Jump to content
cinepro

President Nelson and "Getting our own planet."

Recommended Posts

16 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).

Maybe he's using an unusual and nuanced interpretation of the word "dissemble."  Kind of like what people are doing with the word "preside."

Share this post


Link to post

The work and the glory of God is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. I believe once we have a full understanding of the scriptures including the sealed portion and the fulness of the record of John, we will be surprised just how little glory the Lord takes unto Himself. The glory goes to the father from the son and the Holy Ghost testifies of the son, etc. 

So it stands to reason we won't be building ourselves worlds and universes. The laws of the temple align to the dispensations with the last law aligning to the first dispensation. Adam consecrated this world he created to his posterity and to the Genesis of a new.... Well I'll just leave it at that. The point is as we progress toward godhood, our work and our possession won't really be labeled in a selfish, "my world" way methinks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a terrible straw man of the Catholic/Christian view of heaven. It is pretty equivalent to someone saying that the LDS believe in "getting your own planet."

I don't know of any Christian who describes their anticipation of the afterlife in that fashion. (Agreeing it is a caricature)

I quite like the idea of participating in the Beautific Vision myself (which is often how it is described to me, if not always named).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cinepro said:

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?

 

Heb.1[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

Rom 8 [17] 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.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Maybe he's using an unusual and nuanced interpretation of the word "dissemble."  Kind of like what people are doing with the word "preside."

Except, people aren’t using an unusual or nuanced interpretation of preside. They are using the interpretation commonly used in the church. 

It’s not our fault if you don’t want to admit that. :P

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cinepro said:

  Kind of like what people are doing with the word "preside."

I see it as similar to how my dad said he was giving me money to renovate my home because he was so impressed with my frugal use of it, but then he insisted on needing to be told prior to me spending it what I was spending it on and then to be given receipts. (Dad liked the ideal of independence, but took after his parents and attached strings to almost all his "gifts"...though Mom at times came along afterwards and cut them; he was very generous, but had to be in his comfort zone just like everyone else does).

I turned the offer down as I told him that made me feel he was treating me still as a child and not trusting my judgment that he had just said he was impressed with. Hopefully I was gracious enough to convey gratitude and that the relationship I had with him meant more to me than him making it easier for me to make my home more comfortable rather than being annoyed.

Otoh, I have no problem with living that role with God and others as I believe we are stewards of his work, not independent owners as I was in the case of my earthly father (it was my home and had never been his).

Though I do understand why others interpret it differently.  I just don't think those of us who see stewardship as significantly different from ownership should be ridiculed for seeing it differently.  I think it is a reasonable interpretation just as I think believing one is treated as an heir means ownership because mortally that is what it means (though one needs to recognize that in mortality, it is death that makes one an heir, an event that does not exist in eternity so it can't be identical in meaning).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know the JOD isn’t the most reliable source but this might be where the confusion started.

 

"When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God” 

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 17:143

"All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259, October 8, 1876

"As our Father and God begat us, sons and daughters, so will we rise immortal, males and females, and beget children, and, in our turn, form and create worlds, and send forth our spirit children to inherit those worlds, the same as we were sent here."

Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 14:242

"They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done."

Gospel Fundamentals [2001], page 201  

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31129_eng.pdf

Edited by Peppermint Patty
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Wait... that's something TheNehor would say...

Honestly, that's the first thing I thought when I saw it typed out, ha ha.

But I really do have a huge 'rule the world' bone in my body--I just haven't gotten too far with it.  Not dead yet tho!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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?

And FAIR says the following:

🤔

The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet"

"Mormons, along with many other Christian denominations, believe in deification or theosis, based on the teaching that we can become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). Little is known, though much might be speculated, about the specific details of our potential under this doctrine. Reducing it to ruling a planet caricatures a profound and complex belief. The use of the word “planet” makes Mormons seem more like sci-fi enthusiasts than devout Christians.

This isn’t just a quibble about semantics. Claims that Mormons hope for “their own planets” almost always aim to disrespect and marginalize, not to understand or clarify. The reality is that we seek eternal life, which we consider to be a life like that of our Father in Heaven. We consider our immediate task on Earth to learn to understand and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than speculate on what life might be like if we achieve exaltation. Specifics about the creation of worlds and the ability to govern them upon achieving eternal life are not clarified in Latter-day Saint scripture. Attempts to portray these concepts as simply wanting to “get our own planet” are a mockery of Latter-day Saint beliefs."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Deification_of_man/Gods_of_their_own_planets#Question:_Do_Mormon_men_believe_that_they_will_become_.22gods_of_their_own_planets.22_and_rule_over_others.3F

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a terrible straw man of the Catholic/Christian view of heaven. It is pretty equivalent to someone saying that the LDS believe in "getting your own planet."

I agree it is caricature, though I readily acknowledge my own ignorance about Catholic belief regarding the afterlife.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes 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. 

I, who was also accused by Teancum of "dissembling," echo bluebell's words in my own behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see it as similar to how my dad said he was giving me money to renovate my home because he was so impressed with my frugal use of it, but then he insisted on needing to be told prior to me spending it what I was spending it on and then to be given receipts. (Dad liked the ideal of independence, but took after his parents and attached strings to almost all his "gifts"...though Mom at times came along afterwards and cut them).

