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

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

You forget one key part.

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that 
where I am you may be also".

I didn't forget it. I was simply asking what you thought He meant about the "many mansions."

10 hours ago, theplains said:

Jesus is not in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms.

Trying to teach me LDS theology?

You're wrong, in any case. Not about the telestial, but about the terrestrial.

In the revelation known as The Vision, aka D&C 76, the Terrestrial Kingdom and the qualifications for entry are described from verse 71 to 80. In pertinent part, verse 77 states:

"These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father."

10 hours ago, theplains said:

See the answer for #12 (Frequently Asked Questions😞

"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".

And neither was I claiming to fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement. Or were you trying to strawman me?

As I said, I was asking what you thought He meant by it. Did you watch that video I posted (not created by an LDS content creator, btw)? It discussed the meaning of the term translated by the KJV translators as "mansion," indicating that we understand the English term "mansion" differently from how they understood it in the 17th Century. And then, there's the Koine Greek word μοναὶ which doesn't mean "mansion" in 21st C. English, but "room". 

If I were to say what I understand by μοναὶ, it would be that it's a very fancy room indeed. How fancy? Considering Revelation 3:20, it might be a banquet hall suitable for a sit-down meal with the glorified Savior.

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

"Be perfect" is in the context of the way he said verses earlier.  It is not "become perfect"
in the resurrection to become a God.

I realize that the Greek word τέλειός (as "fully developed") has the flavour of anti-platonism because it flies in the face of one of those favourite concepts of post-apostolic Christian philosophies, aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) (self-existence, self-causation, self-causality and autocausality), which is the property by which a being exists of and from itself.

As a part of this belief, an aseitous God is said to be incapable of changing (see Hebrews 13:8). Changing implies development, and so to describe God as "fully developed" implies that He somehow improved Himself. Since God was, and is, and is to be the Absolute Perfection, there is no need to change: he is αὐτουσία (unchanged, says Gregory of Nyssa), or as Thomas Aquinas puts it: actus purus (Latin for 'Pure Actuality' or 'Pure Act' referring to the absolute perfection of God); and ipsum esse subsistens (being itself subsisting).

But nevertheless, Matthew uses τέλειός to describe God. Heresy!

Personally, I find interpreting "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" [Hebrews 13:8] as aseity to be a philosophic eisegesis of the nature of God. And from this we also get the Impassability of God. God has no body, parts, or passions -- meaning He cannot love, hate, or even get angry. Yet deus irae is all over the scriptures.

I suppose you've heard the phrase "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." Well, it's all over your theology. 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Stargazer