cinepro Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 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 December 4, 2018 by cinepro 1 Link to comment
Popular Post bluebell Posted December 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2018 10 minutes 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? 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'. 14 Link to comment
Popular Post Stargazer Posted December 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes 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? 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. Edited December 4, 2018 by Stargazer 6 Link to comment
Duncan Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 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 4 Link to comment
CA Steve Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 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 Link to comment
cinepro Posted December 4, 2018 Author Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 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 December 4, 2018 by cinepro 4 Link to comment
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted December 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 7 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? 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: Quote 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. Edited December 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 11 Link to comment
bluebell Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 I will take the words of the prophet as supreme if there is a contradiction. 1 Link to comment
cinepro Posted December 4, 2018 Author Share Posted December 4, 2018 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. 3 Link to comment
theplains Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 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 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 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? 3 Link to comment
mnn727 Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 If you are looking for a planet after you die, you're thinking too small. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post let’s roll Posted December 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2018 I will happily add this to my list of things that I don’t think or care about. I guess I liken it to my attitude about serving at the stake farm. Not sure what I’ll be asked to do when I get there but I will go, receive instruction and try to gladly do whatever it is I’m asked. If I am fortunate enough to be an heir with Christ, I will report for duty, receive an assignment and happily perform that assignment whatever it might be. i think part of qualifying to be a joint-heir is a willingness to take no thought of the marrow, but rather to live and serve in the moment with no expectation of reward but instead an unyielding desire to do the will of God, whatever that might be. 6 Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 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 December 4, 2018 by CV75 3 Link to comment
Popular Post clarkgoble Posted December 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, cinepro said: 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? I don't see how that follows. Presiding in the Church is essentially a joint social engagement. Think of presiding over a ward. The bishop doesn't get his own building. Rather he, along with many others, share it. The traditional critique of the common 20th century view of each person getting their own planet or even their own universe is the claim about being a solitary and complete sovereign over that creation. The alternative view is that it's a joint effort. Often people assume that Jesus will become the Father and we'll be aiding him. While no better sourced that the solitary ruler interpretation, a common reading is that all our children together are brought to live in Jesus' new creation when he takes over as a Father for a series of creations. Presiding over a world in this model might be akin to being a Bishop or a Stake President. Edited December 4, 2018 by clarkgoble 5 Link to comment
teddyaware Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 (edited) 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 December 5, 2018 by teddyaware 4 Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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... Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment
Storm Rider Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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. Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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. 3 Link to comment
bluebell Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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). Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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. Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts