Do Mormons Believe They Will Rule Over Their Own Planets?

[maklelan]

Maklelan, as you'll recall, this whole thing started with me asking the question:

Does a person really need to be married and Mormon to receive eternal life?

No, this whole thing started months ago, and I'll thank you not to go so far off topic just because you're woefully unprepared to defend your accusations. In this thread you said the following:

The highest ideal of all religions attempts to answer the question, "What happens after I die?"

The LDS religion would have us believe that men, if found worthy according to the laws, ordinances and principles of the LDS religion, will gain eternal life, which is known by Mormons as exaltation. In their exalted state they are said to become gods over their own planets and populate said planets with their spirit-offspring born of celestial, polygamous wives.

The following page is a scanned copy from an official manual produced by the LDS church, Achieving a Celestial Marriage pg. 132.

Would any Mormon care to explain why such things should be considered Christian in nature when no Christian seminaries are teaching it as genuine Christian doctrine?

I explained how fantastically ludicrous it was to assert that nothing is Christian unless it is taught in Christian seminaries, but I also shared the aforementioned quote. You responded:

Reminder: no seminaries agree with you.

As if I care what seminaries teach. I was unsuccessful in getting you to engage the Midrash I quoted, and you began to spout further uninformed opinions:

[regarding Psalm 82's use of the word "gods"] Human magistrates to whom the oracles of God were delivered to rule a theocracy.

That issue is settled with absolute finality here, although you will be unwilling and unable to respond directly to any of the evidence. That's the nature of your particular brand of bigotry.

This more recent reappraisal resulted from a tangential comment I addressed here:

You're one of those sneaky Mormons, ain't-cha? Isn't it true that only married Mormons can receive eternal life? Can I get ah es'planation as to the reason for LDS temple marriage? Does it have anything to do with "LDS exaltation" and men becoming Gods over their own planets?

I thought I would post a thread on your last statement, as it's handy for people to have access to some rather obscure facts that undermine your bigotry, and here we are.

You answered: No, but it helps.

I don't believe you've given me a straight-up answer on that.

Then you weren't reading my post. I explained that Spencer W. Kimball addressed the case of those who were never given the opportunity to get married. You also ignored that.

I'm getting tired of your constant evasion of my points. Please respond to my engagement of your uninformed guess about monotheism in the Bible. You've wasted enough of my time. I don't answer another one of your posts until you engage the facts I presented in post #47. I couldn't care less about whatever ignorant evasion you bring up. If you can't respond honestly and directly to a very clear argument then you're an enormous waste of my time and you're on ignore. Ball's in your court.

[annewandering]

This, IMHO, is a very different thing than becoming Gods equal or become part of the Divinity as the way in which the Blessed Trinity are.

Except we don't believe we will be equal to God. How could we? He is God, our Father.

[ERayR]

Maklelan, as you'll recall, this whole thing started with me asking the question:

Does a person really need to be married and Mormon to receive eternal life?

You answered: No, but it helps.

I don't believe you've given me a straight-up answer on that.

Isn't it true that LDS theology would have us believe that only those who are married and those who are Mormon will be considered eligible to receive the kind of LDS eternal life which allows men to become Gods over their own planets?

Isn't it also true that our Bibles no nothing of this sort of thing?

Isn't it also true that no ECF, no early Jew (as you're fond of quoting) has ever believed as such?

P.S. Just as an aside, and just in case you're wondering, my avatar is a picture of a highway sign (It's kinda small and might be hard to read.) It states: Nephi/Manti One Mile.

LDs are not bound by only what is in the Bible but I'm betting you knew that allready. I am sure you know about the Book of Mormon, and The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Oh and just in case you didn't catch it in one of the posts above, Christian seminaries are not the arbitars of what or is not doctrine in the LDS Church. In fact Christian seminaries hold no iauthority whatsoever.

[Sargon]

Sometime and Seven,

Thanks for the perspectives.

Perhaps a new thread might be in order ( A short response as to the LDS and ECF's believeing the " SAME " )

Not really, the ECF's ( and others including many of us CRAZY Catholics, Ceeboo included) believe in " partaking " in the divinity of Christ as adopted sons and daughters. Or, to say we will " SHARE " in HIS divinity by HIS Grace offered to us. This, IMHO, is a very different thing than becoming Gods equal or become part of the Divinity as the way in which the Blessed Trinity are.

Anyway, A longer response is probably in order but I do appreciate the kind manner many of you have chosen to share with me.

