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

[longview]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

AND an infinity of implementations of the Plan of Happiness.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

I believe that within the current Plan of Happiness, the Atonement is completely thorough. If any person will repent, they can make a FULL return to God the Father (excepting the unpardonable sin done by sons of perdition but at least all the effects of their sins will be "covered" for the sake of the victims).

Mathematics teaches us that there are infinities on top of infinities. A number line has infinite positive integers going one way and infinite negative integers going the opposite direction. Then there are many kinds of infinities within infinite segments anywhere along that line. And so on . . . worlds without end . . .

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

A number line has infinite positive integers going one way and infinite negative integers going the opposite direction.

And infinite points in between each value.

However, that is not how the infiniteness of the Infinite Atonement is taught these days….limited to only the earth or this universe…unless other such beings from other creations do not qualify as human.

Quote

“[Jesus Christ’s] Atonement is infinite—without an end. It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death. It was infinite in terms of His immense suffering. … It was infinite in scope—it was to be done once for all. And the mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him. It was infinite beyond any human scale of measurement or mortal comprehension” (“The Atonement,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 35).

 

My bold

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-5-the-infinite-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

It is possible “created by him” should have been added to “all humankind”, but if so why was it added to the second case of “worlds” and not the first as would be usual practice imo.  Why be precise for worlds and yet be vague for surely the more important and relevant to us “all humankind”.

Edited Monday at 12:47 AM by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

I believe that within the current Plan of Happiness, the Atonement is completely thorough. If any person will repent, they can make a FULL return to God the Father (excepting the unpardonable sin done by sons of perdition but at least all the effects of their sins will be "covered" for the sake of the victims).

Mathematics teaches us that there are infinities on top of infinities. A number line has infinite positive integers going one way and infinite negative integers going the opposite direction. Then there are many kinds of infinities within infinite segments anywhere along that line. And so on . . . worlds without end . . .

That is finite though. It is an infinite atonement within finite constraints which doesn’t really work. I mean, it kind of does but then you would think scripture would specify and it does not. Seems like an ad hoc rationalization.

[Stargazer]

On 7/6/2026 at 7:16 PM, The Nehor said:

I mean, the caricature is pretty accurate. The only bit that is often wrong is that it suggests you get one individual planet and that’s it. It is appears to be more encompassing. The Church has quietly backed away from the teaching but it is splashed all over pretty authoritative sources going back to Joseph Smith. The current policy appears to be one of practical ambiguity where you can believe or not believe it as you choose.

In my 60 years of Church membership, I genuinely cannot recall having heard this being taught -- whether one planet, several, or even a galaxy or two. But I do seem to recall hearing some members talking about it. I did a search on the Church website for the phrase "do we get our own planets" and got only one substantive hit in a Newsroom FAQ: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”? See item #12:

"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 Church here seems to directly contradict your claim that the one planet teaching has been "splashed all over pretty authoritative sources going back to Joseph Smith." I am curious if you can falsify the Church's claim that it "does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that 'in my Father’s house are many mansions'".

 

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

And infinite points in between each value.

However, that is not how the infiniteness of the Infinite Atonement is taught these days….limited to only the earth or this universe…unless other such beings from other creations do not qualify as human.

My bold

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-5-the-infinite-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

It is possible “created by him” should have been added to “all humankind”, but if so why was it added to the second case of “worlds” and not the first as would be usual practice imo.  Why be precise for worlds and yet be vague for surely the more important and relevant to us “all humankind”.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is finite though. It is an infinite atonement within finite constraints which doesn’t really work. I mean, it kind of does but then you would think scripture would specify and it does not. Seems like an ad hoc rationalization.

I don't think the term "infinite" in respect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ can be related to the mathematical term "infinite."

Mathematically, infinity is very interesting (and incomprehensible). But the mathematicians stab at it, like in the song "Hotel California, where "They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can't kill the beast." Infinity nearly drove mathematician Georg Cantor insane. He managed to prove some very provocative things about infinity, including that the while the sets of real and natural numbers are both infinite, nevertheless real numbers are more numerous than the natural numbers.

But the infinity of Christ's Atonement has nothing to do with mathematical infinity, though I can use it as a teaching tool regarding how it can cover sins infinitely.

In my 60 years as a member I have sought to understand the Atonement of Christ. I'm sure I will never reach full understanding in this life. But trying to explain what I feel I do understand takes up a lot of verbiage, and if I were to fully develop the topic here, it would be just a wall of text, and who would actually read it? I've written about this extensively and posted it on my personal website here:

• The Mathematics of the Atonement of Jesus Christ - Reflections upon Christ's Atonement
• The Roles of Justice, Sacrifice and Mercy in the Atonement of Christ - Further reflections upon Christ's Atonement

But here's a quick pseudo-mathematical explanation.

Amulek taught: "For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." [Alma 34:9-10 (emphasis added)]

There's a special import attached to the word eternal here. In Doctrine and Covenants section 19 the Lord gives a definition of eternal, one which applies especially to Himself and His works. See where the Lord uses the word eternal in the sense that pertains to Himself, in verse 11:

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment."

So when it is written in Alma that "it must be an ... eternal sacrifice", we can replace eternal with God's. In other words, the great and last sacrifice must be the sacrifice of a God. And so Christ stands in our place to receive the punishment that we would have received without His intervention and without our repentance.

While Christ's Atonement applies to every repentant soul who has or will ever live, each unrepentant soul must atone for his own sins, as stated in D&C 19:

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Christ's Atonement is capable of applying to as many souls as Christ wishes it to apply. 

Because there is no sin in him, his sacrifice is infinite. And no matter how large the number of those who have sinned may be, his single, infinite sacrifice is enough for all who have faith in him, repent, and sin no more.

Mathematically, this might be expressed in this fashion:

Because any amount of sin, whether one single act or a lifetime of wickedness, puts you irretrievably into the status of sinner, the number 1 may be used to quantify your sin. Because the suffering that you must endure to atone for yourself is the same for all quantities of sin, the number 1 may be used to quantify your suffering.

When you divide your sin into your suffering, as in the mathematical operation of division, the formula looks like:

1 ÷ 1 = 1

In other words, your suffering covers your sin, and you are "at one". Therefore, your personal atonement covers you but no-one else.

On the other hand, the amount of sin that is imputed to the Christ during his mortal lifetime was 0. But the suffering that the Christ endured in the act of atonement has the value of 1.

When you divide the Christ's sin into Christ's suffering, the mathematical formula could look like:

1 ÷ 0 = Infinity

In arithmetic, dividing any quantity by 0 yields a result typically called "undefined", because there is no way for nothing to divide into anything. But if one were to try to divide progressively smaller and smaller values into 1, the result gets mathematically larger and larger. Since one can never progressively reach the calculated value of infinity by making the divisor progressively smaller and smaller, you will never reach the end of the attempt. But in our imagination, we must infer that if we could take it far enough, effectively to zero, then the result would be infinity. Since this is mathematically meaningless, our example breaks down under close scrutiny.

But because we not dealing with mathematics, strictly speaking, the example suffices to show what it means to have an infinite atonement. It means that Christ's atonement is sufficient to cover ALL sinners who will repent, regardless of how many that is.

And because Christ's suffering was something he could have ended at any time he wished to, without personal impact upon his own status, he demonstrated love beyond measure, both for the Father's plan and for his brothers and sisters. For that he deserves all glory for ever and ever.

Edited Monday at 01:32 PM by Stargazer

[longview]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Christ's Atonement is capable of applying to as many souls as Christ wishes it to apply. 

The Atonement is UNconditionally thorough and complete. Applicable to EVERY single person (whether spirits that remained bodiless all the way up to highest exaltation). Top to bottom and side to side and every which way. It is available to every person that entered into the Plan of Happiness in the pre-existence. But repentance is required.

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

The Atonement is UNconditionally thorough and complete. Applicable to EVERY single person (whether spirits that remained bodiless all the way up to highest exaltation). Top to bottom and side to side and every which way. It is available to every person that entered into the Plan of Happiness in the pre-existence. But repentance is required.

Not quite. There are two aspects of the Atonement: resurrection and justification/sanctification. Resurrection applies to all, both repentant and unrepentant (1 Corinthians 15:22 -> "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."). But jusitification/sanctification applies only to the repentant.

