Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

President Nelson and "Getting our own planet."


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

All of the above 😄

Resurrection, for most, doesn't occur until judgement day. Until then, we are disembodied spirits. We are subsumed by God, yet we retain our individual identity and awareness.

Mystical experience is ineffable, so it's hard to nail down what exactly the mystics are saying about the experience of heaven. The Mystical Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, explained his experiences through poetry and paradox, which is normal when mystics report on their experiences.

It's intriguing talking about this, because ultimately we don't know what it will be like. We have hints and intimations and the Catholic Church has spoken in broad and general terms, but it seems like until we are there we won't know much more, I think.

I remember one poster years back saying that he imagined doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen in the celestial kingdom. Seemed quite odd that he'd want something like that :) 

What was God's purpose in creating this earth and putting us on it? What would our purpose be in His eternal plan? Does Catholic theology allow for life in other parts of the universe?

Would you agree with this answer?

Quote

The discovery of extraterrestrial life could remind us of the awesome creativity of our God. God’s imagination, after all, cannot be constrained by the limits of the human imagination and our quest for knowledge. Vatican astronomer and Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno thinks that the prospect of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe could be theologically fruitful. In a 2002 interview with U.S. Catholic, he observed, “I think we recognize that if they’re from Alpha Centauri or from the next galaxy over, they’re still God’s creation. It’s all God’s creation! If we ever find intelligent life, we’ll have an interesting dialogue about the nature of the incarnation.”Consolmagno hits the theological bull’s-eye: The doctrine of the incarnation could be a starting point for the church to understand the presence of intelligent life (or life forms of any kind) on other planets. God chose to become fully present in the cosmos in the person of Jesus Christ. But God’s presence is infused not only into human beings and earthly creatures but into all of creation. There is nothing in creation that is outside of the presence of God. This would include extraterrestrial life.
This, however, raises the question: Do only human beings carry God’s image, or is the image of God found in all of the cosmos?
While “brother extraterrestrial” sounds a good deal stranger than how St. Francis referred to “brother sun” and “sister moon,” Vatican Observatory director and Jesuit priest Jose Gabriel Funes wonders why not “brother extraterrestrial”? It’s a way to recognize God’s presence in all of creation, including all life forms, he says.
As The X-Files tagline insists, “The truth is out there.” God is among us and we hold that the truth is everywhere—even in divine “side projects.” The church remains reticent in the presence of our incredibly creative God.

https://www.uscatholic.org/church/contemporary-issues/2012/04/do-catholics-believe-life-other-planets

How would this answer be substantially different than the LDS doctrine of deification?

 

I don't understand how God can be more fully present in the cosmos in the person of the Son. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

, on top of that many of the billions from one world will be sent to outerdarkness for eternity

Where did this come from??? The only ones placed in outer darkness  for eternity ( how ever long that is ) will be the handful of SoP from , what ? 100 billion who have existed here since creation. Even then it has been hinted that those might be " recycled " at some future time.

Some like to say that we are currently living in a telestial world. I disagree. The telestial kingdom will be inhabited by resurrected beings. I haven't seen many of those types in Walmart, ( although there are ' alien creatures ' wandering the aisles ).

Link to comment
Just now, strappinglad said:

Where did this come from??? The only ones placed in outer darkness  for eternity ( how ever long that is ) will be the handful of SoP from , what ? 100 billion who have existed here since creation. Even then it has been hinted that those might be " recycled " at some future time.

Some like to say that we are currently living in a telestial world. I disagree. The telestial kingdom will be inhabited by resurrected beings. I haven't seen many of those types in Walmart, ( although there are ' alien creatures ' wandering the aisles ).

We're talking 100 billion per planet, which number of inhabited planets just keeps growing and growing for eternity.  If say 1,000 from 100 billion planets, well, that's a big number.  And it just keeps growing.  

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I can understand that point-of-view. Thanks.

