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 Saturday at 11:22 AM by Stargazer

[BlipBlap]

On 7/10/2026 at 10:54 AM, Notatbm said:

I have already expressed the disclaimer that I won’t be there so it isn’t anything I’m hoping for. It is exactly what our prophets would hope for as evidenced by their own practices while leading g the church. Many of them really liked young girls. 
 

https://missedinsunday.com/memes/polygamy/teen-brides-of-early-mormon-prophets/

 

"Really liked" doing quite a bit of heavy lifting, especially since marrying teenage girls was hardly out of place for most of history.  We can go back to the 12th century with the Decretum Gratiani and see that, for much of history, the onset of puberty was considered to be the common definition of what it was to be an "adult" in terms of marriage viability.  18 being the starting point is more of a late 19th century thing.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to use presentism when criticizing both the LDS church and other branches of Christianity, and it's still just as illogical.

[Notatbm]

14 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

"Really liked" doing quite a bit of heavy lifting, especially since marrying teenage girls was hardly out of place for most of history.  We can go back to the 12th century with the Decretum Gratiani and see that, for much of history, the onset of puberty was considered to be the common definition of what it was to be an "adult" in terms of marriage viability.  18 being the starting point is more of a late 19th century thing.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to use presentism when criticizing both the LDS church and other branches of Christianity, and it's still just as illogical.

I did not argue it was unusual for teenage girls to get married back in the day.

Do you think the age gaps illustrated below were normal for the times? Look at Lorenzo Snow. There is a forty-two year age difference between himself and his 15 year old bride.

It wasn’t normal back then. Weebles so kindly dug up  a bunch of data from various periods and no where does the data show that teen brides (ages 14-15) are a “common” ( unless ten percent ish of marriages is common) thing. It does show that it happened, but not with the frequency many believe. Additionally, check out where he shows the various age differences between the bride and groom. You will also see that being married as a teenage female to a male over the age of fifty was very rare. Teenage girls married to men in their 40s wasnt al that common either. 30s and younger it was much more common.

See for yourself:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67255-teen-age-marriage-ages-of-the-late-1800s/

I’ll conclude with this. You assert that the onset of puberty determines adult status. Currently in the US the onset is between 8-13 for girls. In the 1880s, it was about 16 years old so pretty much the average female under the age of 16 back then was a “little girl.” Definitely not a woman ready for marriage. 

It takes one sick dude to marry a teenage girl back then under the age of 15-16 ish esp when the groom is as old as these guys were. Pretty likely the girl hasn’t matured yet. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:38 PM by Notatbm
Typos

[theplains]

On 8/7/2026 at 8:11 PM, Stargazer said:

In that entire paragraph, verses 43 to 48, Jesus exhorts His followers to love everyone unconditionally, friend or foe, because the Father loves them all unconditionally.

The verses are not describing the process of becoming Gods.
 

On 8/7/2026 at 8:11 PM, Stargazer said:

Heavenly Father is certainly "fully developed."

I've heard that. Him and Heavenly Mother supposedly passed all these tests and achieved a fulness of 
joy. They became Gods.
 

On 8/7/2026 at 8:11 PM, Stargazer said:

Well, what if the Trinity is a myth?

I don't believe in the LDS version of the Trinity, in 3 Gods; four if you include Heavenly Mother.
 

On 8/7/2026 at 8:11 PM, Stargazer said:

• "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." [Rom. 8:16,17]

The heir of a baron will be a baron. The heir of duke will be a duke. The heir of a king will be a king. Need I go on? 

You forgot one - If a child of God, then a God. That is how the LDS Church interprets Romans 8:16-17
 

On 8/7/2026 at 8:11 PM, Stargazer said:

Here's a question I would like you to answer: Is God incapable of transforming say, the Apostle Peter, into something that is ontologically like Himself, even if of lower rank to Him? Is it something beyond His power? 

Adam and Eve were like God but they were not Gods.

It is not beyond his power, but God forming another God would be contrary to what he has already revealed
in scripture.

[theplains]

On 8/7/2026 at 8:37 PM, Stargazer said:

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

I think the mansions are our places of habitation with Christ in heaven.
 

On 8/7/2026 at 8:37 PM, Stargazer said:

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."

Ok. Then mansions are not reserved for telestial and terrestrials I would say.

They [the terrestrials] had not obtained a cross over the kingdom of God (verse 79).

Apparently the telestials don't receive Christ's fulness but they receive the fulness of the
Holy Spirit through the ministry of the terrestrial (verse 86).

So it seems the terrestrials do not have a fulness whereas the telestials do.

 

On 8/7/2026 at 8:37 PM, Stargazer said:

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". 

"Room" seems rather small. "Mansion" is grander.

[theplains]

On 8/8/2026 at 6:37 AM, Stargazer said:

Since God was, and is, and is to be the Absolute Perfection, there is no need to change:

There is no need for a being to become God. He always is God.

