Being formed into Gods of their own dominions

[theplains]

A glimpse into the future according to Joseph Smith.

"Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon 
glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star 
differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and 
every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions" (Teachings of Joseph Smith,
chapter 18).

When Heavenly Mother became a God, did she possess a dominion of her own, or is dominion held 
solely by her husband (who also became a God)?  Alternatively, do they share a joint dominion?

When an individual is formed into a God and presides over his own dominions with spirit children, 
do these offspring worship their immediate divine parent (like it is currently for the context of
our Earth), or is their devotion oriented toward a higher God before their immediate Father God?
 

There's a FAQ , #12.

12. 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. Latter-day 
Saints 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).

The following question comes to mind when I combine the two topics, gaining a dominion and getting 
a planet.

Will exalted beings create their own worlds and populate them with their own spirit children or 
will their dominions only be the world(s) that a previous Father/God created?

[Pyreaux]

On 11/3/2025 at 12:50 PM, theplains said:

A glimpse into the future according to Joseph Smith.

"Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon 
glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star 
differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and 
every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions" (Teachings of Joseph Smith,
chapter 18).

When Heavenly Mother became a God, did she possess a dominion of her own, or is dominion held 
solely by her husband (who also became a God)?  Alternatively, do they share a joint dominion?

When an individual is formed into a God and presides over his own dominions with spirit children, 
do these offspring worship their immediate divine parent (like it is currently for the context of
our Earth), or is their devotion oriented toward a higher God before their immediate Father God?
 

There's a FAQ , #12.

12. 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. Latter-day 
Saints 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).

The following question comes to mind when I combine the two topics, gaining a dominion and getting 
a planet.

Will exalted beings create their own worlds and populate them with their own spirit children or 
will their dominions only be the world(s) that a previous Father/God created?

Is there a dominion of Heavenly Mother?

Latter-day Saints generally believe there is an exalted, divine Mother alongside a Father in Heaven, because the doctrine of exaltation (becoming like God) is taught for both men and women. The general principle of exaltation suggests joint dominion and partnership. The ideal exalted god is described as an eternal marriage unit. The idea of a husband holding "solely" dominion would contradict the principle of eternal partnership, where a worthy man and woman are "heirs together" (1 Peter 3:7) and both receive "all that [the] Father hath" (D&C 84:38).

Do offspring worship their divine parent?

Latter-day Saints are explicitly taught to worship God the Father. This is a fundamental and non-speculative tenet. The plan of salvation is often thought of as a cycle, it can follow logically that future spirit children created by an exalted couple would worship that couple. But this is a projection of the doctrine and not a core, explicit teaching. The idea that its cycle I think is the logical apologetic leaders used, meant to defend exaltation. That children grow up to be like their parents, and we are children of God. Never really intended to settle who has divine preeminence in the next spiritual generation.

Will exalted beings create their own worlds or previous worlds God created?

The Church statement explicitly rejects the popularized idea of "getting your own planet." This phrase is seen as speculative folklore, distracting from the central doctrine of becoming like God. A "dominion" is not strictly a planet, its power, rule, authority, or realm. The Church is clarifying that the specifics of how we become like God, like making a planet, are unrevealed and therefore not doctrine. Whether they create a planet for them or preside over an existing realm is speculative. The doctrine of eternal increase (having spirit children) and exaltation (becoming like God) is true, while explicitly disavowing the speculative folk doctrine. Not for being false, but for being unrevealed.

Edited November 4, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 11/3/2025 at 5:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

Do offspring worship their divine parent?

Latter-day Saints are explicitly taught to worship God the Father. This is a fundamental and non-speculative tenet. The plan of salvation is often thought of as a cycle, it can follow logically that future spirit children created by an exalted couple would worship that couple. But this is a projection of the doctrine and not a core, explicit teaching. The idea that its cycle I think is the logical apologetic leaders used, meant to defend exaltation. That children grow up to be like their parents, and we are children of God. Never really intended to settle who has divine preeminence in the next spiritual generation.

That would explain why Latter-day Saints don't worship Jesus' Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly
Father).

[theplains]

On 11/3/2025 at 5:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

Will exalted beings create their own worlds or previous worlds God created?

The Church statement explicitly rejects the popularized idea of "getting your own planet." This phrase is seen as speculative folklore, distracting from the central doctrine of becoming like God. A "dominion" is not strictly a planet, its power, rule, authority, or realm. The Church is clarifying that the specifics of how we become like God, like making a planet, are unrevealed and therefore not doctrine. Whether they create a planet for them or preside over an existing realm is speculative. The doctrine of eternal increase (having spirit children) and exaltation (becoming like God) is true, while explicitly disavowing the speculative folk doctrine. Not for being false, but for being unrevealed.

How would one become like God without creating worlds and having spirit children?  Isn't that the
way it worked out when a man became a God and Heavenly Father of our world?

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

That would explain why Latter-day Saints don't worship Jesus' Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly
Father).

Or it's a cycle that just started and there is no Heavenly Grandfather making the next generation unprecedented and so they might worship the Grandfather. LDS are starting to realize there is more than one logical way to interpret the revealed materials if they look passed the unrevealed commentary. There is a possibility that though the prophets have great insights into things, they could be limited in understanding. Even if Joseph Smith thought there was eternal regression, the America was empty in the BOM, or Eden is in Missouri, if it's not written verbatim as a revelation anywhere, it may not be the case.

8 hours ago, theplains said:

How would one become like God without creating worlds and having spirit children?  Isn't that the
way it worked out when a man became a God and Heavenly Father of our world?

It may not be as neat and tidy as that, if those aren't the words the Lord said. Maybe you just get a promised land to rule over like the Abrahamic covenant says, or maybe its grander and you make your own galaxy, universe or reality ... And maybe in that reality there technically is no Heavenly Grandfather.

Edited November 7, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 11/6/2025 at 5:54 PM, Pyreaux said:

There is a possibility that though the prophets have great insights into things, they could be limited in understanding

Meaning they could be wrong and leading people astray. 

Future gospel topic essay - "Today, the Church disavows the doctrines theories advanced in the past that ... "
 

Edited November 11, 2025 by theplains

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

Meaning they could be wrong and leading people astray. 

Future gospel topic essay - "Today, the Church disavows the doctrines theories advanced in the past that ... "
 

  We don't believe that contemplating the mysteries of God and eternity and not getting our ideas 100% accurate is punishable by damnation ("leading people astray"). 

[Pyreaux]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

Meaning they could be wrong and leading people astray. 

Future gospel topic essay - "Today, the Church disavows the doctrines theories advanced in the past that ... "

It is not disavowing doctrine, in that doctrine typically is measured by such things as the standard works, not traditions or speeches. Is it found in the Standard Works? Was it proclaimed by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Is it a core principle essential to the Plan of Salvation? The prophet hears a few words from God from time to time but he is not infallible in all matters that were not directly revealed as doctrine.

It is widely accepted in LDS thought that a prophet can be wrong in personal opinions, they could find their way into their talks. The principle that the prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church "astray" usually means that the prophet will not change the ordinances or be so wrong that it would disqualify members from exaltation. So, if Joseph Smith or any Bible prophet had said in a sermon or poem that he thought the earth was flat would not have led the Church astray because believing in a flat earth has no bearing on salvation or following Christ.

Prophets hold personal, non-salvational views that may later be proven incorrect or non-essential. Accepting this allows the Church to embrace continuing revelation and correct past errors (both doctrinal and cultural) without undermining the prophetic office itself.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The prophet hears a few words from God from time to time but he is not infallible in all matters that were not directly revealed as doctrine.

Or he may hear a lot, but who knows how much is help with administration of God’s Church and the greater stewardship over all humanity because that has to be an awful tangled mess of a balancing act.

[theplains]

On 11/10/2025 at 10:42 PM, Pyreaux said:

It is not disavowing doctrine, in that doctrine typically is measured by such things as the standard works, not traditions or speeches. Is it found in the Standard Works? Was it proclaimed by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Is it a core principle essential to the Plan of Salvation?

What do you think of "Doctrines of Salvation"?  Does it contain true or false doctrines?

[theplains]

On 11/10/2025 at 8:49 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

  We don't believe that contemplating the mysteries of God and eternity and not getting our ideas 100% accurate is punishable by damnation ("leading people astray"). 

Damnation is also a lack of eternal increase.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Damnation is also a lack of eternal increase.

That's random.

[teddyaware]

On 11/3/2025 at 1:50 PM, theplains said:

A glimpse into the future according to Joseph Smith.

"Go and read the vision in [Doctrine and Covenants 76]. There is clearly illustrated glory upon 
glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star 
differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and 
every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions" (Teachings of Joseph Smith,
chapter 18).

When Heavenly Mother became a God, did she possess a dominion of her own, or is dominion held 
solely by her husband (who also became a God)?  Alternatively, do they share a joint dominion?

When an individual is formed into a God and presides over his own dominions with spirit children, 
do these offspring worship their immediate divine parent (like it is currently for the context of
our Earth), or is their devotion oriented toward a higher God before their immediate Father God?
 

There's a FAQ , #12.

12. 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. Latter-day 
Saints 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).

The following question comes to mind when I combine the two topics, gaining a dominion and getting 
a planet.

Will exalted beings create their own worlds and populate them with their own spirit children or 
will their dominions only be the world(s) that a previous Father/God created?

How silly it is to believe that exalted men and women are going to dwell on planets! Anyone with a lick of sense knows it’s a ‘one off’ that God created, was born on, grew to maturity, died and then rose from the dead on this absurd material planet! It makes perfect sense that what happened on this earth with regard to God is never, ever going to happen again throughout all eternity! I guess it proves that even the All-Knowing God can make mistakes.

Going forward, what’s actually going to happen is exalted men and women are going to reign as crowned heavenly kings and queens over dominions that are located in large patches of empty space! Instead of living on beautiful material planets filled with fertile lands, forests, mountainous regions and vast sparkling bodies of water, all of which are teaming with staggering varieties of plant and animal life, we’re all going to just float around in space where we won’t have to worry about raking leaves, climate change and the drudgery of having to be wise stewards over creation. Can’t wait! 

Setting up “dominions” in empty space will be far less complicated and troublesome than the silly way God is compelling us to exist on this annoying, cumbersome planet! I’m so looking forward to the day when the enthroned sons and daughters of God, who will be crowned as reigning kings and queens and joint heirs with Christ in all he possesses, will be able to enjoy performing endless pirouettes and flawless acrobatic moves in the uncluttered expanse of empty space. So glad to know that this well meaning but ultimately failed experiment of living on planets, instead of in the glorious void of empty space, will never happen again!

Planets?! Who needs them?!

P.S. But I have one question: If planets are going to be a thing of the past, I’m wondering why the universe is filled with billions of them? Asking for a friend.

Edited November 14, 2025 by teddyaware

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

What do you think of "Doctrines of Salvation"?  Does it contain true or false doctrines?

I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation. The book is a compilation of sermons, articles, and answers given by Joseph Fielding Smith who would later become the Church President, over decades, compiled and edited by his son-in-law.

It is commentary. The book contains well-considered, but ultimately personal and commentary-based opinions of one man at a specific time. It fails the test for binding doctrine. It is not scripture, it was not approved or issued by the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, and its teachings are not always taught consistently across the Church today.

It contains both essential and speculative ideas, any statement within it must be filtered through the current doctrinal standards, like scripture, to be "true". A "false" doctrine is one that leads you away from Christ and salvation. It contains detailed speculation on unrevealed topics like the nature of Hell, specific location of Eden, or geology which are not doctrinal essentials.

False Dichotomy

It looks like you are trying to force a choice between two extreme choices when a third, nuanced option is clearly the answer.  The premise of your question is flawed because it ignores the third category of Non-Binding Commentary, which is not true or false.

For a Latter-day Saint. If a statement in Doctrines of Salvation is also found in scripture (like the importance of Baptism), it is True Doctrine. If it is not found in scripture (speculation on the Earth's geology), it is simply Non-Binding commentary and is neither required to be believed as "True" nor condemned as "False."

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

How silly it is to believe that exalted men and women are going to dwell on planets! Anyone with a lick of sense knows it’s a ‘one off’ that God created, was born on, grew to maturity, died and then rose from the dead on this absurd material planet! It makes perfect sense that what happened on this earth with regard to God is never, ever going to happen again throughout all eternity! I guess it proves that even the All-Knowing God can make mistakes.

Going forward, what’s actually going to happen is exalted men and women are going to reign as crowned heavenly kings and queens over dominions that are located in large patches of empty space! Instead of living on beautiful material planets filled with fertile lands, forests, mountainous regions and vast sparkling bodies of water, all of which are teaming with staggering varieties of plant and animal life, we’re all going to just float around in space where we won’t have to worry about raking leaves, climate change and the drudgery of having to be wise stewards over creation. Can’t wait! 

Setting up “dominions” in empty space will be far less complicated and troublesome than the silly way God is compelling us to exist on this annoying, cumbersome planet! I’m so looking forward to the day when the enthroned sons and daughters of God, who will be crowned as reigning kings and queens and joint heirs with Christ in all he possesses, will be able to enjoy performing endless pirouettes and flawless acrobatic moves in the uncluttered expanse of empty space. So glad to know that this well meaning but ultimately failed experiment of living on planets, instead of in the glorious void of empty space, will never happen again!

Planets?! Who needs them?!

P.S. But I have one question: If planets are going to be a thing of the past, I’m wondering why the universe is filled with billions of them? Asking for a friend.

It does seem like an awful waste of space.

[InCognitus]

On 11/6/2025 at 8:13 AM, theplains said:

That would explain why Latter-day Saints don't worship Jesus' Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly
Father).

Or, it is what Joseph Smith actually taught, that God the Father is the “head God”, and all other gods are subject to him and are representatives of him, and God the Father received his physical body by being born on an earth as the son of a father (as Joseph Smith taught), and there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”.

With this view, those who become Gods (or gods, however you want to put it) are always subject to the one God and Father above all, and they become representatives of God in relation to others and in the matters of creation. 

This is also the biblical model, for Jesus (who is God) was the representative of his God and Father, referred to God the Father as “my God”, and he created the earth under the direction of the Father, and while on earth he spoke the words of the Father and did only the will of his Father.  And Jesus taught us to worship God the Father.

And this concept of divine representation is also seen with other representatives of God in the Old Testament, such the angel that Jacob wrestled with in  in Genesis 32:24-32 compared with the story of Manoah and his wife and their experience with the angel of the LORD in Judges 13:2-6, 15-22.  In those two encounters, both Jacob and Manoah make statements about having seen God and they remarked about their state of preservation (or fear of losing it), even after it is clear (in Manoah’s case) that he was dealing with a representative of God instead of God himself:

Gen 32:30  "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Judges 13:21-22:  "But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.  And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

This was also a concept implemented by Jesus in sending out the apostles and the seventy as his representatives, when Jesus said, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matthew 10:40), and “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).

If receiving mortal men (the apostles and the seventy) can be said to be the same as receiving Jesus and God the Father (his God and Father), how much more shall it be for those who become gods and are representatives of God the Father?  Thus, God the Father, the Eternal God of all other gods (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32), is always the focus of all worship, honor, and truth, even when he brings others to become like him.  He is the “head God”, the God of all, the “God of gods, and Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17).

[InCognitus]

P.S.

Latter-day Saints don't believe any gods are "formed" to be the God of Israel (or our God), either before or after God declared himself to be the God of Israel (as the context of Isaiah 43:10 makes clear).

[theplains]

On 11/14/2025 at 4:31 PM, teddyaware said:

How silly it is to believe that exalted men and women are going to dwell on planets!

Even if our Earth and supposedly all the other planets where all spirit children of Heavenly
Father reside are celestialized?

[theplains]

On 11/14/2025 at 5:51 PM, Pyreaux said:

I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation. The book is a compilation of sermons, articles, and answers given by Joseph Fielding Smith who would later become the Church President, over decades, compiled and edited by his son-in-law.

False teachings, if found therein, lead people astray.

[theplains]

On 11/15/2025 at 10:55 PM, InCognitus said:

Or, it is what Joseph Smith actually taught, that God the Father is the “head God”,

Is God the Father head over his Father God and over all his other exalted spirit brothers (who were
born to Jesus' Grandfather God)?

[InCognitus]

56 minutes ago, theplains said:

Is God the Father head over his Father God and over all his other exalted spirit brothers (who were
born to Jesus' Grandfather God)?

You didn't READ what I said, which was "there is no such thing as a “Grandfather (the Father above Heavenly Father)”.  So your question has no meaning.

CFR where official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says there is a "Grandfather... above Heavenly Father".

[Tacenda]

I wanted to attend the Gospel Doctrine lesson on polygamy this past Sunday but didn't get there. How did it go in your wards, anyone that care to answer. In the past I didn't hear much about JS's polygamy but that was years ago. And possibly I was teaching a Primary class and missed it. I just wonder how the transparency is looking especially since the Saint's books have been released. 

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wanted to attend the Gospel Doctrine lesson on polygamy this past Sunday but didn't get there. How did it go in your wards, anyone that care to answer. In the past I didn't hear much about JS's polygamy but that was years ago. And possibly I was teaching a Primary class and missed it. I just wonder how the transparency is looking especially since the Saint's books have been released. 

I'm glad you asked, and I really wish a lot of people on this board and elsewhere could have attended our class yesterday. 

Our entire lesson was about how to handle the hard things in church history, but with a focus on the polygamy topic of section 132. 

I'm in a ward in Utah now (I am really an Arizona boy at heart, so this is all new to me) and most of the people in the class have ancestors who had to deal with polygamy, and some of the families still have hard feelings about some of the branches of their family tree.  But many of them wouldn't be there today if it were not for those families doing what they did.

The teacher did a great job of handling it and there were some really good comments from some members of the class.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I'm glad you asked, and I really wish a lot of people on this board and elsewhere could have attended our class yesterday. 

Our entire lesson was about how to handle the hard things in church history, but with a focus on the polygamy topic of section 132. 

I'm in a ward in Utah now (I am really an Arizona boy at heart, so this is all new to me) and most of the people in the class have ancestors who had to deal with polygamy, and some of the families still have hard feelings about some of the branches of their family tree.  But many of them wouldn't be there today if it were not for those families doing what they did.

The teacher did a great job of handling it and there were some really good comments from some members of the class.

Thanks for responding!  I've never once heard discussion in GD about polygamy. Good to know and what I think is going to happen when more transparency happens. 

[Pyreaux]

22 hours ago, theplains said:

False teachings, if found therein, lead people astray.

Appeal to Authority (or in your case a False Authority) into a False Dichotomy

The Church's stated position is that leaders are fallible mortals who speak "as men" outside of official, unified revelation. Any statement, even if factually incorrect, is not "false" doctrine. This a classic non-LDS analytical error of not allowing commentary or personal opinion, but deeming everything as "doctrine" based solely the person's title; rather than based their stated source of authority, or on its venue (where it is taught) and sometimes even rather than the authority of the speaker at that moment (in this case like when they were not The Prophet when those teachings were originally given, compiled, or published. As only the President of the Church can claim to speak for the entire Church on matters of doctrine, particularly when accompanied by the unified assent of the Quorum of the Twelve.).

Doctrines of Salvation was never presented as binding doctrine required for salvation. Any error there in is a factual mistake, not an error that undermines the gospel. Popular, unrevealed ideas (like "getting a planet") was never canonized, so rejecting them does not contradict revealed truth. Instances where a leader speaks outside their prophetic mantle is a mortal error; it is not a spiritual deception or an attempt to lead people away from God.

These statements' purpose were to offer insights and instruction based on their personal study. A statement is simply "incorrect" if it fails a factual test, but it is not "false doctrine" because it never claimed the authority of revelation.

Do you mean "lead people astray" is to lead them away from salvation? It nullifies the Atonement, invalidates covenants, or prevents a person from reaching the Celestial Kingdom? Or just leading away from factual accuracy? Believing it or disbelieving it (like getting a planet) does not affect salvation, temple covenants, or worthiness. Therefore, it does not "lead people astray" in a theological sense that matters.

Edited November 18, 2025 by Pyreaux