I've been meaning to ask you a question and these seems like as good a place as any-

I was watching a sitcom a couple of weeks ago (The Kids are Alright--it's about a Catholic family of boys in the 1970s) and in it one of the boys was talking about how the priest taught that doing good deeds lessens the time that a person will have to spend in purgatory.  I was just wondering, is that actually a real Catholic teaching or is it something the show cooked up to fit in with the point of the episode?   Hope that makes sense!

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What was God's purpose in creating the world and putting us on it? What would our purpose be in His eternity?

The standard answer is that we were created to know God, to love God, to serve God, and to be happy with Him forever. The creation does not come out of a lack of anything on His part (to lack is to be imperfect). Actually, if He had not created the universe and humans, that would have shown His lack, because creation testifies of His glory and humans are the pinnacle of His creation and glory because we are made in His image and testify of His glory.

Quote

Does Catholic theology allow for life in other parts of the universe?

I've never heard anything against it. Pope Francis said if Martians came to earth we'd preach to them and baptize them :) 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, bluebell said:

If you think it’s semantics and irrelevant then that’s fine. I greatly disagree though. 

Greatly. 

Please don’t accuse me of being disingenuous when describing my personal beliefs because they don’t match your personal ideas of what is or isn’t relevant. 

It is not your personal beliefs that are at question. It is what the Church HAS taught and how you represent it that is.  

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We're talking 100 billion per planet, which number of inhabited planets just keeps growing and growing for eternity.  If say 1,000 from 100 billion planets, well, that's a big number.  And it just keeps growing.  

I quoted you saying billions from ONE world. What shall be done with the 100 billion times 100 billion that end up in some kingdom of glory? Good thing the universe is a big place. 10 to the power of 22 IS a big number but no where near infinite.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's silly. You can know some things without knowing everything. While prophets help fill holes, it's abundantly clear in our theology we see through a glass darkly and that there's much still to be revealed. To say that because they disagree on something means no one knows anything is a ridiculous argument. By analogy scientists disagree on many things but that doesn't mean in the least they don't know anything.

I'm glad I amuse you :) 

I agree with the general statement that disagreement doesn't mean we know nothing. But that's not really what I was saying, is it?

What I am saying is that prophets, seers, and revelators exist to reveal the word of God. Why do we have religion at all? To help us know where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. Prophets are intended to help us come to know God. So it's not like they are disagreeing about some trivialities. They are disagreeing with the entire foundation for why the religion exists. They disagree on the nature of God by evidence of their disagreement on what it means to become like God. They disagree on what exaltation is. People disagree with each other all the time. That's why there are thousands of religions. Humanity is incapable of agreeing on the nature or even existence of God, what our purpose is in this life and what our state will be in the next life. There is plenty of disagreement and confusion regarding religion without God's prophets adding to that confusion and disagreement by disagreeing with each other. These aren't trivial matters and if prophets aren't consistent in the answers to these foundational questions, it seems reasonable to wonder about the value of a prophet.

If scientists claimed to reveal the absolute truth of God yet couldn't agree on foundational issues like gravity I suspect few people would listen to their scientific pronouncements no matter how absolute they were in their claims 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, the more venial sins we have (sins that do not deprive us fully of God's grace), the more purgation we must undergo to be cleansed. Think of a piece of clothing. The dirtier it is, the longer it takes to clean. If we try to keep our clothes clean during the day, the less we have to clean them later. So, if we keep our lives clean and try to act in accordance with God, then we need less time in purgatory to be cleansed.

Catholics do "work for the dead" because once someone is in purgatory, those who are alive can pray for them and do good deeds for them to help speed up the process. It's an interesting parallel to LDS work for the dead.

Where does the Atonement of Christ come in to play?  It kind of sounds like people are responsible for paying for their own sins in purgatory, so I'm wondering what I'm misunderstanding.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is not your personal beliefs that are at question. It is what the Church HAS taught and how you represent it that is.  

Cinepro asked "what do you think he did mean?"

