's or planet's rate of rotation. Furthermore, this 'reckoning of time' is a prime distinguisher in terms of 'greatness.' From the standpoint of modern cosmology, this makes no sense at all. Rates of rotation are largely arbitrary, and of little comment or concern from a fundamental point of view.

Really? What is it about it that doesn't make sense? By the use of the word "greatness" in the scriptures, it is only referring to the length of the days. So what if the word "great" or "greatness" is used in this sense? By their use of the word permeation, they make it sound like there is a lot of emphasis put on it. We have only a few references in a few scriptures in Abraham where this is even mentioned, and only one in one verse of D&C 130. Where is the permeation? They say rates of rotation are arbitrary. So what if they are? We would expect a certain amount of randomness in nature, would we not? And the Book of Abraham is not in contradiction to that. Let's read that scripture again very carefully:

Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest. And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. (Abraham 3:7-9)

The scripture is saying that you have a range of planets, some slower or faster than others in the rotation on their axes until you go inward in the star system towards Kolob, presumably somewhere where it gravitationally dominates in the system. Kolob is the slowest of them all, taking a thousand years to rotate on its axis. It seems science has shown this to be the case as far as can be seen in general, with the discovery of exo-planets, with some being faster or slower on their axes. Just because the critics mock it doesn't mean it wasn't a valuable teaching tool for the Lord to teach Abraham a principle. Critics of the Bible could mock the stories Jesus told in parables as well, but it doesn't change the fact that the Lord chose those stories to teach something. So what's the point of the criticism, and where does it not make sense from a cosmological or scientific point of view? This criticism falls apart on close inspection.

==

Answer

== Once again, a critic of Joseph Smith's revelations has chosen to interpret difficult and ambiguous phrasing in a way that serves his ultimate goal — to set up straw man that is easily demolished. And the critics just do it to mock. But Abraham's astronomical statements are far more reasonable than the critics claim and fit into a picture that makes sense in the cosmic world view of Abraham's contemporaries, a conclusion that was also reached in John Gee's 2009 FAIR conference talk, "The Larger Issue". Yet other faithful theorists disagree with Gee's conclusions, such as Michael Rhodes, and others, but still great respect is had for Gee's points of view. One researcher has shown evidence for both a geocentric and also a more literal interpretation, the one being a symbol of the other.

== Notes == None

Further reading

FAIR Wiki

Contents



Mormonism and the determination of truth


Jump to Subtopic:


Latter-day Saint approaches to science


Jump to Subtopic:

  1. REDIRECTThe Creation

Astronomy and the Book of Abraham

Summary: The Book of Abraham makes several references to astronomy which draw criticism. These articles address specific issues related to Book of Abraham astronomical concepts.


Jump to Subtopic:


Book of Mormon archaeology


Jump to Subtopic:


DNA and the Book of Mormon


Jump to details:


Latter-day Saint attitudes toward science


Jump to Subtopic:

Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that men would never walk on the moon


Jump to details:


Articles about Brigham Young
Teachings
History
Race
Critics

Did Brigham Young actually teach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?

Brigham Young speculated that the moon and sun were inhabited: he was clearly expressing an opinion

Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited,

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is clearly expressing an opinion, and there is no evidence that he is making a prophetic declaration concerning extraterrestrials. He even goes out of his way to indicate that this is what he "rather think[s]," and asks his congregation to consider what they think. He also says that he would want to know if an idea he has is false—even including his religion. These are not the sentiments of a man convinced he must be right by divine gift of prophetic omniscience.

It is particularly ironic that Brigham's remarks were focused on the fact that no one knows much about anything, and so humility is appropriate on most questions. Critics have taken this wise stance, and have tried to invert Brigham's intent—changing him from an advocate of humility before the unknown into a doctrinaire know-nothing who is certain of absurdities. The critics might do well do follow Brigham's example.

Brigham Young made the following statement in 1869:[1]

It has been observed here this morning that we are called fanatics. Bless me! That is nothing. Who has not been called a fanatic who has discovered anything new in philosophy or science? We have all read of Galileo the astronomer who, contrary to the system of astronomy that had been received for ages before his day, taught that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of our planetary system? For this the learned astronomer was called "fanatic," and subjected to persecution and imprisonment of the most rigorous character. So it has been with others who have discovered and explained new truths in science and philosophy which have been in opposition to long-established theories; and the opposition they have encountered has endured until the truth of their discoveries has been demonstrated by time...

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us.

The context for Brigham's remarks, then, are that new ideas and truths are often mocked or rejected by those who cling to older ideas. And, were he to have such an idea, he would want to know.

He then says:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

Brigham goes on to speak about inhabitants of the moon. In context, his point is clearly that no one;—even experts—knows very much about the universe. There are many things (such as whether the moon is inhabited) about which no one of his day could speak clearly.