I have to disagree with you as to the spirits who remained bodiless (i.e. they who rebelled against Father in preferring Lucifer over Jesus). They are NOT covered by the Atonement, and there is no forgiveness for them, worlds without end. This is because they sinned against knowledge, as if they denied the sun at noonday.

But I certainly agree with your language as to the extent of the Atonement.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In my 60 years of Church membership, I genuinely cannot recall having heard this being taught -- whether one planet, several, or even a galaxy or two. But I do seem to recall hearing some members talking about it. I did a search on the Church website for the phrase "do we get our own planets" and got only one substantive hit in a Newsroom FAQ: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”? See item #12:

"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)."

Counterpoint: All the stuff Lorenzo Snow said about it.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The Church here seems to directly contradict your claim that the one planet teaching has been "splashed all over pretty authoritative sources going back to Joseph Smith." I am curious if you can falsify the Church's claim that it "does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that 'in my Father’s house are many mansions'".

 

Of course no one claimed to fully understand it. That is moving the goalposts. Many, especially Lorenzo Snow, talked about planetary construction and ruling over them.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think the term "infinite" in respect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ can be related to the mathematical term "infinite."

Mathematically, infinity is very interesting (and incomprehensible). But the mathematicians stab at it, like in the song "Hotel California, where "They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can't kill the beast." Infinity nearly drove mathematician Georg Cantor insane. He managed to prove some very provocative things about infinity, including that the while the sets of real and natural numbers are both infinite, nevertheless real numbers are more numerous than the natural numbers.

But the infinity of Christ's Atonement has nothing to do with mathematical infinity, though I can use it as a teaching tool regarding how it can cover sins infinitely.

In my 60 years as a member I have sought to understand the Atonement of Christ. I'm sure I will never reach full understanding in this life. But trying to explain what I feel I do understand takes up a lot of verbiage, and if I were to fully develop the topic here, it would be just a wall of text, and who would actually read it? I've written about this extensively and posted it on my personal website here:

• The Mathematics of the Atonement of Jesus Christ - Reflections upon Christ's Atonement
• The Roles of Justice, Sacrifice and Mercy in the Atonement of Christ - Further reflections upon Christ's Atonement

But here's a quick pseudo-mathematical explanation.

Amulek taught: "For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." [Alma 34:9-10 (emphasis added)]

There's a special import attached to the word eternal here. In Doctrine and Covenants section 19 the Lord gives a definition of eternal, one which applies especially to Himself and His works. See where the Lord uses the word eternal in the sense that pertains to Himself, in verse 11:

"Eternal punishment is God’s punishment."

So when it is written in Alma that "it must be an ... eternal sacrifice", we can replace eternal with God's. In other words, the great and last sacrifice must be the sacrifice of a God. And so Christ stands in our place to receive the punishment that we would have received without His intervention and without our repentance.

While Christ's Atonement applies to every repentant soul who has or will ever live, each unrepentant soul must atone for his own sins, as stated in D&C 19:

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Christ's Atonement is capable of applying to as many souls as Christ wishes it to apply. 

Because there is no sin in him, his sacrifice is infinite. And no matter how large the number of those who have sinned may be, his single, infinite sacrifice is enough for all who have faith in him, repent, and sin no more.

Mathematically, this might be expressed in this fashion:

Because any amount of sin, whether one single act or a lifetime of wickedness, puts you irretrievably into the status of sinner, the number 1 may be used to quantify your sin. Because the suffering that you must endure to atone for yourself is the same for all quantities of sin, the number 1 may be used to quantify your suffering.

When you divide your sin into your suffering, as in the mathematical operation of division, the formula looks like:

1 ÷ 1 = 1

In other words, your suffering covers your sin, and you are "at one". Therefore, your personal atonement covers you but no-one else.

On the other hand, the amount of sin that is imputed to the Christ during his mortal lifetime was 0. But the suffering that the Christ endured in the act of atonement has the value of 1.

