Jump to content
cinepro

President Nelson and "Getting our own planet."

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

And here I am trying to take over this one . . .

 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Quiet, I do not want to tip anyone off.

Also, if you are also bent on world domination send me a message. I have been working on a new volcano supervillain lair and you are welcome to join me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Since God's work is to bring to men eternal life, I would not be surprised if he viewed himself in some ways a steward.  It seems inherent to me in the idea of serving others.  So perhaps the ultimate role is to be a steward and that transcends everything else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Oh good grief Scott. Why would you bring up context? You know what fun it is to mock President Nelson or accuse President Hinckley of lying by taking quotes out of context and feigning innocence! Why you gotta be like that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours 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."

Yeah, but then dissemble couldn't be applied to a woman so he really messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Since God's work is to bring to men eternal life, I would not be surprised if he viewed himself in some ways a steward.  It seems inherent to me in the idea of serving others.  So perhaps the ultimate role is to be a steward and that transcends everything else.

My understanding of the meaning of steward is not just a servant but an agent acting in behalf of someone else. I view an exalted person as being more than that, an actual partner with God in perfectly divine unity. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 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 am sure you know the difference between singular and plural statements.

It's not nor has it ever been "A" planet as your own quotes clearly show.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours 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.

I was able to get a hold of the hierarchy list and I can tell you it's Gods all the way up.  But sorry you don't have the list so you are stuck with just one.  :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 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:

 

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. 

Ever listen to the sealing ordinance words?

Gosh it's pretty darn clear I think....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

fergitaboutit.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
14 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 was recently released after serving as a bishop for seven and a half years.

While I served as the bishop I presided over the ward. I didn't create the ward, I wasn't given it, I didn't own it, and it wasn't mine to do with as I pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
17 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?

Matthew 19:28

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the aregeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, bjudging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I would say judging the twelve tribes of Israel qualifies as "presiding."   Does that make it our "own planet?" I don't see us as running off to be our "own god." Those who preside will always do so as one.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Alan said:

I was recently released after serving as a bishop for seven and a half years.

While I served as the bishop I presided over the ward. I didn't create the ward, I wasn't given it, I didn't own it, and it wasn't mine to do with as I pleased.

I think we are mistaken if we think God's relationship with this world has no oversight too.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours 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.

The big problem with trying to equate it to presiding over a ward or stake is, of course, members of that ward or stake know their is someone above the bishop and SP and in many cases can interact with those.  In terms of world, God is the top.  We can't see or know of anything beyond.  And even knowing him is most difficult.  

Also, to add, since someone brought up the FAIR response to this question.  Here's FAIR:

Quote

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.

I don't like FAIR"S tactic of bringing up the questioners motive. Anyone can ask or talk about getting their own planet and never aim to disrespect nor marginalize.  What utter nonsense.  Cinepro's not doing that.  

Share this post


Link to post

Right now I am thinking that creating a beautiful planet (with lots of trees, mountains, lakes and streams, beaches), I would be content with just one planet. I am not ready to preside over worlds, galaxies, others areas of the universe, maybe that will change to more than one planet later, much later. Then I' go fishing and camping for a very long time.

Yeah, just one planet with no people is okay with me right now. Adding people seems like work. My planet is just gonna be for me.

Share this post


Link to post
19 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'.

I always appreciate your perspectives.

Would this mean that those who become gods will be "little g" gods? Not almighty Gods? Will we be managers.

I think this gets to the heart of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian. It's about the nature of God. Is there a universal, eternal, all powerful God or is it a polytheistic pantheon of gods? Is our God THE God, or is he just a god? If we are to become like him, and we are only going to be assigned a temporary stewardship over worlds and kingdoms, then it would imply that our God is really just a (g)of who likewise is only a temporary steward over worlds and kingdoms. If that's the case, then who is THE GOD over all other gods?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how many believing LDS here are disappointed with the Church’s response?

While I understand that many are unhappy with the phrase “get your own planet”, it seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for the Church to clarify the doctrine.  

In my experience, the belief that we can become gods and create worlds without number is widely held among the general membership and has been taught by Church leaders from the beginning.   Unfortunatley, I think your average reader would come to the opposite conclusion based on the Newsroom response. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I've always pictured it like our earthly familial relationship. That is, after all the analogy most often used. God the "Father" and all that.