It then becomes very clear that Brigham is expressing his personal views, not laying down divine truth from on high

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is new—such as Mormonism—is irrational. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.

William Herschel—the preeminent astronomer of his generation and the man to discover Uranus—was also firmly of the belief that the sun was inhabited.[2] One author wrote:

Herschel was not a raving amateur. A gifted astronomer, he discovered Uranus, and was the first to realize that sunlight included infrared light as well as visible light. His sister, Caroline, became famous in her own right for discovering comets, so he did not lack for intelligent conversation. He just had his own theories. Herschel believed that life existed on every celestial body in the universe. He was aware that the sun people saw was too hot to support life. He just assumed there was something underneath that burning atmosphere. When he observed sunspots, he believed that they were openings in the atmosphere, or perhaps mountains, and that if people could get a close look at the planet beneath, they would be able to spot signs of life. Herschel was not alone in his beliefs - as more information on the sun turned up, astronomers speculated on how it would affect life on the surface of the sun, and what kind of life might survive in those environments.[3]

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter:

1856

Desert News noted:

Proof that the Moon is not Inhabited.

"Dr. Scoresby, in an account that he has given of some recent observations made with the Earl of Rosse’s telescope, says: ‘With respect to the moon, every object on its surface of 100 feet was distinctly to be seen; and he had no doubt that, under very favorable circumstances, it would be so with objects 60 feet in height…. But no vestiges of architecture remain to show that the moon, is, or ever was, inhabited by a race of mortals similar to ourselves….. There was no water visible…."[4]

1880

"As there is no air nor water on the moon, but very few changes can take place upon its surface. There can be no vegetation and no animals, and although many astronomers have brought their imaginations to bear upon this subject, and have given us descriptions of the beautiful scenery upon its surface, and have even peopled it with inhabitants, we have every reason to believe that it is as barren and lifeless as an arid rock."[5]

Joseph Smith and Moon Quakers?

Summary: A late third-hand account attributes a similar idea to Joseph Smith.
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Did Brigham Young claim that too much education was damaging to children?

Brigham was giving instruction on the building of schools

Brigham said:

Concerning the Education of Children I will say that not withstanding the drivings of this people I do not believe that you can go into any City in the world & pick up 100 Children promiscusly and put them by the side of our Children that are as well educated as the same number of our Children gathered up promiscusly in the Territory of Utah. There are some people & Countries who force & whip their Children into an Education but we should never Croud & force the minds of our Children beyond what they are able to bear. If we do we ruin them for life. I would rather my children would spend their Early life sliding down Hill, skating, riding Horses till they were 20 years old & not go to school one day than to clog & force the mind while young with intricate studies. It strains & cripples the mind for life & ruins the man. You never see a child that is Confined while young to Close rooms & hard study & followed up to manhood that ever becomes a master spirit or qualifyed to transact difficult business in after life (emphasis added).

Brigham was highly in favor of education; he was not, however, in favor of "whipping," "forcing" or "confining" young minds and bodies "beyond what they are able to bear"

In this sense, he was well in line with what educational thinkers and reformers of the 19th century were saying:

...as the historian Kenneth Gold has pointed out, the early educational reformers were also tremendously concerned that children not get too much schooling. In 1871, for example, the US commissioner of education published a report by Edward Jarvis on the "Relation of Education to Insanity." Jarvis had studied 1,741 cases of insanity and concluded that "over-study" was responsible for 205 of them. "Education lays the foundation of a large portion of the causes of mental disorder," Jarvis wrote. Similarly, the pioneer of public education in Massachusetts, Horace Mann, believed that working students too hard would create a "most pernicious influence upon character and habits....Not infrequently is health itself destroyed by over-stimulating the mind." In the education journals of the day, there were constant worries about overtaxing students or blunting their natural abilities through too much schoolwork.

The reformers, Gold writes:

strove for ways to reduce time spent studying, because long periods of respite could save the mind from injury. Hence the elimination of Saturday classes, the shortening of the school day, and the lengthening of vacation—all of which occurred over the course of the nineteenth century. Teachers were cautioned that 'when [students] are required to study, their bodies should not be exhausted by long confinement, nor their minds bewildered by prolonged application.' Rest also presented particular opportunities for strengthening cognitive and analytical skills. As one contributor to the Massachusetts Teacher suggested, 'it is when thus relieved from the state of tension belonging to actual study that boys and girls, as well as men and women, acquire the habit of thought and reflection, and of forming their own conclusions, independently of what they are taught and the authority of others."[6]

For an extensive analysis of Brigham's positive views on education, see Hugh W. Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (Vol. 13 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by Don E. Norton, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994), chapter 15-16. ISBN 0875798187. direct off-site direct off-site


Notes

  1. ↑ Brigham Young, "The Gospel—The One-Man Power," (24 July 1870) Journal of Discourses 13:270.
  2. ↑ "...in 1795 [Herschel] published one of his most extraordinary papers, 'On the Nature and Construction of the sun', with the Royal Society, suggesting that the sun had a cool, solid interior and was inhabited by intelligent beings." [Richard Holmes, The Age of Wonder (London: Harper Press, 2008), 199.]
  3. ↑ Esther Inglis-Arkell, "Astronomers once thought there was life on the sun," io9. (20 December 2013)
  4. ↑ Deseret News 6 (1856): 134d.
  5. ↑ ‘Quebec,’ "The Moon", Contributor 1/9 (June 1880): 193-5, from page 195
  6. ↑ Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 2008), 253–254.

