Lets see, I can't quote my own scripture to discuss my own belief system. That's ridiculous. Should we discuss Jewish theology without discussing the Old Testament? How about we discuss the founding of America without discussing the Constitution (Oh wait, I guess liberals do that).
Anyway, I believe in extra-biblical scripture such as the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Chirst which acccounts his visit to the Americas and his calling prophets there anciently to testify of his Divinity. No suprise there, to anyone who is halfway knowledgeable about mormon beliefs.
What I am interested in on this thread is the fact that those who seek to exclude mormons from "orthodox" Christianity invariably do so relying on extra-Biblical creeds while saying I can't use any extra biblical source. It's hypocritical.
In my belief system God has revealed more scripture (man hasn't "added it", God has). There is no inconsistency in my stated belief system.
However, some who have posted on this thread have claimed sola scipture, the innerancy of the bible, God Breathed word and then insisted on using extra biblical creeds and the words of secular greeks to describe how they interpret the Bible. That is not consistent with their own stated belief system.
Back to kolob, some scholars have tried to explain it as a Hebrew word (as it sounds like you have been reading the wiki account). So what? Jospeh Smith never claimed it was a hebrew word. It is a straw man argument.
Interestingly, there is proof that Joseph Smith's account of Abraham wasn;t "made up" as you say. In Facsimile 3 has Abraham sitting on the throne of Pharoah teaching him astronomy. There was no other evidence of this "quaint little notion" of Joseph Smith's until 1947 when other docuements were discovered that showed the same thing.
___________________________________
Facsimile No. 3
Facsimile No. 3 from the Book of Abraham.Smith believed this image represents Abraham sitting on the Pharaoh's throne teaching the principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Smith stated that the figure behind "Abraham in Egypt" is "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." The figure before "Abraham" is "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt". The dark character is "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince" and in between is "Shulem, one of the kings principal waiters".[15]
Egyptologists interpret this as the judgment of the dead before the occupied throne of the Egyptian god, Osiris.[16] The picture of Osiris shows his typical headdress or crown and his arms are placed in a typical position in which he holds a sceptre and a flail. Examples can be found in several tombs.[17] In front of Osiris, but with her face turned away, is Ma'at, the Egyptian goddess of justice, truth and order wearing her traditional feather on her head.
_______________
Joseph Smith explained that Facsimile 3 represents Abraham sitting on the pharaoh's throne teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Critics have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis). There are, however, examples in other papyri, not in the possession of Joseph Smith, in which the pharaoh is portrayed as Hathor. In fact, the whole scene is typical of Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses....
A number of pseudepigraphic texts purporting to be accounts from the life of Abraham have come to light since Joseph Smith's day, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Testament of Abraham, documents that exhibit notable similarities with the book of Abraham. For example, in chapter 12 of the Testament of Abraham there is a description of the judgment of the dead that matches in minute detail the scene depicted in Facsimile 3 of the book of Abraham and, incidentally, chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. In fact, parallels to almost every verse in the book of Abraham can be found in the pseudepigraphical writings about Abraham.
And actually, I don't ever use Wiki. It would be the last place I would go on a subject such as this. You know what they say about assuming. ;)
I will bow out of this conversation with you. It doesn't seem like you want to answer question posed to you. It is appearant that you have been trained thoroughly, but it is also appearant that you aren't really willing to discuss. Instead of answering questions and discussing, you bring in very questionable resource that has accountability, you can't show any other supporting evidence. You seem to avoid my questions by throwing in some stuff about what other people say. I don't have the time nor the wherewithall to follow your rabbit trails. Sorry. My eyes are already crossed and glazed over.