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

There is no need for a being to become God. He always is God.

"From age to age" he is God, at the very least anyway, as the Bible says.  Other than that the Bible is silent, except for the supposition that "Eternal God" means something different than "Eternal Life".

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, theplains said:

I think the mansions are our places of habitation with Christ in heaven.

I agree.

14 hours ago, theplains said:

Ok. Then mansions are not reserved for telestial and terrestrials I would say.

In saying this, Jesus was addressing his apostles at the Last Supper. Did mansions only apply to the Apostles, then? 

14 hours ago, theplains said:

They [the terrestrials] had not obtained a cross over the kingdom of God (verse 79).

Yes, but it's not "cross," it's "crown." Typo? "79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."

14 hours ago, theplains said:

Apparently the telestials don't receive Christ's fulness but they receive the fulness of the
Holy Spirit through the ministry of the terrestrial (verse 86).

Yes.

14 hours ago, theplains said:

So it seems the terrestrials do not have a fulness whereas the telestials do.

Where you get that from? Don't get too wrapped around the axle about lack of "fulness." The verse in question goes:

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

If you have the presence of the Son, you have the fulness of the Son. 

I know that this is all nonsensical from the point of view of someone who holds the Athanasian Creed as truth. The god who is described as "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance" cannot possibly separate itself into three parts to minister to three different eternal destinations.

14 hours ago, theplains said:

"Room" seems rather small. "Mansion" is grander.

Yes, but is that what the original Greek term means? 

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

It is not beyond his power,

I'm glad that you can at least admit that much.

15 hours ago, theplains said:

but God forming another God would be contrary to what he has already revealed
in scripture.

And what scripture would this be? I can't count myself as well-read in scripture as many others, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that corresponds to what you are saying here.

And on the contrary, the Book of Revelation seems to say otherwise. To him who overcometh, Christ invites him to sit with Him in His throne, even as He is set with the Father in His. Sounds precariously close to a direct denial of what you have written here. Rev. 3:21

[InCognitus]

53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

16 hours ago, theplains said:

but God forming another God would be contrary to what he has already revealed
in scripture.

And what scripture would this be? I can't count myself as well-read in scripture as many others, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that corresponds to what you are saying here.

He takes Isaiah 43:10 out of its context of decrying idol worship and thinks there is a "before" and "after" to an eternal God, where it says "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me".  What does "before" or "after" mean to an eternal God?  Obviously that's referring to the context of Israel as God's witnesses, as it says in verse 12:  "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God."

When God declared himself to Israel at a time "when there was no strange god" among them, there is no other god formed to be the God of Israel either before or after that time.  It says nothing against other gods existing, nor does it contradict God's plan for others to become like he is.  God gives his glory to those who follow him (John 17:20-23) and has them sit with him on his throne (as you pointed out) in Revelation 3:21.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

He takes Isaiah 43:10 out of its context of decrying idol worship and thinks there is a "before" and "after" to an eternal God, where it says "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me".  What does "before" or "after" mean to an eternal God?  Obviously that's referring to the context of Israel as God's witnesses, as it says in verse 12:  "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God."

When God declared himself to Israel at a time "when there was no strange god" among them, there is no other god formed to be the God of Israel either before or after that time.  It says nothing against other gods existing, nor does it contradict God's plan for others to become like he is.  God gives his glory to those who follow him (John 17:20-23) and has them sit with him on his throne (as you pointed out) in Revelation 3:21.

The remarkable thing is that they think they’re somehow glorifying God when they assert that men are incapable of being filled with all the fullness of God, but in reality they’re actually asserting that the infinite and eternal God somehow lacks the power to perfect his own creation. And what possible justification could there be for God not wanting to perfect his children whom he created in his own image? Why would he want to prevent them from being just as happy, enlightened and glorious as he is? 

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, (Ephesians 3)

 

[BlipBlap]

On 8/11/2026 at 12:31 PM, Notatbm said:

I did not argue it was unusual for teenage girls to get married back in the day.

Do you think the age gaps illustrated below were normal for the times? Look at Lorenzo Snow. There is a forty-two year age difference between himself and his 15 year old bride.

It wasn’t normal back then. Weebles so kindly dug up  a bunch of data from various periods and no where does the data show that teen brides (ages 14-15) are a “common” ( unless ten percent ish of marriages is common) thing. It does show that it happened, but not with the frequency many believe. Additionally, check out where he shows the various age differences between the bride and groom. You will also see that being married as a teenage female to a male over the age of fifty was very rare. Teenage girls married to men in their 40s wasnt al that common either. 30s and younger it was much more common.

See for yourself:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67255-teen-age-marriage-ages-of-the-late-1800s/

I’ll conclude with this. You assert that the onset of puberty determines adult status. Currently in the US the onset is between 8-13 for girls. In the 1880s, it was about 16 years old so pretty much the average female under the age of 16 back then was a “little girl.” Definitely not a woman ready for marriage. 

It takes one sick dude to marry a teenage girl back then under the age of 15-16 ish esp when the groom is as old as these guys were. Pretty likely the girl hasn’t matured yet. 

 

"I did not argue it was unusual for teenage girls to get married back in the day."

I never argued that you did.  The point was that you're conflating "really liked" with something that was not considered unusual.

"Do you think the age gaps illustrated below were normal for the times? Look at Lorenzo Snow. There is a forty-two year age difference between himself and his 15 year old bride."

What would it matter what I think?  What are you defining as "normal?  Seeing as how it was considered as acceptable for a large portion of known human history and that these complaints about age gaps are a modern convention, it stands to reason that "normalcy" is on my side.  Off the top of my head, we can look at the 12th century Decretum Gratiani (a Catholic canon law book) and see that the age that tends to coincide with the onset of puberty was the legally-defined proper age for marriage.

"unless ten percent ish of marriages is common"

Why wouldn't it be "common"?  Do you commonly encounter less than 10 people per day during your life?  Do you live in places that have less than 10 people on the regular?

"You assert that the onset of puberty determines adult status."

I never asserted such.  I asserted that such was a historical commonality.

"In the 1880s, it was about 16 years"

According to what evidence?  I'll go back to the Decretum Gratiani that put forth the proper ages for marriage during the 12 century.  Said ages were around 12 for girls and 14 for boys.  It even refers to marriages involving those as young as 7.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160117042750/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon Law/marriagelaw.htm

"If, being around eleven or twelve, she was almost of age, and was betrothed with her own assent at the will of her parents, was blessed, and was known by the man, she ought not to be separated, especially since her parents claimed that she was of lawful age.

 

"It takes one sick dude to marry a teenage girl back then under the age of 15-16 ish esp when the groom is as old as these guys were. Pretty likely the girl hasn’t matured yet. "

Nah, what it shows is that critics tend to project their own pedophilic tendencies onto others.  You being unable to control yourself around others doesn't mean that is the norm for the general population.

Marriage and sexual relations are not mutually inclusive.  Trying to act like it is is being disingenuous.

[Notatbm]

49 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

Nah, what it shows is that critics tend to project their own pedophilic tendencies onto others.  You being unable to control yourself around others doesn't mean that is the norm for the general population.

Are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies?

[BlipBlap]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies?

Are you claiming that marriage and sexual relations are mutually inclusive and thus projecting the aforementioned tendencies onto anyone who engaged in legal marriages for their time?

[Notatbm]

30 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

Are you claiming that marriage and sexual relations are mutually inclusive and thus projecting the aforementioned tendencies onto anyone who engaged in legal marriages for their time?

A 57 year old male who marries and has sex with a fifteen year old girl is indeed a pedophile. Even in the 1850s… yes

 

Your turn

[BlipBlap]

9 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

A 57 year old male who marries and has sex with a fifteen year old girl is indeed a pedophile. Even in the 1850s… yes

 

Your turn

So I'll take that as a yes, you do believe that marriage and sexual relations are mutually inclusive.  They wouldn't be considered such by the standards of that time, nevermind that you have yet to produce evidence of any sexual relations.

Presentism makes for poor argumentation.

[Notatbm]

12 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

So I'll take that as a yes, you do believe that marriage and sexual relations are mutually inclusive.  They wouldn't be considered such by the standards of that time, nevermind that you have yet to produce evidence of any sexual relations.

Presentism makes for poor argumentation.

You need to answer the question I asked you. 

[BlipBlap]

6 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

You need to answer the question I asked you. 

It was already answered.  I wouldn't have bothered to ask if you thought that the two were mutually inclusive if it wasn't to determine yes or no.

Since you seemed to affirm your belief that marriage and sexual relations are indeed mutually inclusive, then yes, you are most definitely projecting your own problems onto other people.  Might as well just come out as a general misanthrope at this point, seeing as how you basically consider all of Europe to have been inhabited largely by pedophiles for centuries. 

[Notatbm]

20 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

It was already answered.  I wouldn't have bothered to ask if you thought that the two were mutually inclusive if it wasn't to determine yes or no.

Since you seemed to affirm your belief that marriage and sexual relations are indeed mutually inclusive, then yes, you are most definitely projecting your own problems onto other people.  Might as well just come out as a general misanthrope at this point, seeing as how you basically consider all of Europe to have been inhabited largely by pedophiles for centuries. 

So.. are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies?

Buck up and commit to it or not. If not, delete your post. 

[BlipBlap]

4 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

So.. are you calling me a pedophile? Or stating that I have those tendencies?

Buck up and commit to it or not. If not, delete your post. 

My man, do you not know how to read?

"then yes, you are most definitely projecting your own problems onto other people"

There's your answer.