Mormonism and education: Modern perspectives


Jump to details:


Utah statistical claims and charges

Summary: This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.


Jump to Subtopic:


  1. REDIRECTThe_Flood


Question: Do the statements in the Book of Abraham regarding Kolob's revolution time make any sense?
Galaxies JWST.jpg

Latter-day Saints believe that there are other worlds in the universe on which intelligent life exists. Further, this intelligent life looks like us. However, there are no teachings on whether or not this intelligent life has visited earth in spaceships.

The Lord told Moses, "Worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . . For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man. . . . And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words."[1]

From these verses we learn that God has created many worlds, some of which have "passed away" and some of which "now stand." These worlds are referred to as an earth with heavens, which is the exact phrasing God applies to Earth.[2] We learn from the prophet Enoch that these other worlds are like Earth: "Were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations."[3] We learn from Joseph Smith that these other worlds have inhabitants[4] and that these inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God.[5] Joseph Smith also taught that some individuals who lived on Earth did not die; rather, their bodies were changed so they could be "ministring Angels Unto many planets."[6]

As summarized by President Joseph Fielding Smith, "We know that our Heavenly Father is a glorified, exalted personage who has all power, all might, and all dominion, and that he knows all things. We testify that he, through his Only Begotten Son, is the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number, all of which are peopled by his spirit children."[7] As Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, "How many planets are there in the universe with people on them? We don’t know, but we are not alone in the universe! God is not the God of only one planet!"[8]

Astronomy research continues to advance in identifying habitable worlds. Scientist and Latter-day Saint Jani Radebaugh noted:

New details about [astronomical] bodies in the outer solar system . . . have helped open our minds to the possibilities of other worlds with life in our galaxy and in the universe. . . . Recently, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a report that suggested that there might be as many as nine billion habitable planets in our own galaxy alone. Another way of saying this is that there are more habitable planets in our galaxy than there are people on Earth. (Of course, this doesn't mean they're actually inhabited, only that they're habitable.) As Latter-day Saints, this should not surprise us too much. We should be able to look at these big numbers and say, "Well, we should have seen this coming because God already told us there were inhabited worlds without number" (see D&C 76:24; Moses 1:33).[9]

However, the extent of our knowledge about intelligent life on other worlds is that such life exists. Elder Neal A. Maxwell noted, "We do not know where or how many other inhabited planets there are, even though we appear to be alone in our own solar system. As to the Lord's continuing role amid His vast creations, so little has been revealed."[10]


Notes

  1. ↑ Moses 1:33, 35, 38.
  2. ↑ Moses 1:35–36.
  3. ↑ Moses 7:30.
  4. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 88:42–47, 61.
  5. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 76:24.
  6. ↑ "Instruction on Priesthood, circa 5 October 1840," page 7, josephsmithpapers.org.
  7. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Out of the Darkness," April 1971 general conference.
  8. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, in "Special Witnesses of Christ," Ensign, April 2001.
  9. ↑ Jani Radebaugh, "The Outer Solar System: A Window to the Creative Breadth of Divinity," in Science and Mormonism 1: Cosmos, Earth, and Man, ed. David H. Bailey, et al. (The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016), 314.
  10. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Our Creator's Cosmos," address given at the Church Educational System annual conference, 13 August 2002, in Sarah Jane Weaver, "‘Our Creator’s Cosmos’ — vast, personal," Church News, 17 August 2002.
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Question: Do the statements in the Book of Abraham regarding Kolob's revolution time make any sense?

The Book of Abraham is "an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri."[1] "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture. This book [is] a record of the biblical prophet and patriarch Abraham."[2]

To view articles about the Book of Abraham, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about Book of Abraham
Papyri translation and related documents
Relation to other texts
Purported issues


Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


Notes

  1. ↑ Introduction, Pearl of Great Price.
  2. ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics Essays, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

FAIR Wiki

Template:ScienceFAIR

On-line articles

Template:ScienceArticles

Print works

Template:SciencePrint
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Question:_Do_the_statements_in_the_Book_of_Abraham_regarding_Kolob%27s_revolution_time_make_any_sense%3F&oldid=90101"