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

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I want my early to mid 20s twink form please.

I want my early 20s, back when my body felt almost normal and I could sleep through the night.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

I want my early 20s, back when my body felt almost normal and I could sleep through the night.

Yeah, and in case God is reading this I think Calm deserves the being able to sleep through the night thing now and not in some future state so it would be nice if you could take care of that.

[marineland]

On 7/9/2026 at 4:27 PM, webbles said:

No, we (male and female) all live on the celestial Earth.

Apart from Heavenly Father, who lives on a planet near Kolob?

[marineland]

On 7/9/2026 at 4:53 PM, bluebell said:

None of them. Like I said, they taught it as doctrine. 

Do you believe they were false or true doctrines?

[marineland]

On 7/10/2026 at 12:45 AM, JLHPROF said:

Actually what it implies is that the Father acted as a Savior to a previous creation and inherited his own Earth.

What did Christ say? He does nothing except that which the Father had done.

Where does it say "the Father had done" part?

Does Jesus have relations with a wife to produce spirit children when he says this?

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, marineland said:

Apart from Heavenly Father, who lives on a planet near Kolob?

No idea.  Most of what you are asking about hasn't been revealed and is almost always speculation.

[marineland]

On 7/10/2026 at 12:45 AM, JLHPROF said:

Actually what it implies is that the Father acted as a Savior to a previous creation

Did the Father atone for the sins of Heavenly Mother?

Edited July 11 by marineland

[marineland]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

No idea.  Most of what you are asking about hasn't been revealed and is almost always speculation.

Or he might give up his current planet to one of his other brother Gods.

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, marineland said:

Or he might give up his current planet to one of his other brother Gods.

As I mentioned, pure speculation.  And when we usually talking about "getting other planets", it isn't the planet we reside on, but the planet that our children would be born on and grow.

[teddyaware]

There are believed to be about 100 sextillion planets in the observable universe. For some reason God makes lots and lots and lots of planets. There is no paucity of planets in God’s creation. If there is a God, it seems unlikely that he would bother to create 100 sextillion planets without having some wise and wonderful reason for doing so.

Edited July 11 by teddyaware

[longview]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

If there is a God, it seems unlikely that he would bother to create 100 sextillion planets without having some wise and wonderful reason for doing so.

Not only that but God graciously provides for organizing spirit planets that progress thru various stages (telestial, terrestrial, celestial).

[Notatbm]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

That is not actually abnormal for the US.  Yes, it doesn't fit the average, but there are other men and women with that same age gap at the same time.  As I mentioned, I did a deep dive into the census of the time period.  Here's a link to a post I made about the numbers.  Teenage women marrying men several decades older than them was not unique to Utah but happened in several other states.  In fact, if the census is to be believed, there were 13 year olds married to 50 year olds.  Utah itself was fairly close to the average if not above the average.

You sure put in a lot of work to normalize 13-15 year old girls marrying 50+ year old males.... How young a girl could you marry and feel comfortable telling people it is normal at your current age (whatever that is) now?
I'm mid 50s and the notion of someone my age (or me) marrying anyone <30 years old is ridiculous. Likely they would feel the same way. Someone my age marrying someone less than 30 years old deserves a severe parking lot counseling session.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

Do you believe they were false or true doctrines?

Probably a little of both. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

There are believed to be about 100 sextillion planets in the observable universe. For some reason God makes lots and lots and lots of planets. There is no paucity of planets in God’s creation. If there is a God, it seems unlikely that he would bother to create 100 sextillion planets without having some wise and wonderful reason for doing so.

The estimates on that vary wildly. Some problems we encounter are having a small sample size of stars where we can detect planets and the dangers of generalizing that data to other parts of a galaxy or to other galaxies.

The downside is that most of those planets are not useful for most purposes we can envision. A joke about the exoplanets:

 

Even if the planet is sort of right the star may not be in a phase conducive to life. Yellow dwaves like Sol, out own sun, are pretty good for life development. The main criteria are how long the star will burn for since life tends to take time to show up. Orange dwarves would actually be better as they can last about three to four times as long as a yellow dwarf (depending primarily on size).

So a lot of planets won’t be inhabited and we have no idea how common habitable planets are as we have exactly one. The number is also skewed since moons might potentially be more likely to develop life than planets in the right conditions and there are more moons….probably.

God might have a purpose for planets that don’t seem to have direct value to us. Or God might just like making neat stuff.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If there is a God, it seems unlikely that he would bother to create 100 sextillion planets without having some wise and wonderful reason for doing so.

That wise and wonderful reason could be simply because it’s fun.

Play is serious business in my view.  “Man is that he might have joy.” There is great joy in creation as artists and other creators may be able to convey to you if you haven’t experienced it for yourself.  

Edited Saturday at 07:19 PM by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

You sure put in a lot of work to normalize 13-15 year old girls marrying 50+ year old males.... How young a girl could you marry and feel comfortable telling people it is normal at your current age (whatever that is) now?
I'm mid 50s and the notion of someone my age (or me) marrying anyone <30 years old is ridiculous. Likely they would feel the same way. Someone my age marrying someone less than 30 years old deserves a severe parking lot counseling session.