My father has a home. I lived in it. I grew in it and then eventually grew up to be like him. I obtained my own home. He doesn't own my home. He didn't assign it to me. He doesn't even tell me what to do with my home. He doesn't make the rules of my home. It is mine and my wife's home. But even though I moved out and have my own home, my father still has his as well. He will always be my father and I will always love and respect him. I will never replace him, nor will I have equal authority over his worlds and kingdoms, but I will have the ability to create my own.

This is a simplistic version of how I've imagined the doctrines of exaltation. Each individual who qualifies becomes the God of his dominion. As Gods we would be creators of worlds. Will we only be tenant farmers leasing space from the ONE GOD, whoever that is, in his vast expanse of never ending universes? The issue of whether or not we "get our own planet" may be a silly way to frame the issue, but at the heart it goes to the entire concept of exaltation. It gets to the heart of who God is, what his limitations are, and what our ultimate destiny is as H(h)is children.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we are mistaken if we think God's relationship with this world has no oversight too.

 

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this gets to the heart of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian. It's about the nature of God. Is there a universal, eternal, all powerful God or is it a polytheistic pantheon of gods? Is our God THE God, or is he just a god? If we are to become like him, and we are only going to be assigned a temporary stewardship over worlds and kingdoms, then it would imply that our God is really just a (g)of who likewise is only a temporary steward over worlds and kingdoms. If that's the case, then who is THE GOD over all other gods?

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post


I have always understood that we will not just get our own planet but that we will create our own universes, full of galaxies and planets:.
I have some quotes from past church leaders:

President Spencer W Kimball:
"The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things 'so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them' (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball)

"Desirable as is secular knowledge, one is not truly educated unless he has the spiritual with the secular. The secular knowledge is to be desired; the spiritual knowledge is an absolute necessity. We shall need all of the accumulated secular knowledge in order to create worlds and to furnish them, but only through the 'mysteries of God' and these hidden treasures of knowledge may we arrive at the place and condition where we may use that knowledge in creation and exaltation" (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Reports, October 1968, p.131).

President Joseph Fielding Smith:
“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48)

President Brigham Young:
"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." (Journal of Discourses 17:143)

Patriarch Eldred G. Smith:
“And so through the power of the priesthood the man has the opportunity of obtaining that degree of perfection by which he may create worlds and populate them with his own offspring” (Patriarch Eldred G. Smith, BYU Speeches of the Year, March 10, 1964, p.7).

Joseph Smith said that men may go "...from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation ... until (they) arrive at the station of a God." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Statements on this subject are very few and far between.  I believe they reflect personal opinions of those who want to encourage us on to eternal life and exaltation. They are based on scriptures like the following:

"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." (Romans 8:16-17)

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6)

While they might be true doctrines, we simply don't know enough about these principles to be able to comprehend them right now, and therefore cannot declare them as "official" church doctrines to the entire world; nor do we say much about them in our church meetings on Sunday. At the moment they still remain pretty much a mystery to us but may be included in the "things" the Apostle Paul talks about:

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," (1 Corinthians 2:9). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours 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.

I don't see it as much of a perk that prophets, seers, and revelators can't agree about what exaltation means. If they can't agree on the nature of G(g)of and what it means to be like H(h)I'm, then there seems to be a giant hole in theology which prophets are supposedly in place to help fill. Their disagreement simply adds confusion and illustrates that no one really knows anything so acting like we have a handle on eternal truth and destiny is foolishness.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Heaven is called the "Beatific Vision" in that one has a perfect "vision" of God. The relationship with God is no longer mediated, no longer limited, no longer based on faith and reason, but is instead direct and perfect. It is the perfect mystical experience; we are, in a sense, one with God, and thus have perfect joy. It is the ultimate end of our creation, so when we attain there is nothing left to attain.

Here's the intro from Wikipedia:

Quote

In Christian theology, the beatific vision (Latin: visio beatifica) is the ultimate direct self-communication of God to the individual person. A person possessing the beatific vision reaches, as a member of redeemed humanity in the communion of saints, perfect salvation in its entirety, i.e. heaven. The notion of vision stresses the intellectual component of salvation, though it encompasses the whole of human experience of joy, happiness coming from seeing God finally face to face and not imperfectly through faith. (1 Cor 13:11–12).

 

  • Like 2

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.

×