When you divide the Christ's sin into Christ's suffering, the mathematical formula could look like:

1 ÷ 0 = Infinity

In arithmetic, dividing any quantity by 0 yields a result typically called "undefined", because there is no way for nothing to divide into anything. But if one were to try to divide progressively smaller and smaller values into 1, the result gets mathematically larger and larger. Since one can never progressively reach the calculated value of infinity by making the divisor progressively smaller and smaller, you will never reach the end of the attempt. But in our imagination, we must infer that if we could take it far enough, effectively to zero, then the result would be infinity. Since this is mathematically meaningless, our example breaks down under close scrutiny.

But because we not dealing with mathematics, strictly speaking, the example suffices to show what it means to have an infinite atonement. It means that Christ's atonement is sufficient to cover ALL sinners who will repent, regardless of how many that is.

And because Christ's suffering was something he could have ended at any time he wished to, without personal impact upon his own status, he demonstrated love beyond measure, both for the Father's plan and for his brothers and sisters. For that he deserves all glory for ever and ever.

I don’t appealing to some non-mathetmatical definition of “infinite” explains anything. This seems like a lot of words trying to make the infinite finite. There are a lot of ways that could have been expressed without using the word “infinite” in the Book of Mormon yet the word was used anyways.

Is this one of those cases where God uses a ‘scare word’ like when He called hell endless in order to scare people but it was only true in a limited way so God was being sneaky and deceptive for rhetorical effect?

Edited Monday at 04:41 PM by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Counterpoint: All the stuff Lorenzo Snow said about it.

Of course no one claimed to fully understand it. That is moving the goalposts. Many, especially Lorenzo Snow, talked about planetary construction and ruling over them.

He did? Thank you. 

Snow is well-known for "As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As Now God Is, Man May Be." However, an online search for quotations, or even discussions about quotations regarding "planetary construction and ruling over them" yields nothing. Which seems odd to me, since it seems to me that anti-LDS sites would be happy to showcase such, if they were available. But I can't find any. Perhaps in the Journal of Discourses? Do you have any advice for locating this kind of thing from him?

As to "moving the goal posts," what goal posts? 

[marineland]

On 7/11/2026 at 11:18 AM, webbles said:

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.

"Creating other planets" is the more appropriate term.

[marineland]

On 7/12/2026 at 10:27 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

There is no "had done".

"Do" is present tense.
 

On 7/12/2026 at 10:27 AM, JLHPROF said:

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

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.

Where do you see a married Christ?

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

He did? Thank you. 

Snow is well-known for "As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As Now God Is, Man May Be." However, an online search for quotations, or even discussions about quotations regarding "planetary construction and ruling over them" yields nothing. Which seems odd to me, since it seems to me that anti-LDS sites would be happy to showcase such, if they were available. But I can't find any. Perhaps in the Journal of Discourses? Do you have any advice for locating this kind of thing from him?

As to "moving the goal posts," what goal posts? 

You seriously used those as your Google search terms?

“‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” -Lorenzo Snow

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t [think] appealing to some non-mathetmatical definition of “infinite” explains anything.

You don't think it does? Maybe it doesn't explain anything to you, as a unique individual. But could a mathematical definition do so? Any ideas on that?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This seems like a lot of words trying to make the infinite finite.

Sometimes I write a lot of words trying to explain things. I was trying to keep the infinite infinite, but oh, well.

We had a skeptic come on board MDDB once upon a time who threw out a bunch of questions that seemed designed to trip up theists. One of those questions was "Can God count to infinity instantaneously?" I answered "God can't count to infinity because infinity can't be reached. Even by God." 

I know you know what a parable is. I don't know if I have a favorite parable, but one I like is the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. The owner of the vineyard hires workers at various points in the day, promising each of them 1 denarius for pay. At the end, he queued up the later workers ahead of the earlier workers, but when the earlier ones received a denarius for their short duration of labor, the ones who worked all day were expecting more than one denarius. But they all got the same pay, and of course the earlier workers complained. The vineyard owner told them that one denarius is what he contracted with them to receive for the day, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

There are plenty of interpretations of this parable out there. I've even heard it used to justify being anti-labor union. But I feel that the best way to use it in LDS-land is say that whether you were born in the Church and worked in it all your life, or you were baptized at the end of a long life one hour before you died, you would inherit the same reward befitting your valiance in the testimony of Jesus. Or, for that matter, even if you never so much as heard of Jesus Christ until you were in the Spirit World and were one of the last ones reached by the missionaries there, and were baptized by proxy one hour before the end of the Millennium.

Ultimately, it's a lot of words that can be meaningless to one person, and profoundly meaningful to another. If you thought my pseudo-mathematical analogy meaningless, so it goes. As for the infinite atonement, we are ill-equipped to understand it at the best of times.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There are a lot of ways that could have been expressed without using the word “infinite” in the Book of Mormon yet the word was used anyways.

Maybe God should have consulted with you for the best way to express it, sans the word "infinite." As for myself, I feel the use of the word "infinite" is appropriate, given the majesty and importance of the Atonement.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Is this one of those cases where God uses a ‘scare word’ like when He called hell endless in order to scare people but it was only true in a limited way so God was being sneaky and deceptive for rhetorical effect?

Does it bother you that God tries to scare you? Why don't you read D&C 19 over again, and tell me if the suffering that Christ describes, that made even HIM want to shrink away from, is something that you should consider lightly? Should you not be scared of it? 

15 Therefore I command you to repent — repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore — how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit — and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

As you know, this is the same section in which the Lord reveals that "Eternal" and "Endless" punishment doesn't mean it doesn't end, but that it is the punishment that He, as The Eternal or The Endless, must mete out absent repentance. Jesus suffered the same punishment that the unrepentant will have to suffer ("they must suffer even as I"), and it didn't last forever for Him, nor will it for them. But you better believe "your sufferings [will] be sore." Is that not to be avoided? Is it perhaps worth fearing? Or of being scared of? I'd say so, and the warning and the 'scare word' is not at all unjustified. In my humble opinion. Your mileage may differ. 

But despite the Lord being careful to say that the suffering will not be without end, in one important way the consequences of the suffering will definitely never end. The consequence is that they will have reached the end of their eternal progression. And that end will never end.

I know that some have theorized that eventually even those inheriting the telestial kingdom will be able to advance to the terrestrial, and even to the celestial. I believe they are not thinking straight. 

 

[Stargazer]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You seriously used those as your Google search terms?

No, but in desperation I used them at the last. What the heck were you using for search terms? Or maybe I was using Bing and Google works better?

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” -Lorenzo Snow

You wouldn't mind telling me where you found this? JoD perhaps? I'd like to read the entire piece this comes from. Since I'm clearly incapable of creating a usable Google search on the matter.

And I do thank you for showing this to me -- I find this passage profound and hopeful. Mainly because I have thought about what those of us who are to be exalted might be doing before we reach that level. Or even what those of us who are not counted among those to be exalted, but inherit the Terrestrial kingdom might be doing for their work. When I, as an amateur astrophysicist, look upon what is going on in the universe, I wonder if Father's more advanced children are out there guiding the expansion of the universe, shepherding the stars along their paths, or ensuring that nebulas are coalescing in their proper form so as to form earths upon which other of our Father's children may dwell during their mortal probations. As written in the Book of Moses 1:33-39:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is this one of those cases where God uses a ‘scare word’ like when He called hell endless in order to scare people but it was only true in a limited way so God was being sneaky and deceptive for rhetorical effect?

I wanted to quickly address something else about this. The thing is, we find ourselves sometimes handicapped by the otherwise useful language we use day to day. Consider Matthew 25:46...

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

What is rendered here as "punishment" in English covers a lot of ground, but the original koine Greek has two words for the concept, one of which might be felt to be far less harsh. 

The Greek word Matthew doesn't use here is τιμωρία (timōria). It means retributive, vindicatory punishment. Punishment whose purpose is to satisfy the grievance or honor of the one wronged. The benefit flows to the punisher.

The word Matthew does use is κόλασις (kolasis). It means corrective, disciplinary punishment. Punishment whose purpose is the improvement, reform, or correction of the one being punished. The benefit flows to the recipient.

As I see it, for what it's worth, kolasis seems to correspond more closely to the Lord's intent -- even if the punishment is still something not to be desired.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You wouldn't mind telling me where you found this? JoD perhaps? I'd like to read the entire piece this comes from. Since I'm clearly incapable of creating a usable Google search on the matter.