I like crunching numbers.  I'm not trying to normalize it.  It is definitely abnormal.  But it isn't unique to Utah at the time.  If it happened today, it would definitely be weird and frowned down upon.  It breaks the the pop cultural math of "age / 2 + 7" for what is acceptable today.  But go back earlier, that wasn't always true.  A fairly famous case is President Cleveland's marriage to Francis Folsom in 1886.  She was 21.  He was 49.  He was good friends with her dad and when her dad died, he became her unofficial guardian when she was 11.  Their marriage happened while he was president.  That marriage would raise a lot of eyebrows now a days but was a social sensation back then.

But to say that the church taught or believed that woman should be young to be married (either here or in the afterlife) or that even those men wanted young wives is taking it further than the data suggests.  If you look more deeply at those wives in the infographic, you'll find that all of those women didn't have their first child till years later.  Clarissa Young was 21 with her first child, Sarah Snow was 21 with her first child, and Emma Woodruff was 19 with her first child.  So, yes, they were married very young and that is problematic.  But the data also suggests that it wasn't consummated until they were a bit older.  If they had been a monagamous marriage and had married shortly before the birth of the first child, the age difference between the man and woman would have been fairly normal for the time period (pretty close to President Cleveland's marriage).

Another thing that you seem to be missing is that there were several men who did write to Brigham Young and asked to marry young girls.  This included 12 year old girls.  He wrote back and told them to wait for those girls to grow up.  That wasn't always specified as I have a ancestor's sister who was married when she was 14, but it shows that it wasn't normal to marry young women.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

If it happened today, it would definitely be weird

Weird?  Not so much among the rich, famous and/or powerful.  Just need to look at the White House, Trump was 58 when he married a 34 year old.

Harrison Ford was 67 when he married a 22 year old.  Michael Douglas 56 married Zeta-Jones 25.  Steve Martin 62, 26 year old bride. 
 

Teens marrying at all is much less common today and that would not likely be seen as acceptable now even among public figures who were in their 20s.  

Back then teens married much more often, though a very wide age gap was not usual.  
 

Besides, pointing out significant age gaps existed in monogamous married as well as plural ones is hardly attempting to try and normalize plural marriage, it is just being accurate and supportive of focusing on what was really peculiar about the institution…multiple wives.  
 

I think attempting to normalize plural marriages would be something more like pointing out men often had multiple mistresses or went to prostitutes, something that has been used to justify plural marriage in general by some.  I don’t see using examples of immoral practices the morality of somewhat related practices as that great of an argument myself.  It shifts the justification in this case from religious dedication to encouraging weakness in some men rather than encouraging those men to actually change gain self control.

A better secular justification for plural marriage if religious dedication is seen as irrelevant (since religious belief is subjective) is not to try and normalize it, but to show it was effective for spreading the wealth some given there was a pattern for immigrant women without family to support them to actively seek out plural marriage when arriving in Utah, getting engaged and marrying in less time than non immigrant, etc. in monogamous marriages (Kathryn Daynes showed this for at least one area, unfortunately FAIR doesn’t have her presentation up online for reasons beyond our control).  I think a better option would be to have a social support system that did not require marriage to make use of it, but that’s not how cultures operate for women typically when the majority is living closer to subsistence.

Edited Saturday at 11:44 PM by Calm

[JLHPROF]

23 hours ago, marineland said:

Where does it say "the Father had done" part?

Does Jesus have relations with a wife to produce spirit children when he says this?

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Christ does what the Father had done and shown him.

And yes, Christ and his wife will one day have spirit children of their own.

23 hours ago, marineland said:

Did the Father atone for the sins of Heavenly Mother?

Probably. There is only one who walked perfectly and atoned for those on this creation.  If Christ's atonement covers his wife then it only makes sense that the Father in his mortal probation could have atoned for his future eternal companion.

[longview]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

23 hours ago, marineland said:

Did the Father atone for the sins of Heavenly Mother?

Probably. There is only one who walked perfectly and atoned for those on this creation.  If Christ's atonement covers his wife then it only makes sense that the Father in his mortal probation could have atoned for his future eternal companion.

If the Father is OUR Elohim in our current Plan of Happiness, then Heavenly Mother is married to Him. Therefore those two were "saved" in the previous mortal probation meaning their previous Plan of Happiness. With each generation of the Gods, there is a new implementation of the Plan of Happiness.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

If the Father is OUR Elohim in our current Plan of Happiness, then Heavenly Mother is married to Him. Therefore those two were "saved" in the previous mortal probation meaning their previous Plan of Happiness. With each generation of the Gods, there is a new implementation of the Plan of Happiness.

Yep - the pattern never changes. Future Elohim male and female continuing the work of the Gods.

To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, longview said:

If the Father is OUR Elohim in our current Plan of Happiness, then Heavenly Mother is married to Him. Therefore those two were "saved" in the previous mortal probation meaning their previous Plan of Happiness. With each generation of the Gods, there is a new implementation of the Plan of Happiness.

The big problem with this is it makes the atonement not infinite.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The big problem with this is it makes the atonement not infinite.

Why?

If there are infinite Gods, infinite Fathers, and infinite creations, I see no reason there can't be other Saviors too.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?

If there are infinite Gods, infinite Fathers, and infinite creations, I see no reason there can't be other Saviors too.

If an atonement is infinite you would never need another one.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If an atonement is infinite you would never need another one.

Then I don't believe it's infinite as you define it. I see no evidence for such a notion.

Christ is the only begotten of his Father. Not the only begotten of every Father.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Then I don't believe it's infinite as you define it. I see no evidence for such a notion.

Christ is the only begotten of his Father. Not the only begotten of every Father.

It is not my definition that is the problem. What is the Book of Mormon’s definition?