BTW Sevenback, your offering of ECF's ( Polycarp ) reminded me of one of my most famous posts. It was about a year ago and I was having a back and forth with a very warm and Scholarly Jewish man when I offered this: " One of the many ECF's you can read is POLYCRAP " LOL, He laughed with me about that " Ceeboo typo " for several months.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Hi Ceeboo. I'm not exactly sure what Sevenbak and sometimesaint said in regard to this, but in my opinion (I'm LDS by the way) the ECF and LDS models are sufficiently similar to warrant citing the ECF doctrine as a precedent to the LDS doctrine. That being said, I think a very important different in the two models ought to be put on the table. The ECFs (and modern Orthodox) hold to the notion of 'creatio ex nihilo'. In other words, they believe in an impassible Creator/creation gap which simply doesn't allow for the creation to be what the Creator is.

The LDS model does away with this impassible gap, citing Jesus Christ himself as the ultimate example of how the human and the divine species are not incompatible, but are in fact the same.

[volgadon]

Maklelan, your statements, e.g. "a council of gods is original to the Hebrew Bible," are simply logical fallacies known as arguments from silence. Orthodox Judeo-Christianity is (and has been) staunchly monotheistic and not henotheistic.

There are no scriptural texts from any religion (sans LDSism) which teach that the "council of the Gods" convened and approved Jesus' plan over his brother Satan's. No religion on planet earth (sans LDSism) has ever taught that only married Mormons will receive eternal life. No religion on earth (sans LDSism) has ever taught that Mormon men will become Gods over their own created planets and then populate said planets with the spirit-children born of celestial, polygamous wives.

Actually, Judaism HAS been henotheistic. You could argue with me, but it would look silly, considering that I grew up in an entirely jewish neighbourhood, in an entirely Jewish town, in the only Jewish state in the world and went to entirely Jewish schools.

[volgadon]

The doctrine is attributed to Rabbi Akiba, widely considered to be the most pious and orthodox of early rabbis.

A slight quibble, R. Eliezer (habor- the cistern) was the most orthodox, whereas Akiva was the most inovative, which earned him the epithet the fountain. I suppose the only one with more of a reputation for mysticsm than Akiva was R. Shimeon Bar Yochai.

That being said, Akiva is one of the central figures of Jewish thought and considered the most pious, as you said. Were you to ask an Israeli on the street to name one of Chazal (Our Sages, Blessed be Their Memory), chances are they'll name Akiva.

[Ceeboo]

Hi Ceeboo. I'm not exactly sure what Sevenbak and sometimesaint said in regard to this, but in my opinion (I'm LDS by the way) the ECF and LDS models are sufficiently similar to warrant citing the ECF doctrine as a precedent to the LDS doctrine. That being said, I think a very important different in the two models ought to be put on the table. The ECFs (and modern Orthodox) hold to the notion of 'creatio ex nihilo'. In other words, they believe in an impassible Creator/creation gap which simply doesn't allow for the creation to be what the Creator is.

The LDS model does away with this impassible gap, citing Jesus Christ himself as the ultimate example of how the human and the divine species are not incompatible, but are in fact the same.

Good morning Sargon,

Thanks for the contribution ( I would agree that they are similar and thus, IMHO, gives some weight to the LDS stance ). I would further agree that history does indeed reflect the teaching/belief of " council of gods " etc.

Your contribution of " ex nihilio " really, IMHO, goes to the very heart of the subject, concerning the varying perspectives we see on this thread and I thank you for putting it on the table.

Anyway, I appreciate the warm manner you have replied to me.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Sargon]

Bump for Russ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually Deut 32:8-9 shows Yahweh was a son of El, and Job 1 and 2 show Satan was also a son of El. Like I said earlier, spend more time with your Bible.

No other religion restored the fullness of the gospel.

This is some good stuff

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

So because the sons of God came and Satan was there he by default is a son of God?

That makes sense to me, thanks for pointing this out.

[Sargon]

This is some good stuff

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

So because the sons of God came and Satan was there he by default is a son of God?

That makes sense to me, thanks for pointing this out.

I'm no expert, but I think we could be more nuanced with this. The text says that the "sons of Elohim" came together to present themselves, and that "the adversary" came "among" them. The text seems somewhat ambiguous to me, rendering this not quite the slamdunk it might appear. But, I think the most natural reading is that the "adversary" was one of the sons of El.

I'm curious to know where Russ is. Russ hardly lifts his fingers off the keyboard over at CARM, but he seems to have disappeared in this thread.