I turned the offer down as I told him that made me feel he was treating me still as a child and not trusting my judgment that he had just said he was impressed with.

Otoh, I have no problem with living that role with God and others as I believe we are stewards of his work, not independent owners as I was in the case of my earthly father (it was my home and had never been his).

Though I do understand why others interpret it differently.  I just don't think those of us who see stewardship as significantly different from ownership should be ridiculed for seeing it differently.  I think it is a reasonable interpretation just as I think believing one is treated as an heir means ownership because mortally that is what it means (though one needs to recognize that in mortality, it is death that makes one an heir, an event that does not exist in eternity so it can't be identical in meaning).

I largely agree with the above, except that I give it as my opinion that, once we achieve exaltation, we have transcended the role of stewards and have attained a perfect one-ness with Christ and the Father in the same way that Christ is one with the Father.**  It is a perfect unity that I believe is far beyond our ability to comprehend in this mortal state.

**See Christ's intercessory prayer in John 17.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And FAIR says the following:

🤔

The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet"

"Mormons, along with many other Christian denominations, believe in deification or theosis, based on the teaching that we can become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). Little is known, though much might be speculated, about the specific details of our potential under this doctrine. Reducing it to ruling a planet caricatures a profound and complex belief. The use of the word “planet” makes Mormons seem more like sci-fi enthusiasts than devout Christians.

This isn’t just a quibble about semantics. Claims that Mormons hope for “their own planets” almost always aim to disrespect and marginalize, not to understand or clarify. The reality is that we seek eternal life, which we consider to be a life like that of our Father in Heaven. We consider our immediate task on Earth to learn to understand and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than speculate on what life might be like if we achieve exaltation. Specifics about the creation of worlds and the ability to govern them upon achieving eternal life are not clarified in Latter-day Saint scripture. Attempts to portray these concepts as simply wanting to “get our own planet” are a mockery of Latter-day Saint beliefs."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Deification_of_man/Gods_of_their_own_planets#Question:_Do_Mormon_men_believe_that_they_will_become_.22gods_of_their_own_planets.22_and_rule_over_others.3F

 

I like this. Thanks for posting it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I know the JOD isn’t the most reliable source but this might be where the confusion started.

 

"When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God” 

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 17:143

"All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259, October 8, 1876

"As our Father and God begat us, sons and daughters, so will we rise immortal, males and females, and beget children, and, in our turn, form and create worlds, and send forth our spirit children to inherit those worlds, the same as we were sent here."

Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 14:242

"They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done."

Gospel Fundamentals [2001], page 201  

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31129_eng.pdf

Basically, it's a teaching of some Church leaders, just not an official doctrine of the Church.

Pres. Nelson is as entitled to make such a statement during his administration as Brigham was during his.

No need to explain it away or overanalyze what he "actually meant".    He said what he said just as Brigham did above, and just as Pres. Hinckley said we don't know much about that.  And just as Joseph said:

"It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation."

They can say whatever they want, contradict each other, change official Church teachings to match or leave them at the status quo.  Perks of always following the living prophets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Basically, it's a teaching of some Church leaders, just not an official doctrine of the Church.

Pres. Nelson is as entitled to make such a statement during his administration as Brigham was during his.

No need to explain it away or overanalyze what he "actually meant".    He said what he said just as Brigham did above, and just as Pres. Hinckley said we don't know much about that.  And just as Joseph said:

"It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation."

They can say whatever they want, contradict each other, change official Church teachings to match or leave them at the status quo.  Perks of always following the living prophets.

Viewed in context, President Hinckley's "we don't know much about that" pertained to the state of God before he became God. We know more about what happens to those who become like God, and President Hinckley recognized that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mormon gods will “frame earths”, "form and create worlds”, "organize matter into worlds”, “have jurisdiction over worlds”, and people them “by our own offspring”

The phrase "worlds for all of us" by president Spencer Kimball turns up 4 hits from lds.org from gen conf, ensign, new era, and doc and cov student manual.

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="worlds for all of us"

the Mormon newsroom article and gospel topics essay are wrong.  

 

 

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Mormon gods will “frame earths”, "form and create worlds”, "organize matter into worlds”, “have jurisdiction over worlds”, and people them “by our own offspring”

The phrase "worlds for all of us" by president Spencer Kimball turns up 4 hits from lds.org from gen conf, ensign, new era, and doc and cov student manual.

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="worlds+for+all+of+us"+kimball

the Mormon newsroom article and gospel topics essay are wrong.  

 

 

Or perhaps the Mormon newsroom provided PR and President Nelson provides doctrine.  Does Church  PR have to match Church doctrine?  I think throughout the history of the Church we can see it doesn't.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or perhaps the Mormon newsroom provided PR and President Nelson provides doctrine.  Does Church  PR have to match Church doctrine?  I think throughout the history of the Church we can see it doesn't.

Yeah could be.  I'm with president Nelson on this one.  It's a beautiful doctrine.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't know of any Christian who describes their anticipation of the afterlife in that fashion. (Agreeing it is a caricature)

I quite like the idea of participating in the Beautific Vision myself (which is often how it is described to me, if not always named).

I admit there is a part of me that favors the Islamic version.

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.

×