And when I answered what I thought he meant, you replied 'dissembling.'  I don't understand how that's not 'my personal beliefs in question' but it doesn't matter.  It's really not worth the effort to continue to argue about it.  You can say I'm lying if you want.  It doesn't affect anything.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What I am saying is that prophets, seers, and revelators exist to reveal the word of God. Why do we have religion at all? To help us know where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. Prophets are intended to help us come to know God. So it's not like they are disagreeing about some trivialities.

It's been revealed in vague ways and we can disagree upon our speculations regarding what hasn't been revealed. It's completely unclear why it has to be revealed in depth especially when it's a core doctrine that it hasn't.

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

These aren't trivial matters and if prophets aren't consistent in the answers to these foundational questions, it seems reasonable to wonder about the value of a prophet.

It's not at all clear why it would be foundational to have more depth. What's key is that God can save us and we can return to him. In a certain sense it's all dressing on top of that. What, from my perspective, differentiates religions is how we get back to him (assuming they think we do). From an LDS perspective what matters is authority and the rites. Now along the way, perhaps to motivate us, we've had further revelations such as D&C 76 or D&C 136. But those are more dressing on top of what's foundational in my mind. 

Would I like to know more? Certainly. But I just don't remotely see how our not knowing is a problem especially when it's clear the whole point of this life is to not know all the details as part of our development.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The problem I still forsee then is weeping for them is eternal.  There will always be nothing but spirits whimpering in outerdarkness and there'll be nothing but more joining them.  The saved sadness and weeping only grows for eternity.  Thus weeping is eternal.  It'd be hard to find peace and comfort in those who make it when there remains so many who don't.  

Sitting on a beach while kabillions are organized into neat little packaged hellish eternities, would suck.  Sitting around miserable for eternity because so many are lost would suck too.  I don't know if I'd choose any.  I'd probably be happiest in outerdarkness, because it all sucks anyways.  

That's a fine assumption for many I suppose.  for me it just means we're all pretty selfish.  I think I'd rather take the place of an eternal sufferer.  

Ok.  if you say so.  

D & C 19:6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment

We receive what we lived--that's all.  We will have made it for ourselves.  We can have help from the Savior to overcome what we cannot overcome by ourselves, but we have to let that in.  As soon as one of those spirits--I don't know, stops whimpering and says, "What a great day this is!  I'm alive!  I can smile at the next spirit over and make her day too!" then their outer darkness is over.  Over.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's been revealed in vague ways and we can disagree upon our speculations regarding what hasn't been revealed. It's completely unclear why it has to be revealed in depth especially when it's a core doctrine that it hasn't.

It's not at all clear why it would be foundational to have more depth. What's key is that God can save us and we can return to him. In a certain sense it's all dressing on top of that. What, from my perspective, differentiates religions is how we get back to him (assuming they think we do). From an LDS perspective what matters is authority and the rites. Now along the way, perhaps to motivate us, we've had further revelations such as D&C 76 or D&C 136. But those are more dressing on top of what's foundational in my mind. 

Would I like to know more? Certainly. But I just don't remotely see how our not knowing is a problem especially when it's clear the whole point of this life is to not know all the details as part of our development.

In that case, any Christian church will work, right?

The point is, prophets have added "dressing" on top of the basics which makes Mormonism unique. If we have the foundational info that "God can save us and we can return to him" and prophets add "dressing" to help motivate us, yet they don't agree on that dressing and in some cases flat out call it heresy, then I have to wonder about the value of prophets and the distinctions that make Mormonism unique.

But I've got to disagree with you that what differentiates Mormonism from other religions is the "how we get back to him" bit. That's actually quite similar in most cases; faith, works, authority, sacraments, ordinances etc. IMO what truly makes Mormon theology unique are the doctrines about the pre-mortal life and post-mortal life, degrees of glory / exaltation etc. The nature of God, our relationship with him as full heirs, and our ability to become like him. You seem to think that is "dressing" and therefore insignificant when prophets disagree or change the teaching. Like I said before, it sounds like any Christian church will work for what you're describing. That's fine, but don't pretend like that church doesn't teach bigger things and make more spectacular claims than that.

