Jump to content
cinepro

President Nelson and "Getting our own planet."

Recommended Posts

Over the years, an awkward teaching for the Church PR group to deal with has been the idea that righteous LDS will be rewarded with "their own planets."  This even made it to the Church newsroom website, where they try and moderate such ideas about LDS teachings:

Quote

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C14

 

On Sunday, President Nelson taught:

Quote

When the Father offers us everlasting life, He is saying in essence, ‘If you choose to follow My Son—if your desire is really to become more like Him—then in time you may live as We live, and preside over worlds and kingdoms as We do.’” 

2018 Christmas Devotional

(Emphasis added)

It is my impression that the plain meaning of President Nelson's statement is that "presiding" over a world would be understood as "getting your own planet."  If this isn't what he meant, what do you think he did mean?

If this is what he meant, did he teach something that isn't doctrinal, or is the Church newsroom mistaken?

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

A Planet is a physical object, a kingdom/world is not. When I was a teen my world was XYZ but I did that on planet earth-which I didn't own or get

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If this is what he meant, did he teach something that isn't doctrinal, or is the Church newsroom mistaken?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, when someone presides over a ward or a stake, is it their's?  Do they get to keep it and rule over it with no oversight, answering to no one?  Or are they just responsible for it for a while?  Those are the questions I ask myself when trying to interpret Pres. Nelson's words.

Given how we use the word 'preside' in our church vocabulary, I would assume that he meant that we would be given responsibility for 'kingdoms and worlds' under the direction of our Heavenly Father.  Not that they would be 'ours'.

Does that mean God the Father is probably "presiding" over our universe on behalf of a greater God?  He didn't actually "get" our planet, but he's more of an administrator?

Because if we're supposed to liken our authority over a future "world" to the authority God has over our world, then I think most LDS would agree that God has "got" our planet.

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Does that mean God the Father is probably "presiding" over our universe on behalf of a greater God?  He didn't actually "get" our planet, but he's more of an administrator?

Because if we're supposed to liken our authority over a future "world" to the authority God has over our world, then I think most LDS would agree that God has "got" our planet.

No, I don't think it has to mean that.  I could mean that, but we don't have any knowledge either way so it's all speculation.  God hasn't described any relationships in His existence other than to His children.   

And are we supposed to liken our authority over a future world to the authority that God has over our world?  I've never believed that so I guess I don't have an answer.  I've always believed that we will never be equal in authority to our Father in Heaven.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I will take the words of the prophet as supreme if there is a contradiction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The silly “get your own planet” cliche trivializes, if not outright misstates, this sublime doctrine. 

I agree that critics of the Church may mock and trivialize the idea, but that doesn't equate with misstating it.  Indeed, I think they mock it because they can plainly see what is being taught (just as LDS do).  They don't need to change a thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, when someone presides over a ward or a stake, is it their's?  Do they get to keep it and rule over it with no oversight, answering to no one?  Or are they just responsible for it for a while?  Those are the questions I ask myself when trying to interpret Pres. Nelson's words.

Given how we use the word 'preside' in our church vocabulary, I would assume that he meant that we would be given responsibility for 'kingdoms and worlds' under the direction of our Heavenly Father.  Not that they would be 'ours'.

Maybe the practice of a God creating a world where his son grew up on and eventually became a God (i.e.
Heavenly Father) and who then had a son (i.e. Jesus) who created our Earth stops with this earth after 
Latter-day Saints supposedly become gods themselves?

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, cinepro said:

I agree that critics of the Church may mock and trivialize the idea, but that doesn't equate with misstating it.  Indeed, I think they mock it because they can plainly see what is being taught (just as LDS do).  They don't need to change a thing.

It does misstate it. Got my own planet? I want whole galaxies! I am offended at how they diminish it. Do they think we have no ambition?

;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

If you are looking for a planet after you die, you're thinking too small.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Over the years, an awkward teaching for the Church PR group to deal with has been the idea that righteous LDS will be rewarded with "their own planets."  This even made it to the Church newsroom website, where they try and moderate such ideas about LDS teachings:

On Sunday, President Nelson taught:

It is my impression that the plain meaning of President Nelson's statement is that "presiding" over a world would be understood as "getting your own planet."  If this isn't what he meant, what do you think he did mean?

If this is what he meant, did he teach something that isn't doctrinal, or is the Church newsroom mistaken?

I don't think President Nelson was offering a "cartoonish image"* of all that is entailed, and the full quote in the news article doesn't seem to convey that either.

* https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

Edited by CV75
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Over the years, an awkward teaching for the Church PR group to deal with has been the idea that righteous LDS will be rewarded with "their own planets."  This even made it to the Church newsroom website, where they try and moderate such ideas about LDS teachings:

 

On Sunday, President Nelson taught:

It is my impression that the plain meaning of President Nelson's statement is that "presiding" over a world would be understood as "getting your own planet."  If this isn't what he meant, what do you think he did mean?

If this is what he meant, did he teach something that isn't doctrinal, or is the Church newsroom mistaken?

As I write, like it or not, we are all living on a planet (yes, a PLANET!) in the midst of the sidereal universe; a physical world that, believe it or not, is presided over by God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Who can deny that we all now exist on a great sphere in space where a critically important  phase of the work of salvation and eternal progression for God’s spirit children has continued uninterrupted for thousands of years? Yet, in spite of the fact that this planet is, according to God’s own testimony, just one of an infinite number of other such planets where the work of immortality and eternal life continues for all eternity, for some reason there seem to be some members of the Church who appear to be embarrassed by the fact that those who inherit the fulness of eternal glory will also preside over other similar planets where the  work of immortality and eternal life will continue. If presiding over a planet isn’t embarrassing for God and Christ, why should we be embarrassed to follow in their footsteps and do the same? Since God Himself has chosen planets to be the places where His spirit children are commanded to ‘work out their salvation with fear and trembling,’ why should anyone demean such sacred planetary realms by likening them to a “cartoon” fantasy?

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Over the years, an awkward teaching for the Church PR group to deal with has been the idea that righteous LDS will be rewarded with "their own planets."  This even made it to the Church newsroom website, where they try and moderate such ideas about LDS teachings:

 

On Sunday, President Nelson taught:

It is my impression that the plain meaning of President Nelson's statement is that "presiding" over a world would be understood as "getting your own planet."  If this isn't what he meant, what do you think he did mean?

If this is what he meant, did he teach something that isn't doctrinal, or is the Church newsroom mistaken?

Of course LDS Doctrine has taught that those exalted will create and people worlds with the spirit children they create with their eternal wife (or wives).  To claim this is not the case is an outright lie.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Well, when someone presides over a ward or a stake, is it their's?  Do they get to keep it and rule over it with no oversight, answering to no one?  Or are they just responsible for it for a while?  Those are the questions I ask myself when trying to interpret Pres. Nelson's words.

Given how we use the word 'preside' in our church vocabulary, I would assume that he meant that we would be given responsibility for 'kingdoms and worlds' under the direction of our Heavenly Father.  Not that they would be 'ours'.

Simple dissembling...

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The whole "you get your own planet!" thing is an attempt to make the gospel look ridiculous.  It's not serious.

We don't need modern revelation to answer this.  There are New Testament scripture that explain the potential that we do have:

1 John 3:2 : Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Romans 8:16-17 : The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

John 16:15 : All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

We shall be like him.  We are joint-heirs with Christ.  Like him does not mean some kind of mini-me.  A joint-heir inherits what the other heirs inherit.  And what does our joint-heir inherit?  All things that are the Father's.

As far as inheritance goes, what is the heir of a Baron?  A Baron!  What is the heir of a Duke?  That's right, a Duke! And what is the heir of a King?  Need I continue?

Now, do you want your own planet?  Or would you rather have a Universe?  And further, if you are like Christ, you are like the Father.  What does this tell you?  

Those who limit their reward to playing a harp while floating around in the clouds do not know or believe in the scriptures.

Can you really deny that LDS doctrine has taught that those who are exalted wll be gods and create and people worlds without end?  This is one of the unique and for some, appealing doctrines of the LDS Church. Just read the King Follet discourse. And don't back peddle and tell me the KFD is not "official doctrine."  it was taught abundantly for many years in many forums.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't think President Nelson was offering a "cartoonish image"* of all that is entailed, and the full quote in the news article doesn't seem to convey that either.

* https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

I don't think he did either; however, I would really like for all such statements to stop - just don't address it. Regardless of what is said, it will not equate to the reality any more than we can make a statement that encapsulates God the Father. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not the same thing. 

There is a verse in the hymn “Come Follow Me” that we seldom sing yet is my favorite verse from that hymn:

For thrones, dominions, kingdoms, powers 

And glory great and bliss are ours

If we through all eternity 

Obey His words, “Come Follow Me”. 

It was this concept, consistent with scriptural doctrine, that President Nelson was teaching. 

The silly “get your own planet” cliche trivializes, if not outright misstates, this sublime doctrine. 

More dissembling.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Simple dissembling...

 

Are you accusing me of not being honest in my reply?  (Sincere question, I'm not sure what you are trying to say).

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you accusing me of not being honest in my reply?  (Sincere question, I'm not sure what you are trying to say).

You said in regards to a topic about  "Getting Their Own Planet" which may be a poor way of saying exaltation in LDS Doctrine does mean being gods of wolrds such gods will create an people..

Well, when someone presides over a ward or a stake, is it their's?  Do they get to keep it and rule over it with no oversight, answering to no one?  Or are they just responsible for it for a while?  Those are the questions I ask myself when trying to interpret Pres. Nelson's words.

Given how we use the word 'preside' in our church vocabulary, I would assume that he meant that we would be given responsibility for 'kingdoms and worlds' under the direction of our Heavenly Father.  Not that they would be 'ours'.

 

.....so I interpret your words as an attempt to downplay the fact that LDS Doctrine does in fact teach we can be God's over worlds.  Whether or not they will be "ours" is sematics.  But this it LDS doctrine and we seem to want to run away from it.  You post is a good example of that.  Whether the world or worlds would be ours of the God above us is really irrelevant.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think he did either; however, I would really like for all such statements to stop - just don't address it. Regardless of what is said, it will not equate to the reality any more than we can make a statement that encapsulates God the Father. 

Maybe if you had your own planet things would go your way.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×