It’s from the Improvement Era:

AI can be helpful at times 

https://archive.org/details/improvementera2208unse/page/658/mode/1up

Edited Monday at 07:57 PM by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You don't think it does? Maybe it doesn't explain anything to you, as a unique individual. But could a mathematical definition do so? Any ideas on that?

No, I don’t think it helps.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Sometimes I write a lot of words trying to explain things. I was trying to keep the infinite infinite, but oh, well.

We had a skeptic come on board MDDB once upon a time who threw out a bunch of questions that seemed designed to trip up theists. One of those questions was "Can God count to infinity instantaneously?" I answered "God can't count to infinity because infinity can't be reached. Even by God."

I prefer the Homer Simpson one:

Could Jesus microwave so hot that he himself could not eat it?

That is just playing with language. The thing is if God speaking through his prophet says it is infinite but only infinite in a limited sense that is not an atheist trying to trip up a theist. That is God deliberately walking into the trap. I admit that could be a good analogy to what Jesus did in many ways I don’t think that is what the writer of the Book of Mormon was angling fo.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I know you know what a parable is. I don't know if I have a favorite parable, but one I like is the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. The owner of the vineyard hires workers at various points in the day, promising each of them 1 denarius for pay. At the end, he queued up the later workers ahead of the earlier workers, but when the earlier ones received a denarius for their short duration of labor, the ones who worked all day were expecting more than one denarius. But they all got the same pay, and of course the earlier workers complained. The vineyard owner told them that one denarius is what he contracted with them to receive for the day, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

There are plenty of interpretations of this parable out there. I've even heard it used to justify being anti-labor union. But I feel that the best way to use it in LDS-land is say that whether you were born in the Church and worked in it all your life, or you were baptized at the end of a long life one hour before you died, you would inherit the same reward befitting your valiance in the testimony of Jesus. Or, for that matter, even if you never so much as heard of Jesus Christ until you were in the Spirit World and were one of the last ones reached by the missionaries there, and were baptized by proxy one hour before the end of the Millennium.

I admit I have trouble with most of the interpretations. The big problem I have is the way the ancient world worked. Day laborers were the lowest of the low outside of actual slaves. They were necessary to an extent but they lived on the edge of subsistence. The daily pay rate was sufficient to keep someone alive for a few days but the work wasn’t consistent. Working for a wage was generally seen as a kind of degradation. It was mitigated a bit by the social status of the work you were doing but these were at the bottom.

If it is meant as an analogy for the rewards for those who are exalted or going to heaven then getting paid that scant wage just seems really off. If they were paid ten or a hundred times the normal daily wage and the early laborers were resentful of the latecomers getting the same inflated wage it would fit more like the prodigal son. Also the whole interaction at the end makes the landowner look like a preening showoff. I can be generous to them if I want to. Also calling the day laborer “friend” comes across more as insulting. No landowner was an actual friend of a day laborer. So yeah, I have no idea what to do with this parable.

It sounds like the kind of thing a wealthy or powerful person would write to make themselves sound generous. I remember one story I read where a man (who was telling the story) went to a very high end restaurant and the waiter did a great job. At the end of the meal the man demanded to speak to the manager. The waiter was visibly distressed and asked what he had done wrong. The man kept a stony face and insisted he had to speak to the manager. The waiter grew more nervous and was graciously but desperately wondering what was wrong and kept trying to find out how he had displeased the customer but the man just reiterated that he had to speak to the manager. The waiter fearfully got the manager and brought the manager out and the customer revealed that he just had to tell the manager what a wonderful job the waiter did.

See, it is funny. The man scared the waiter he was in danger of losing his job which reinforced that the customer had a lot of power over the waiter’s future and gratified his own ego. Only to have a laugh later as the man showed what a fair person he is by not destroying the waiter’s life and was actually generously doing the waiter a favor by talking him up. So all that unnecessary stress and fear? Hilarious! Really the story was that the teller is a huge jerk who loves lording his power over other people and ten convinces himself he is good for not using it to abuse others on at at least some occasions.