[volgadon]

A satan, that is, a slanderer, one who stirs up contention and suspicion and puts obstacles in the path of man.

Satan, like an angel, is a role, not a species. A satan can be human, just like an angel (messenger).

Satan, without the definitive article, is an underling.

Every Hebrew commentary I've read considers this satan to be part of the sons of god.

Sons of meant belonging to a certain group or family or species. Fallen angels are still angels ands sons of God.

[maklelan]

A satan, that is, a slanderer, one who stirs up contention and suspicion and puts obstacles in the path of man.

Satan, like an angel, is a role, not a species. A satan can be human, just like an angel (messenger).

Satan, without the definitive article, is an underling.

Every Hebrew commentary I've read considers this satan to be part of the sons of god.

Sons of meant belonging to a certain group or family or species. Fallen angels are still angels ands sons of God.

The idea that angels are among the sons of God is a post-exilic ideology. They were taxonomically irreconcilable prior to the collapsing of the early Israelite pantheon around the 8th-7th centuries BCE, and they slowly became conflated.

[maklelan]

This is some good stuff

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

So because the sons of God came and Satan was there he by default is a son of God?

That makes sense to me, thanks for pointing this out.

I don't think it need be by default. There is a group called the "Sons of God." Satan is a part of the group. He must therefore be categorized under the same heading. He is one of the "Sons of God."

[volgadon]

The idea that angels are among the sons of God is a post-exilic ideology. They were taxonomically irreconcilable prior to the collapsing of the early Israelite pantheon around the 8th-7th centuries BCE, and they slowly became conflated.

I think they became taxonomically irreconciable later, who or what they are (apart from their role) is not defined early on.

[maklelan]

I think they became taxonomically irreconciable later, who or what they are (apart from their role) is not defined early on.

If we recognize the analogous pantheon of the Ugaritic literature a number of gaps in the information can be accounted for, which unequivocally distinguish between the "Sons of El" and their messengers. This happens to be the subject of a paper I will be submitting for next year's SBL annual meeting.

[volgadon]

That assumes a little too much. It assumes that the Hebrew pantheon was strictly analogous to the Ugaritic one. The Hebrew panthenon shares some similarities with the Ugaritic one, but I think they are rather different under the surface.

[maklelan]

That assumes a little too much. It assumes that the Hebrew pantheon was strictly analogous to the Ugaritic one.

Not strictly, but largely. Both traditions cull details from a general Near Eastern worldview that is colored by cultural distinctions. The idea of 70 sons of El, Yahweh's explicit appropriation of Baal imagery, and clearly Ugaritic divine council type-scenes show the connection is there.

The Hebrew panthenon shares some similarities with the Ugaritic one, but I think they are rather different under the surface.

Yeah, they were, but I'm talking about on the surface. The general four tiered organization has El at the very top, the sons of El in the second tier, craftsmen deities in the third tier (Kothar-wa-Hasis, for example), and messengers on the very bottom.

[Sargon]

The general four tiered organization has El at the very top, the sons of El in the second tier, craftsmen deities in the third tier (Kothar-wa-Hasis, for example), and messengers on the very bottom.

Sounds like someone has been reading Mark Smith.

Do you (or Smith) suggest that these bottom tier messengers are equal to the angels of later Israelite religion, taxonomically speaking?

[maklelan]

Sounds like someone has been reading Mark Smith.

Lowell K. Handy also, but the idea seems inescapable. I think it accounts for a lot of the hierarchical questions related to the Syro-Palestinian pantheon.

Do you (or Smith) suggest that these bottom tier messengers are equal to the angels of later Israelite religion, taxonomically speaking?

The later angels clearly derived from the earlier ones, but as time went on and God was transcended further and further from humanity, angels became the utility deities to fill in as god's representative on earth and bridge the gap between humanity and deity. Thus a number of the theophanies in the Hebrew Bible have an angel interpolated into them to avoid the idea that God was just hanging out with humans. Later they become the leaders of the nations mentioned in Deut 32:8 (see Sirach 17:17; 1 Enoch 89:59â??77). They fall to become demons (although complete obedience was one of the definitions of the early angel) and even Satan is eventually identified as an angel.

[Sargon]

Paging Russ.

[Cold Steel]

For all those contemplating their future planets, will you be using evolution, or do you prefer transplanting life from other spheres? And how will you explain your creation method in your version of Genesis?

I'm going to make it spontaneous, but then I'm going to make it look very old.