We are witnessing the continual watering down of Mormonism and being fed the fantasy that it has always been this way.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where does the Atonement of Christ come in to play?  It kind of sounds like people are responsible for paying for their own sins in purgatory, so I'm wondering what I'm misunderstanding.

I had the same thought when I read MiserereNobis' answer to your question. If regarding our sins, we need additional punishment after our deaths and after repentance where does the atonement apply? It would seem to me that an evangelical would have the same concerns because through a purgatorial punishment we work/suffer our way back into heaven. As an LDS member, I feel purgatory takes away some of the Lord's atonement. If I were evangelical, I probably would think that a purgatorial process takes away grace.

I am interested in MiserereNobis perspective on this idea.

Edited to say; I am reminded of the saying if we do not repent then we will suffer even as Christ suffered. Bluebell, do you think that this LDS theology is similar to the Catholic version of purgatory? And MiserereNobis if you read this,what do you think?

Thanks in advance to the both of you.

Edited by Anijen
Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

You seem to view heaven as a better version of life on earth, like being in heaven is like having a better job or something. I view it is a completed state of being. Maybe that's where our disagreement lies, in the starting premise.

A better job or a marginal improvement of life over what's found on earth?  Oh, no, not at all.  

I spent some time trying to answer the "state of being" and "fulfilled purpose" thing, and although my commentary sounded very logical and incisive (to me, at least), I was afraid it was going to come across as combative and snarky, so I decided to just let it go.  Suffice it to say, what you describe as heaven seems like a big dead end to me.  A pleasant one, to be sure, but I would have thought God would have had a greater purpose in mind for all of it than just an end to purpose.  It also sounded rather like Buddhist Nirvana.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The problem I still forsee then is weeping for them is eternal.  There will always be nothing but spirits whimpering in outerdarkness and there'll be nothing but more joining them.  The saved sadness and weeping only grows for eternity.  Thus weeping is eternal.  It'd be hard to find peace and comfort in those who make it when there remains so many who don't.  

Sitting on a beach while kabillions are organized into neat little packaged hellish eternities, would suck.  Sitting around miserable for eternity because so many are lost would suck too.  I don't know if I'd choose any.  I'd probably be happiest in outerdarkness, because it all sucks anyways.  

That's a fine assumption for many I suppose.  for me it just means we're all pretty selfish.  I think I'd rather take the place of an eternal sufferer.  

Ok.  if you say so.  

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  God’s entire plan revolves around agency, allowing for growth and progress when one uses agency wisely and stunting growth when one doesn’t.  Godly sorrow flows from refined and even perfect love so God’s sorrow can be as infinite and eternal as is His love.  Ours sorrow will be as His if we choose His work.  We can let it consume us and paralyze us into inaction or we can work to try do all we can to help/persuade others to exercise their agency for good, understanding that mortals and God’s alike are not to remove or override agency.

Without agency there can be no growth, no progress, no real ability to act.  With agency, we will be miserable only for as long as we choose to be, in mortality and in the eternities.

Your compassion for those who suffer is commendable as is your willingness to take the place of those who suffer.  Both are attributes of one who might accept God’s invitation to join Him in His work.

Godspeed to you.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I was about to post a response to JLHPROF that says what HJW is saying. If God is only "presiding" like a bishop it certainly diminishes His power and is quite different than what mainstream Christians believe. I imagine that this idea is speculative and not official, right? I just haven't heard it before. If it is official, it really is yet another huge difference in our views of the nature of God, going far beyond the trinity (unity in being or unity in purpose) debates.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that God was temporarily given this world/galaxy/universe to just manage, and that there is a manager above Him. That certainly doesn't seem like THE God, as HJW points out.

Whether or not my beliefs match any other Christian religion doesn't matter to me at all.

And yes, HJW is right.  And there are many members who are uncomfortable with the idea.  But the fact that there are Gods above God has been a part of Mormonism almost from the beginning.  Even the Church today that sometimes puts a ceiling on progression will occasionally allow those teachings to peek through.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The standard answer is that we were created to know God, to love God, to serve God, and to be happy with Him forever. The creation does not come out of a lack of anything on His part (to lack is to be imperfect). Actually, if He had not created the universe and humans, that would have shown His lack, because creation testifies of His glory and humans are the pinnacle of His creation and glory because we are made in His image and testify of His glory.

I've never heard anything against it. Pope Francis said if Martians came to earth we'd preach to them and baptize them :) 

To be honest and meaning no disrespect to you or Catholicism, I have great difficulty understanding this. It raises many more questions in my mind. To whom is this testifying directed? Does God need our testimony? It appears to me that God was lacking something if he created us to know, serve, and live with him,....that would be a lack of purpose and companionship, no? Sincere questions, not trying to lay a snare.

Would the Martians be kind of like the Aztecs and Incas? 😉(Wise guy question)

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
6 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  God’s entire plan revolves around agency, allowing for growth and progress when one uses agency wisely and stunting growth when one doesn’t.  Godly sorrow flows from refined and even perfect love so God’s sorrow can be as infinite and eternal as is His love.  Ours sorrow will be as His if we choose His work.  We can let it consume us and paralyze us into inaction or we can work to try do all we can to help/persuade others to exercise their agency for good, understanding that mortals and God’s alike are not to remove or override agency.

Without agency there can be no growth, no progress, no real ability to act.  With agency, we will be miserable only for as long as we choose to be, in mortality and in the eternities.

Your compassion for those who suffer is commendable as is your willingness to take the place of those who suffer.  Both are attributes of one who might accept God’s invitation to join Him in His work.

Godspeed to you.

I think Alma 36 speaks to this....

Quote

17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.
18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.
19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.
20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!
21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy.

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, that makes sense, especially when we consider the Saints. They are in heaven, unified with God, which is why we ask their intercession -- they are right there (metaphorically speaking) with Him. So when they put it a good word for us, they are participating in His work.

What is the physical state of the Saints as resurrected beings? Do they exist in time and space? If so, is there an actual place where they dwell? Are they metaphorical?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yet, I don't think of God as simply an omnipotent being of existence; rather I see him as a being in the act of creation. I think LDS tend to focus on that active force when we think of heaven/Exaltation. Given that we are one with Christ and the Father, we are involved in what they do. 

It is this doing where descriptions of participating in creation develop. 

The seed of Deity was planted in us long before the earth was created.The process began at eons ago and will continue for eons. As the First Presidency said in 1909,

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I quoted you saying billions from ONE world. What shall be done with the 100 billion times 100 billion that end up in some kingdom of glory? Good thing the universe is a big place. 10 to the power of 22 IS a big number but no where near infinite.

You quoted me as saying many of the billions from one world.  not billions from one world.  oh well.  I think my point stands.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

To be honest and meaning no disrespect to you or Catholicism, I have great difficulty understanding this. It raises many more questions in my mind. To whom is this testifying directed? Does God need our testimony? It appears to me that God was lacking something if he created us to know, serve, and live with him,....that would be a lack of purpose and companionship, no? Sincere questions, not trying to lay a snare.

Would the Martians be kind of like the Aztecs and Incas? 😉(Wise guy question)

Oddly enough, that's exactly what I almost posted before I decided not to.  I wrote this:

"If you say that in heaven there is no lack, and God was already in heaven, He therefore lacked nothing, and had no need of creating us. So why did he do it?  Just because He wanted to?  The problem with this is that a want implies lack.  If you have no lack, then you want nothing. You're perfectly satisfied, and your purpose is fulfilled -- since the purpose was to achieve a state of being.  

"In other words, God should have been perfectly fulfilled already, and should never have created us, because to do so implied that he was not perfectly fulfilled and lacked something.  Which kind of puts a hole into the fulfilled purpose argument."
 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...