So part of me hopes the whole parable was made up somewhere along the way by some well educated rich guy who wrote Matthew or Q or wherever it came from and Jesus didn’t say anything like it. The whole thing just feels distasteful.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Ultimately, it's a lot of words that can be meaningless to one person, and profoundly meaningful to another. If you thought my pseudo-mathematical analogy meaningless, so it goes. As for the infinite atonement, we are ill-equipped to understand it at the best of times.

The infinite (but actually infinite only in the finite constraints of what it actually covers) atonement you mean?

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Maybe God should have consulted with you for the best way to express it, sans the word "infinite." As for myself, I feel the use of the word "infinite" is appropriate, given the majesty and importance of the Atonement.

God did consult with me. I am being flippant in response to your sarcasm in one way but in another I am being very serious. God knows the end from the beginning meaning at the creation of the world he saw this interaction and even more how I would be confused by this description when some would posit an infinite number of infinite atonements, each covering a finite world or ‘round of creation’ or whatever.

God knew how I would take this and went ahead with it anyways. So…….God is okay with the misunderstanding I guess. I mean, really this is kind of an indictment of the whole concept of scripture more than anything and I do often wonder why God would choose this incredibly weird and very limited method of communication knowing how badly humans would mangle it.

I suppose it could be argued that that is just how humans are but that in itself makes it even more God’s fault as He claims to have designed us. So when God complains about people misusing scripture as if it is the fault of the humans I have to ask in response: “What did you think was going to happen?”

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Does it bother you that God tries to scare you? Why don't you read D&C 19 over again, and tell me if the suffering that Christ describes, that made even HIM want to shrink away from, is something that you should consider lightly? Should you not be scared of it? 

15 Therefore I command you to repent — repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore — how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit — and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

I was terrified of it whenever I thought of it for decades. Now I am not convinced it even exists.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As you know, this is the same section in which the Lord reveals that "Eternal" and "Endless" punishment doesn't mean it doesn't end, but that it is the punishment that He, as The Eternal or The Endless, must mete out absent repentance. Jesus suffered the same punishment that the unrepentant will have to suffer ("they must suffer even as I"), and it didn't last forever for Him, nor will it for them. But you better believe "your sufferings [will] be sore." Is that not to be avoided? Is it perhaps worth fearing? Or of being scared of? I'd say so, and the warning and the 'scare word' is not at all unjustified. In my humble opinion. Your mileage may differ. 

You are arguing that you should be scared therefore the deception God deliberately used is okay. 

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But despite the Lord being careful to say that the suffering will not be without end, in one important way the consequences of the suffering will definitely never end. The consequence is that they will have reached the end of their eternal progression. And that end will never end.

That is just the thing. The Lord wasn’t careful to say that until that revelation came and he doesn’t say it was wrong. The Lord justifies using misleading language because the emotional impact would be better for His purposes. In other words God will deceive us if He thinks it is the best thing for us. That might not be as scary as an endless hell but it is pretty scary.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I know that some have theorized that eventually even those inheriting the telestial kingdom will be able to advance to the terrestrial, and even to the celestial.

I would hope that was true but I had no reason to believe or disbelieve it. If God is willing to deceive in order to scare us I suspect that means such progression is possible.

If that progression is possible I imagine revealing that would allow many to ‘rest on their laurels’ so keeping it ambiguous might be to God’s benefit to stimulate people to action out of fear of missing out. If that progression is not possible then sharing that information would stimulate those same people to action and probably even more so as they can’t hope for that progression.

So it seems like it is more advantageous to God to keep it ambiguous if that progression is possible. Since God is willing to be unclear in order to trick us into doing ‘the right thing’ it seems more likely that the progression is possible as that gains a larger advantage in ambiguity and the alternative seems it would give an advantage via revealing it.

You can continue this to comedic levels: So therefore it is likely that this theory is true. Or did God know I would figure this out and did this to throw me off? So it isn’t true. But then I know God might do that so what if I see through it. But by definition God knows I would see through that via His omniscience and therefore it will always be the opposite of what I deduce it to be. So the only way to figure it out is to follow the rabbit hole until I am satisfied I am correct and then believe the opposite. Unfortunately God would know I would do that so I have to do the opposite of that opposite. Then continue until brain melts.

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I believe they are not thinking straight. 

I have a shirt that reads “Can’t think straight” in bright rainbow pride and bisexual pride flag colors. Expecting me to think straight is not being respectful of my culture.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

No, but in desperation I used them at the last. What the heck were you using for search terms? Or maybe I was using Bing and Google works better?

You wouldn't mind telling me where you found this? JoD perhaps? I'd like to read the entire piece this comes from. Since I'm clearly incapable of creating a usable Google search on the matter.

And I do thank you for showing this to me -- I find this passage profound and hopeful. Mainly because I have thought about what those of us who are to be exalted might be doing before we reach that level. Or even what those of us who are not counted among those to be exalted, but inherit the Terrestrial kingdom might be doing for their work. When I, as an amateur astrophysicist, look upon what is going on in the universe, I wonder if Father's more advanced children are out there guiding the expansion of the universe, shepherding the stars along their paths, or ensuring that nebulas are coalescing in their proper form so as to form earths upon which other of our Father's children may dwell during their mortal probations. As written in the Book of Moses 1:33-39:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

If you were using Bing then repentance in sackcloth and ashes is the only remedy.

I got that bit from Chapter 5 of the Lorenzo Snow student manual in the old Teachings of the Prophets series. They got if form the June 1919 issue of the old Improvement Magazine.

I am actually surprised you haven’t heard the story. I heard this quoted probably at least a dozen times growing up. I cut out the setup paragraph that was in the manual but all it does is provide the backstory of where Lorenzo Snow was and that he was watching children make clay spheres which….sounds really messy.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Really the story was that the teller is a huge jerk who loves lording his power over other people and ten convinces himself he is good for not using it to abuse others on at at least some occasions.

Excellent analysis. I hate this type of game.  Not sure your interpretation is valid, but I can see why you go there given historical context.

Edited Monday at 09:46 PM by Calm

[longview]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not quite. There are two aspects of the Atonement: resurrection and justification/sanctification. Resurrection applies to all, both repentant and unrepentant (1 Corinthians 15:22 -> "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."). But jusitification/sanctification applies only to the repentant.

True. But my point is that His Atonement was SO thorough that the potential was there for EVERY single person to have access IF they CHOOSE to repent.

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I have to disagree with you as to the spirits who remained bodiless (i.e. they who rebelled against Father in preferring Lucifer over Jesus). They are NOT covered by the Atonement, and there is no forgiveness for them, worlds without end. This is because they sinned against knowledge, as if they denied the sun at noonday.

Also true of sons of perdition post-mortally. But the potential is still there IF they were to change their minds about denying the sun at noonday.

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But I certainly agree with your language as to the extent of the Atonement.

Yes, the absolute sufficiency of the Atonement.

[manol]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I know that some have theorized that eventually even those inheriting the telestial kingdom will be able to advance to the terrestrial, and even to the celestial. I believe they are not thinking straight.

Yes, it's possible that I'm not thinking straight. 

What is Christ's mission?  My understanding is that it is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." 

Do you think he will succeed or fail?

[rodheadlee]

On 7/11/2026 at 10:22 AM, 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.

You are intentionally missing the point. In the next life age does not matter.

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I know that some have theorized that eventually even those inheriting the telestial kingdom will be able to advance to the terrestrial, and even to the celestial. I believe they are not thinking straight. 

Doctrine and Covenants 76 reveals that ministers from the terrestrial kingdom and angels from the celestial kingdom minister to the inheritors of the telestial kingdom of glory, and that Christ himself personally ministers to the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom of glory. Further, our Bible Dictionary defines ministering as “conducting the work necessary for the salvation of mankind.” In light of these doctrinal truths, why do ordained and empowered ministers from higher kingdoms of glory minister to and instruct the inhabitants of lower kingdoms of glory if there is no possibility for those in the lower kingdoms to eventually learn how to comply with the laws pertaining to higher kingdoms of glory, especially if the gospel of repentance continues to be the primary means provided by the Lord to facilitate spiritual growth and improvement? Surely you don’t believe said ministering is conducted in order to rub faces in past failures?

Edited Tuesday at 05:27 AM by teddyaware

[MustardSeed]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You are intentionally missing the point. In the next life age does not matter.

Maybe knowledge will.